Invasive vegetation removal land development code amendment 69
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jul 11, 2024
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jul 11, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 43m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 84% of 470 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, Clark, you making this presentation? Clark? Okay, I
know.
I'm
good.
Good afternoon Chairman and and board members. Roberto de Sariv in Development Review Department. And uh I have to read the entire uh section I believe. I
don't think for this. No at this stage you don't have to read the entire section. You just do that for the first reading. Just have
to explain it.
Okay. All right. Um Do do you guys wanna a full presentation or just uh wanna hear what the changes were were uh were made?
Probably a full presentation. Okay.
Yeah. All right. So uh this is a continuing I continuing item from May 16th to today July 11th and The uh invasive vegetation removal is uh level amendment sixty nine. Uh so we have previously uh met with the interested departments and
parties on March twenty eighth. And the horizontal table on April 17th. Then we also came to the full of this board on the 16th of May. And we also have one-on-one meetings with the Board of County members on May 28th and May 30th. And this amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan amendment.
Chapter 3 Conservation Element, which is the entire objective CON 1.8, Elimination of Exotic Nuisons Plant Species, and Chapter 7, Transportation Element, Policy TRA 3.4.4, Elimination Act, and Control of Invasion Plant Species. The uh uh agenda on itself it falls out that within chapter 48 there's uh several changes and
these sections are amended to require that applications for disapproval must include an invasive uh vegetation management plan and management for perpetuity the management plan will not apply to individual single family lots. Section 406 Five right away use permit, uh particularly age uh forty four oh six point five, age point two, restoration and maintenance standards. This requires that
permittees remove all vegetation in the permitted in the permit area and dispose of the vegetation using an appropriate method to prevent propagation. The chapter 400 types in application in Chapter 500 zoning. Amended to require invasive vegetation management plan, management in perpetuity as well as prohibition of invasive plants from being cultivated and distributed. Then the next slide is uh for the chapter 600 we
have uh an amended uh to make some corrections uh internal citations. Uh on chapter 800, natural cultural resources it's amended to clarify that invasive species are to be removed from ecological corridors. On the next slide we have several Sections on Chapter 900 Development Standards, particular transportation corridor management, section 901.2.2. Interim uses,
which is amended to require that maintenance must include an invasive education management plan and management during the interim use.
Section 901.3. Maintenance, which is amended to clarify. The maintenance must include an invasive vegetation management plan and management in perpetuity. Next section 901.4, substandard roadway analysis and mitigation. Section 901.4.E, substantial submit all information. It's amended to require the applications for these approvals must include uh invasive vegetation management plan and management in
perpetuity, compliance with subsections shall be required if it is determined that roadway deficiencies are required to be corrected. Uh hello uh next slide please for chapter 900 continue. We have uh section nine oh one point six
Roberto I'm sorry, could you pull that microphone up a bit because you're not that loud. All right. We'd like to hear
you a little bit better. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Uh 901.6 uh street design and education requirements, section nine oh one point six D design and construction. to require the applicant for these approvals must include an invasive vegetation management plan and management in perpetuity. And the next section is uh 901.6 uh and this is 91.6e, 0.1 roadside design. I'm going to require that all vegetation and sod uh place in the dedicated rightway
uh be free clear of invasive vegetation species. Then section nine or one point seven bicycle facilities section nine or one point one uh point seven, point D construction and section nine or one point eight pedestrian facilities had it to re amend it to require That within the boundaries of the limit of construction of these facilities, an invasive vegetation management plan and management in perpetuity is also required. And last but not least, we're adding a new definition, invasive
vegetation or invasive plant species. It's a new definition for invasive vegetation or invasive plant species as proposed. We uh ask for finding uh the board finding this proposal ordinance amendment consistent with the Pasco Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval to the Border County Commission. And the next uh hearing will be the BCC first reading on August sixth at one PM in the C D and then the adoption hearing on August
twenty first at one thirty. Yeah, Newport Ridge.
Okay. Very good. Um
Questions from up here?
Mm-hmm. Sure. Right. Yes. I have a question. I know I sent you a question, Roberto, and thank you for getting back with me. Yes, sir. I'm still struggling with it a little bit with the language. Because you mentioned project area. But when I look at, for example, just one of these sections, 403.1 B6E, it talks about
Within the plan under the review, maybe that's sufficient, but then it says identify all invasive species, blah blah blah, and then it says located on the uplands, and within those portions of wetlands where impacts are authorized. I just want to verify that. If I had a hundred acre parcel. And I'm coming in with a project on 50 of those acres of that parcel. That you're only
gonna be looking at the fifty acres and not the total uplands of the entire parcel. That that
is the intensor. Only those sections are portions of the parcel which are being worked on.
Okay. Or any of course any wetlands that are impacted but not the entire wetland system, only the where the impacts are. Right, as as stated in in these
so Roberto that'd be the same you know when we talked yesterday kind of that's the same concept that we talked about under the operating permits uh related to kind of the bigger sites that the mines for example because I'm trying to find what there it is. So section four oh four where we've got Language in there that deals with processing areas on sites for extracting minerals, for example, in in the context of mine. But then there's also reference to the operations property. So we
we discussed this, I just want to go on record to discuss as the operations, you know, what is the definition of the operations property if we're in the context of dealing with the mine where we've got Numerous units that already exist on that on that site, and the applicant comes in for another unit to open up another unit. Understanding that these regs are for there's no retroactivity, it's all forward looking, these would be applicable to that forthcoming unit that's coming in for permit, right? It doesn't apply to the entire site.
That's correct, Brad Tippen, uh Development Review Department. Uh to answer both of those questions a little bit more succinctly, when any project comes in with a site plan, they have a a boundary that's shown on their plans. So it's up to the applicant where they draw that boundary. If they draw that boundary around an entire parcel, then yes, you would be looking at the entire parcel. But if your impact project boundary is a subset of that, we would be looking at that subset. Does that make sense?
Ma maybe the uh I guess that so I I kinda still struggle with that operations property language in there. I don't know if there's a better way to define that or if there's a need for for having that the operations property in there, um there's something that can be done with that language because I still I still struggle with with that because I that brings in the idea of retroactivity to me and that you know it is potentially open for the entire site. And I'm I'm again I'm thinking more of the the the context of larger mines
or landfills that are yeah like Chris said hundreds hundreds of acres. Um obviously in a mine most of the property is nuked anyway and they they do keep it up and and like for invasive speeches, I get that. But it's I just I think that operations property that needs to be better defined or maybe even stricken from the the language.
And I I would I would refer to the uh legal legal wording of it, the wordsmith of it to to the county attorney's office. Okay. So we we look into that.
Okay.
The other question I had
was on the invasive plant species management plan guidelines. And I know we talked about the fill last time. And I think he's changed it, but On page two of that document, it says, fill, the select backfill shall be clean, well-graded material, free from debris, peat, roots, seeds of nuisance or exotic species, blah blah blah. Yeah. I mean, that's
still not really enforceable, is it? Or how how Well I guess concerned about that.
First question I have is where in four oh three point six does it talk about Select Phil? There's no reference to Select Fill in 4036.
So this actual verbiage uh we ask or I ask several engineers. Uh I asked Swift Mod. I asked other engineers out of state and conference uh not related to invasive species, but where I I run into a lot of friends and engineers. And uh this actual language is what I got from Swidmont. This is this is
directly from Swidmont.
I I
where is there a requirement for select fill?
Again, this statement right here, there's there's two parts of the side.
Yes,
because we we're making reference to the section we actually took out from the line development code. We took it out, and this is the fill section. So that there's the fill. And then it just it it does it's not it's
tight to feel. It's not. There's no ref I have four oh three six in front of me and there is not one reference to Select Phil in 403.6 nor any requirement to use Select Phil.
But he's he's referring to select fill versus
just regular. In
language
to select fill
there's no section. Reference in four oh three six to select fill. There's no place in that section of the land development code. that references and or requires SELECT. Phil. It just talks about Phil. So what is Select
Bill?
Well, and I'll beg to differ with the staff over what select fill is. Department of Transportation has a definition and this is an ordinance that deals with invasive species. Not Geohazards, none. Not the geotechnical or that's the geotechnical engineer's job here. What w what's really going on here? is that we talked about Actually I think we We're concerned
that the last version of this ordinance contained requirements as to pertaining to the fill permit that all fill be certified to be free of seeds of invasive species. And so what staff has chosen to do is to delete that. Well, we're not going to alter the fill permit of this the section. We're just going to slip in this definition here in the guidelines. And try to enforce it in a backdoor manner.
And again, just you're correct. That's what we're trying to do, and if it doesn't work, it is a lot easier to change in this manual than if we were to adopt it in the land development code. So if it if we identify that there's no
problem the problem is our concern was that there's no way. When I go to buy dirt, I have no way to Verify whether or not it contains seeds, spores, rhizomes of invasive species. There's no readily available test for that, what am I supposed to do? Go get a sample of dirt and send it off to some biological lab at some university to try to determine that?
So I was explaining to other commissioners. We had a discussion. But they don't do it either.
Okay.
Commissioner good afternoon. Keith Wiley, Director of Parks Recreation, Natural Resources. Um in discussing this with the planning team, we had actually recommended to make a more generic term, just that the fill should be free of nuisance and exotic species, because we uh we also I think are a tad bit concerned at what tests would actually produce this result, right? And I know I wasn't at the last meeting, but I know there was a concern about cost. burden to applicants and things like that. I think that you need to reference that there should be Um the
intent of the material should be at a minimum i uh you know clean of exotic species and nuisance species. I think that's the goal. Uh quite honestly trying to determine the right-of-way. Have you ever purchased dirt
before?
Have I purchased dirt personally? No. I mean through
projects of the
construction project. But
I
do.
Right. All right. So what do you recognize? And when I go to the mine that Chris just referenced, right, I can assure you they don't have any documents down there. Yeah. that talk about whether or not the dirt they're selling out of their mine has any seeds or spores or rhizomes from invasive species. Okay, that's not common. There's no readily available place for those mine owners or mine operators to go have that. kind of determination made.
I'm not dealing with rocket scientists on a construction site that duck that drive dump trucks to a mine and get dirt and dump it on a construction site. They're not biologists, they're not environmental scientists, they don't have access to a university quality laboratory. So this seems to me to be just a bit of ridiculous environment or or requirement. The i the issue is here is whether or not an invasive species grows. Okay, they have no way to control what's in that dirt. Right. And you When
you have something that's spread by windborne seeds and rhizomes that are microscopic, how how can one reasonably ever expect to? to know or be able to control that.
I don't disagree with you. So so Go ahead. I was just gonna say so you know, we understand the intent, but we're but I just don't see how Phil is practical to be able to do that. I think it was maybe it was John last time. I mean if we have a management plan To to take care of the invasive species. If something does sprout up, then that management plan is going to take care of it. Correct. So our concern, or my concern, at least
from the school district's perspective, is the cost of anything. If somebody were to come out and say, Well, have you checked this fill to make sure it's void? Well, no, I mean it's not. We we try to obtain clean clean fill, but there's no document saying that
I think that uh you know, Mr. Williams, I feel like that's kind of the intent of what the team was trying to capture here. Maybe Mr. Moody to your point maybe too far into the realm of of um uh difficulty into you know making it a test. So if there's a way that we can agree on some terminology that honestly would allow us to
Well I got I got two concerns. One, the staff just when I when I suggested that this was a backdoor way to go around what our concerns were the last time, one he just got up and admitted, yes, that that is the intent. Well that that's not a professional way to act here. Well, the second problem that I have is This is a Ordinance that deals with invasive species. Now all of a sudden I'm getting into the size of rocks, clods,
peat. This isn't a geotechnical ordinance. S there's a whole section of our code that deals with geotechnical requirements and geohazards, and I don't think any of the staff that worked on this is a geologist or a geotechnical engineer. And I'll tell you right now. This definition of select fill is not that of the Florida Department of Transportation. Some somebody told you an organic content of two percent, I can tell you that they allow more, three
times more. Yeah, I think the reference. What does that have to do with or organ what does that have to do with invasive species? Has nothing to do with invasive species.
Fair point. Again, I agree with you. I've deferred to Mr. Goldstein. Is through this process are we able to modify the proposed language to either strike or make recognition?
I mean and I would say just to follow up on Mr. Moody's question. and your response. I know that you don't personally buy fill, but the parks department certainly builds parks where they need to acquire fill. Are you confident that this This paragraph is not going to drive up your cost of acquire the Parks Department's cost of acquiring fill.
It's I don't think it's a cost issue. I think it's a it's a probability issue, right? I I don't think that there is a test out there that would kind of get you to this answer. So again I think the recommendation And if there was it'd be cost Yes. I'd I'd send my soil
scientists out out to do that.
We we use that I think exactly what what Mr. Williams stated, we use the clean fill definition or the the intent of whatever clean fill is supposed to mean. So I think if we can agree that that's really what we're trying to accomplish here and get some proposed language.
Roots and seeds of nuisance or exotic species. I've been an engineer for thirty years and I know what the definition of select fill is and there's a definition in the F D O T specification book. There's a definition in the Ashdow Manual if you want to look it up and I can assure you it doesn't talk about a a nuisance
exotic species.
One I don't think we should be looking at it at all. I understand And what the concern is All of a sud what I don't want is all of a sudden I got a regulation where now somebody's trying to redefine what select fill material is.
So or define it in the first place. Yeah,
right. And you should be concerned about that because your county roadway contracts require the importation of select film material. And I think you're gonna get a big surprise in the cost of the film material if all of a sudden you wanna change the definition through the back door.
I guess the other concern case and why I'm suggesting maybe you get a strike it entirely is I mean you could have a parking lot where the entire all the the fill is entirely covered with pavement. So there's no possible way that an invasive species is gonna get through go up through the pavement. So why what is the point of this re if this is about invasive species, I don't know what the point is of the requirement if it's entirely
paved parking lot.
recommendation was to to was to modify this section and strike it. So I think that that that would be my recommendation to the committee and if anyone wants to entertain that. So let
me ask this question. So the ordinance seeks to impose These requirements for investigating whether there are invasive species presence present. in different various applications. It might make some sense to me. Where we have development plans, construction plans, right-of-way permits. I'm trying to find the
relevance. Why Why would somebody submitting a substandard roadway evaluation Need to do an invasive species survey. In fact, there's a definition in the land development code and the substandard roadway section of what constitutes substandard roadway conditions. And a substandard roadway evaluation is simply that, an evaluation.
It doesn't authorize the construction of anything. So why would somebody need to submit an invasive species survey to you to have substandard roadway conditions evaluated? And I'll ask the same for the access management permit. What does a driveway location have to do with invasive species?
Chris, did you have something?
Well,
no. Yeah. Oh Keith Officer.
I guess Keith, uh I mean I I wanna get back to that question because I a valid question I know I expressed that to staff yesterday, but I I wanna I wanna come back go back back up to like ten thousand feet here for a second. How how did we get to this whole development of this invasive s plant species management plan and the whole requirement for the preparation and submittal of a plan? Well, yeah. I mean you you're assigned a responsibility not only to the development community, but also to your staff, which I can't imagine what your staff's
gonna grow to. I mean you're you're gonna become a manager of a manager of a manager of a department that's gonna become ungodly big to review all these plans that are required to be submitted in perpetuity. Yeah. I mean how how do we get to if the if I understand the goal correctly here is to try to mitigate invasive species that are running rampant throughout the county, okay? Other counties and municipalities throughout the state and throughout the country handle that with Other types of modifications and requirements to when
you submit development plans, you remove certain species on a targeted list off of your site. Right. I don't know a single person Death. Wants to or purposely puts invasive species on their property. They're more than willing to take them out and to manage them. where they can. But in some ways, in in some applications, I mean to take Cogengrass. My understanding is Cogengrass is very difficult to even manage and and and almost impossible to eradicate. Yeah. So
my c my question really, and I'll go back to it, is how did we get to this enforcement or this this trying to this imposition of development of this invasive plant species management plan.
So just in I'll just be pretty concise on it. I mean, it's best management practices. So if you're going to require some kind of regulation that's gonna cause someone to submit something, you have to at least make sure that it makes sense and that you can follow up on it. In terms of the scope of responsibility, Mr. Girardi, I would disagree with you. I think this is pretty pretty uh pretty easy thing to actually accomplish in terms of a one-page management. Plan that you would submit through an application process. And in terms of scope of work for staff, I already have a team of
five that actually review applications that they're in there doing wetland line jurisdictions and setting other other things like that in the field already. So I it's I think we need to be talking about the reality of what we would end up seeing. Do you
think
that's a good question?
You're saying a one-page management plan, just the requirements. For the management point or more than one page.
So, and I'll I'll just I'll continue. So seven or eight other jurisdictions also have something similar, right? Which ones are those? So I mean it's New Port Richey, Hernando, City of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, Manatee. One second, hold on, please.
Hernando, because I I pulled up, I pulled up five different municipalities around here: Pinellas, Hillsboro. Sarasota, I went to Leon County. I mean none of them had this. So that's I that's why I'm asking. So it's Newport Ritchie, Hernando.
And they're and and they're in vi I mean obviously they're it's not e everything's not the same, but in terms of the response to you you brought you brought up the intent. So in terms of the response to what we're trying to do, we have a Complan policy, right, in the Complan that says we have to control, manage the base of exotic species. We're directed by the BCC to come up with some kind of plan. Okay, so that's what you see before you is how we got there. And and so also how you get there is developing an integrated pest management plan to address it. This could be something
that an apple, I think Mr. Moody brought up, this could be kind of a one-and-done thing. I mean, this could be something is developed, you identify it, which could be identified on a very simple map with a few cells. sentences and then it's over and done with. There's no per management and per you know perpetuity, there's no long term maintenance.
You're asking for them to record DEET restrictions. That they're going to deal with this in front of the
middle of annual reports.
Right. And again, you have to start somewhere. It's in the development guidelines of which as I understand from the planning team can be easily modified. Um Well why
don't we get it right the first
time?
Why are we gonna come back and modify it and get it right the first time?
And that's not a true statement because that's actually incorporated in the language of the ordinance.
So I can tell you from the perspective of our neighbors of the south. I mean so yes, they they do look at that, but you know, their speeches is basically limited to Mel Loka Brazilian cover and Australian fine, they r require reporting, never gets done. And there's
You said required reporting?
There is required reporting but it never gets done. And it's never followed up on. So I mean if we're talking about the intent. Right. Yeah,
Mr. Gerardi's point. Again, teams tasked with developing a program. What you see is what we've put together.
So let me ask this question. So this is nine oh five E five It's already in our land development code. Plantings classified as prohibited, invasive, no use, invasive and high risk in the central zone in the quote, assessment of non-native plants in Florida's natural areas page of the University of Florida IFIS site shall be prohibited.
Invasive species located within the area of the project proposed to be developed are required to be removed. Ongoing maintenance to prevent the establishment of prohibitive invasive species is required. This is already part of our land development code. So the question that I have. Is what are we doing to enforce we you're proposing a new law. We already have a law on the book. Right. You just enforce the old
law. Well, and I think without some kind of guideline to actually do that, how do you get to that point?
Well, it's a simple the invasive species on that page are prohibited and ongoing Maintenance to prevent the establishment of prohibitive invasive species is required. So where's the I've heard multiple times. Multiple times that there's Cogan grass in front of Marata. I drove by there on the way there today. There's not only Cogan grass, there's La Wiggia Peruviana and there's Brazilian pepper. Has anybody gone and asked the people at Murata to please remove the invasive species?
It's already part of the law. So it's already part of the law. They have an approved landscape plan. All you had to do was send code enforcement. But let me ask that. How if we if we approve this ordinance, or the commissioners approve this ordinance Who's gonna enforce it?
So I guess that question's back to me. So we already have a team that reviews the natural resources side of the application process with an inspection team. We think that what we're asking today would not cause an increase in staffing or responsibility outside of just adding that what actually is.
No.
No,
they're not. So
then somebody's gonna have to pay to train them, right?
The natural re if you just let me finish I'll explain. So the natural resources team has inspectors that can actually do this, already trained to do the work. So we wouldn't have to pay over at Marata. Because there's because there's no guidelines on how to actually pursue enforcement. That's the issue at hand.
Denise, if someone violates the code, how do we enforce a violation?
There are procedures and civil citation and there are procedures for that. I don't understand what the problem
is. So well I mean, yes, we have the ability to force violations of our land development code. What I don't uh because I don't know if we have anybody from code enforcement here, I don't know if we've attempted to enforce the existing code and had issues with enforcing the existing code. And maybe Keith knows if we've
No. No, no we have not dated. We don't have anyone trained and we don't have the actual guidelines and I think that was a part of this piece was to to kinda get that cleared up. Wi with with not the intent to put an immense burden on the applicant, quite honestly. You are
putting an im an an immense burden. You're asking an HOA and a C D D Two maintain the removal Uh and control of invasive species in perpetuity, and then submit a report to you
On an annual basis. And I'm having a hard time you know, if for thirty years I've been getting permits from the Water Management District, and the Water Management District permits require that every couple of years that a professional engineer go out and inspect that system. So I have people that call my office And they get they've gotten this computer generated notice from the water management district saying that they need to get an inspection done and they're all in a panic. And you know what I tell 'em? The district
has like a hundred thousand permits. Relax. They'll get to you in about 40 years before they figure out you haven't submitted the inspection report. And that's the problem. They require an inspection report. And because they have so many permits throughout the district, there's no possible way for them to keep up with that. And that's what I want to know. So you're going to do this with every site plan, every HOA, every C D D. You're going to need 10 departments from Sunday just to collect, process, review, and
do whatever they're gonna do with the reports and at some point you're gonna have so many reports you're gonna need a whole building just to house them in a separate place and you won't even know what reports you got.
So there is the possibility that you can talk about sunsetting the per the the uh management in perpetuity, assuming that the site is clean of exotic species, that's additional language that you can put in there, but I don't think um I I did this for Hillsborough County for five years and I was one person, so uh in addition to having other responsibilities. So I don't think it's is great uh a responsibility.
I can tell you that I get permits in Hillsborough County and no one's ever asked me to submit an invasive species evaluation or survey in thirty years either. And I do it in Pinellas County too and I'm familiar with their habitat management permit. I've got to get one on every project but nobody makes me go out in every identify and provide GPS locations and color photographs of Kogan grass.
Or Brazil or
air potatoes or anything. Can I just ask you a s a simple question, w what problems do these invasive species cause? What what what's the big deal?
Um I mean quite honestly it's it's more of like a natural plant community resiliency issue uh from a larger perspective. So it's this is a programmatic approach by the county. So um public works has their program where they try to attempt to do what they can within the right-of-way, parks and natural resources does what they can on parks and natural resources and conservation lands. And this is the other piece, quite honestly, the actual fourth or fifth piece to this would be private property. And back in the day the federal government and the state governments used to have like a
wild type wildlife habitat incentive program where they would fund uh certain large landowners, they would they would cost share the maintenance. Unfortunately those programs are no longer uh funded. But so this isn't the only piece of the puzzle. It's just it's just one piece. And
but I what I the question I'm asking is what problems? do these invasive species create that are so intense and so damaging that we have to spend this much time and this much effort and this much money to deal with it.
Oh it's just competition with the national environment. I mean that's you know
I mean I I go places in where we used to have Australian pines, I think they're on your list. And the the government goes out there and just poisons them all. I I mean it looks terrible. I don't understand it. And it's they're very good about holding that they they're usually in beach type areas and they hold the sand together. Now sand washes away, you don't have a beach anymore. I mean it's i i to me this is this is just overkill.
on the FWC's website about the different invasive species, plant species. And there you know there's some that that compete with natural um function species of plants as well as animals and they can um damage the the habitat of certain animals and things like that. I guess a good example of it's the um when you're going along the road you see the the vines that cover All the trees, mill trees. Yeah, so that's a good example of invasive species. But that being said, it doesn't mean that
uh you know it's as widespread as maybe uh it's been being made out to be.
In our current code, the section that I read
This refers to a document from the University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences to determine these invasive species. And this proposed ordinance demands that we use the list published by the Florida Invasive Species Council. Why the inconsistency? What's the pro and when I asked staff about it, they said well we want to use the fiscalist, but I don't see a proposal here to change the list. Yeah, that's already on the books. What's
the necessity in this ordinance to use the fisc list? And then the other thing that I would say is Just exactly who is the Fisk because I looked at their website and they're basically a bunch of self-appointed, self-anointed quote experts. Nobody's a the governor didn't appoint them. The electorate did not elect them. These are just some people that got together and decided they're the ultimate authority of who should decide what's invasive and what's not. At
least the list that's in the The code currently is somewhat of a state organization.
Well, where do we want to go with this?
Mr. Chairman, you do have some folks here that have signed up to speak on the matter.
Yeah, I just wanted to uh are any other questions
from
the staff?
Just one for me, if if you know we're talking about the the burden of an annual report, is is an initial report or an initial plan submittal Enough to give you all the sort of methodology that enforce you think. Like if you have a one time plan And they've got a maintain per that plan in perpetuity you've got a document that allows you to enforce do they necessarily need to report every year? I mean what would be the what would be the intention I guess for enforcing
a uh you get the initial plan to identify species. Are we is staff gonna go out and verify that they identified all the species?
Through an inspection that's the intent but in some cases you you you know it could just be a letter of note. It doesn't have to be
Let me
take the question a little bit further. So this proposed ordinance applies to right-of-way permits, and at my request, and I appreciate this staff, they removed any imposition of this requirement on residential properties. But I don't think you guys understand the total magnitude or scope of right-of-way permits. So Frontier Communications decides it
wants to come in and put fiber optic internet service in the neighborhood and they go and they go to the public works department and apply for a right-of-way permit to directional drill conduits. So now does Frontier Communications have to hire an environmental scientist and a biologist? to go out and first identify if there are any based on the language of this ordinance they'd have to. They'd have to go out and identify invasive species before they can get their
permit. They have nothing to do with these species. They're there to drill uh d directional drill a conduit, which means they're gonna dig a hole this big for the drill rod to go in and they're gonna drill a b dig a hole this big on the other end of the drill shot to pull the conduit back. And all of a sudden they've got to go out and pay Some PhD to come out and determine whether or not there are invasive species out there. That just doesn't
seem reasonable.
I Keith, on the reporting side I'd offer too. I mean if we're gonna if that is gonna be a requirement that goes forward you already went down this path saying you know have that requirement sunset and I would agree with that whether that be on a year's basis or even looking at, you know, what we do on the wetland side where you're monitoring their success criteria that are met and it's released. I mean we could do something like that. I mean that I d I agree with what Mr. Moody and Mr. Gerardi said, I I don't think you understand and I appreciate that you did this for Pillsburg County, but
I think the burden that you're creating is is I I think it's far more than you're you're considering.
Okay. Yeah,
I I mean I I personally I mean I i
if
the language that that John Bred is is in is in the devo is in your development code already, to me it's an enforcement issue of that code and I don't see the need to develop this whole these whole plan guidelines. So that's I I I'm just I'm really opposed to the whole plan guidelines and how they just broad sweep every single type of of plan
submittal that's out there. Jamie I want to try to give you a little insight. I think where the plan guidelines came from. is a meeting that I had with staff when they were meeting with us individually. one of the things that I had suggested was that for by way of example The water management district
presumes that if you retain or filter the first half inch of runoff over a project that you're presumed to have met the state water
quality standard. And what I asked staff to do was develop something that was a presumptive criteria. If you do these things you are presumed to have met your invasive species burden. I don't know whether they misunderstood me. What we're getting here is if you submit me a giant report like this, you'll be presumed to have met the burden of satisfying the report requirement. The other question
I'd have of staff is And and and I find this actually interesting. Because nowhere in here does it actually suggest how one might get rid of these invasive species. And I'd like to ask the county people. So it says that I have to in my invasive species management plan tell you how I'm going to dispose of it and make sure that it's done in a manner where there's it's not going to propagate.
So I'm gonna take it to the county landfill over on Hayes Road. Now it's your invasive species. What are you doing to do, going to do to make sure it doesn't propagate?
How how do how do you do that? I think you're speaking in extremes quite honestly and uh at this point I It's what the thing says. I don't um If I take it to the landfill, what do they do
to make sure it doesn't propagate?
I have no further comments unless anyone has a direct question to me of what's been presented, so
Well, I think we need to listen to questions from the public and then try to come up offer some solutions, you know, any anything from we don't want to do this to some something in between. Um 'cause we need to get to a real result here. So Roberto, you started all this now.
Mr. Chairman the first person I have registered to speak is Jennifer Seney. And it's going uh going to be followed by Cheryl McElhoone and Sharon Holding and then Ralph Bugamelli.
Okay.
So we can have your name and address, please.
Yes, I know the drill. Thank you, Mr. Cray. You're welcome. Jennifer Seney, [address removed].
And before you start our time. I've been working with Jennifer since I don't know how long, two thousand four, five.
No, we have known each other and been acquainted with each other. I don't recall ever working with you.
E Lap E
Lap.
Many, many, many years ago.
And you were not a part of that?
Yes
sir. Committee? But I do recall having conversations with you. So that means what I was going to say is relevant, which is I go back three decades and I've been participating in Pasco County issues for many years. My most proud accomplishment was getting the Environmental Lands Program in 2000 and then funding it with a penny for Pasco in 2004. I have a penny pasco uh buddy here on your committee. We worked
our Buddy's off. Um to through three pennies and I've worked on all of those campaigns. I now am serving on the Board of Directors of the Tampa Bay Conservancy, which is a uh local land trust which um tr works to preserve important ecosystems in the Tampa Bay area through fee simple purchase and also through conservation easement. Um I watched your May discussion. And I'm hearing the same discussion
today that I heard in May. Uh as a matter of fact it's a little bit louder and a little bit more vociferous than it was in May. So you've obviously been churning this over um over time. Well, so have I. Because I was really surprised to hear. how much into detail you wanted to get. With most of the detail will be handled during the individual site development application
work. And to me that's quite clear, but obviously it's where you all have gotten stuck. So we do need to work on getting out of that rut because to me it sounded like y'all were missing the forest for the trees. I would like to point out And I won't read it to you because it was in the presentation. The conservation easement, I'm sorry, the conservation element of the comprehensive plan requires
That an invasive planning mechanism be implemented. That's what we're trying to do today. So to answer the question a little less emotively Invasive plants are deadly invaders. They grow fast, aggressively, they climb to the trop top of trees, they cover entire forest floors. They build hugely dense root systems, they smother estuaries, they smother fish hatcheries, they kill
our native plants, and thus kill our native species. So remember two things while you continue this difficult process. Remember the gopher gopher tortoises and remember pollinators. A pine flatwoods that is choked out with soda apple is gonna starve your gopher tortoises. Gopher tortoises are commensural with at least 300 other species. That means they are a keystone species and important to
over 300 species. We need to keep the gopher tortoise. We don't need to starve them. And then the other thing I want to say is every farmer has problems with pollination these days. It's gotten so bad that they rent pollinators, something they never had to do decades ago. And the reason being is that native pollinators need native plants to feed and to breed. Without
them, farmers have problems. Overall, and I think Mr. Girardi you said let's look at the overall pic picture. Mr. Poole, you may have said the same thing. Mr. Gray, I hope I answered your question about why invasive species are so important to control, but overall picture. It's time for us to do this. We are required by the cop plan and it's never too late. Some of you have even said it's overwhelming, it's too late. It's never too
late. To do the right thing. So uh Pardon me, I want to ask you to recommend this ordinance in some form to the county commissioners and I wish you luck on figuring out your issues. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jennifer, for all your work. All these all these decades. I really appreciate it.
Hello, my name is Cheryl McElho, and my address is [address removed].
And again, my name is Cheryl McIlhoon. I am a 25-year resident of Land O' Lakes, residing in Lake Page. I'm an active member of the Nature Coast chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society. And my subject today is going to be the category one invasive species known as the air potato. The air potato is a heart-shaped vine that can grow extremely quickly. roughly even eight inches
a day. It typically clings to the tops of trees and has a tendency to take over native plants. This vine self seeds freely from the bullbill. Bull bills. They're like a potato. to take over native plants. The vine it's uh the vine self seeds freely. This exotic vine from Asia can quickly take over a natural area and smother native vegetation. It
can form a solid canopy off lights and it it cuts off lights to plants below and all resulting in the decrease or removal of the wildlife habitat. Now if I could bring your attention to a new housing development, the towns at Lake Thomas, developed by Lanaire. It is located on US 41 between Aaron Cutoff and Conerton. The development
resides on US 41 and it backs up to residences on Little Lake Thomas, Big Lake Thomas, and a wooded conservation area. It is worthwhile noting that Lenar is still in the process of selling these units. Prior to the development being clear cut, It was home to pasture, hosting primarily cows. And at that present time, air potato existed
on that property. However, since the clear cut and the completion of almost 200 townhomes, the air potato vine is still present and made worse because it was not handled correctly, possibly contaminated equipment or throwing of the seeds during the clearing and mowing operation. Proper removal of the plants would have prevented the spread and establishment of more destructive
air potato vines. I recently observed the air potato vine behind the development at extreme heights. Although the development's landscape is attractive, the vine is making its way through the rear common areas and Encroaching on property lines. This is the result of improper clearing and virtually no regard for the development itself and neighboring areas. In closing, I encourage the Planning
Commission to consider and approve the amendment discussed today, and my time is up. Thank you.
Thank you very much. coming. Appreciate that.
Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Holding, the [address removed]. I have lived in Pasco County for over thirty years and have been an active member of the Native Plant Society for 20. I am here to show support for changes to the Land Development Code regarding invasive species. For eleven years, I volunteered at Warner Boy's Salt Springs State Park in West Pasco, spending a good deal of my time
working with others to remove areas overwhelmed by invasives, almost creating detonates, such as Brazilian pepper, air potato, and caesar wheat. all the while knowing that on the other side of the fence line in the surrounding properties were stands of those same invasives, loaded with berries and seeds and potatoes. I am aware of the time and money spent by government agencies to try and control invasives
after the fact. I've lived in San Antonio in East Pasco now for two years. And along State Road 52, I've watched as large areas of Cogan grass grow and spread. On my own property, I am removing dense stands of camphor trees and coral arditia to allow native plants to return. Native plants provide for our wild birds and animals like nothing else can, as they have evolved together. I
worry about what our county will look like in the future if we don't act now. I believe that whatever can be done should be done as soon as possible to curtail the damages from invasives to our communities. We should plan and act now. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon. My name is Ralph Bogamelli. I'm uh resident of [address removed], and I'm here, I'm part of the Native Plant Society. Um I just want to point out that when I first came here from Michigan about eight years ago, um my my home was a brand new home. was leveled before they built and uh when I did get my ho house landscaped
it was it was completely done with non-native plants. I didn't have any hummingbirds, any butterflies, any bees or anything like that. I found found it kind of strange coming to Florida. But uh since joining the Native Plant Society, I realized that I I started putting some plants in and I started getting hummingbirds and these sort of things. And so that made me ever more interested in finding out more about how to you know propagate these plants and also learned about invasive
species. These invasive species I matter of fact In fact I had one in the back my backyard. It was a rattle box plant. It's from Asia. and uh India. And so um I've been trying to get rid of it and I have, but you have to identify it first and then start to, you know, pull it out. And I was having some success. Uh one of the other things we did some walks on our tours to some of the native parks around
here or natural parks and found out that they were uh uh the Caesar plant, which is another evasive species. These are the kind of things that uh take over the natural plants and they uh eliminate some of the birds and the bees and and and other uh uh a non-native species will uh prevent them from uh from feeding on those type of plants.
I really think that any effort you do to improve the elimination of non or invasive species, I think is a great thing. I know you've got some real problems on how to handle that, but I think you can come up with something that would be beneficial when you finally do your ordinance. And so uh one one thing I have in addition to this is that When you do clear cuts like this, you've
gotten rid of a lot of native plants. If there was a way that you could get builders that when they do their plans for the common area or something like that, it'd be nice to put native plants in their place to help restore some of the ones that they've knocked out. during their development period. So thank you for your your efforts in this area.
Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Chair, that was the last person who signed up to speak, so I'm not sure if you want to talk to you.
Okay, is there anyone else that would like to speak that did not sign up?
I don't see any volunteers. Okay. All right, so uh
so I I do have a question because Roberto and Keith or or both one or both of them
Come on up, Keith, you take a beating, can't you? So
I I I want to follow up on a question that commission that Mr. Moody raised, which is 905.2e5. Um I'm trying to figure out why that section is inadequate to address the issue. And it because it does clearly require ongoing maintenance to prevent the establishment of prohibited invasive species. Is the concern that it doesn't identify who has to do it? I'm
I'm just trying to figure out what that's what the problem is with the existing code. So is that
underneath the landscape uh landscaping section data? Yeah. It's in the landscape except In the landscaping section of the code. It it refers to planted materials. So I think like the actual enforcement is just tied to things that you would plant. And then the I think what we're all talking about, and I probably should have had them speak before me because they did a great job talking about um i you know the impact on exotic species, but um we're talking about the existing conditions of undeveloped pieces of land. So unless Mr Mooney
interprets it differently, I think It well I don't I just read plain English. It says invasive species located within the area of the project proposed to be developed are required to be removed. Ongoing maintenance to prevent the establishment of prohibited invasive species is required.
And furthermore, eight oh two point three F four states invasive or exotic species located within a project area shall be removed. Period.
I I again I I can't speak for everybody up here. I don't want anybody to misunderstand that I I do understand that the management and removal of exotic and invasive species is is terribly important. I I see it, I understand that. My my problem is more the mechanism we're choosing to go and the route we're choosing to go. with forcing this management plan with all of these requirements, these reporting requirements, this tremendous burden that's getting placed not only on the development community, but on the HOAs, the C D Ds, on
County Staff, that's where my rub is. It's not on the requirement for the removal of evasive species. So So
if I yeah, so I I wasn't really finished with my question. I'm sorry. Um interrupt. So
Because I'm trying to help staff. I'm I'm trying to figure out is there something Because I asked our code enforcement attorneys if we've ever cited anybody for violating the section and the answer I got was no. Alright, so But I don't know if there's a reason for that. In other words, I don't know if somebody looked at this our code enforcement team, like did they not get a complaint about it and so they they're they never went to investigate an invasive species or Did they did our code enforcement team
look at this section and say, I can't I can't cite anybody for that because of X, Y, or Z? And so I'm trying to figure out what is What is it that's stopping us from I mean I'm assuming somebody on your team not you, but Roberto, um somebody somebody looked at this section five and and concluded that it's inadequate because that's why you came up with this other enforcement scheme. So what was it that was inadequate about section
'Cause this the the section the Mr. Jarity side doesn't deal with ongoing maintenance. So So if this was just about plantings, I don't think the the section Mr. Girardi cited would be sufficient. But sec E5 actually talks about ongoing maintenance, which is T me is driving it your need for this reporting requirement. And so is there a problem with that sentence that is causing staff to not enforce this today?
So David originally when I when I was tasked with uh invasive species and look into it, I did look at the different sections and and the complan and anything that was related to uh invasive species. I did find that section and and I you know made my suggestions we have we have these, we have sufficiency on these elements. I don't have that document with me. Uh and I And said, no, we we need something more strict. We need something to follow, you know, the
guidance from the BCC. We need something that aligns more with what we were being requested. And that's what prompted changing into all these other elements in the sections and subsections of the case.
I mean I mean one potential issue with LSN is it doesn't say who has to maintain it. I I I I mean but I don't know if that was the reason why you Well it would be
those who were who that section is applicable to
Right, but I'm I mean I I don't know because I mean where you might have an issue is if you went to cite the subsequent owner where the subsequent owner says that was the developer's responsibility, it wasn't my responsibility. So Yeah, that could easily be fixed if by identifying who is responsible for this ongoing maintenance, but
That would have been adding five words, not the whole thing so But I but
So maybe an amendment to that section.
Well, but I I that's why I'm asking is did anybody was there any discussion of just amending E5 to cure whatever the potential enforcement issues are with existing because one could argue and I agree with Jennifer Saney that our comp plan requires us to do this, but one could argue that E five already complies with the common plan. That's right.
But it obviously we for whatever reason we haven't enforced it to date. That leads me to believe there's some problem with the existing code that Which is causing us to not cite people for it, but I don't know what it
is. Right.
So
so David, I can't a little late in the game in terms of the development of of the new ordinance, but um I do know that we without without any clear guidelines, it's difficult for any you know, I'm just thinking of like wetland infractions and how we got to that part in terms of working with code enforcement. Question I was just asking Brad is could without the creation of a new ordinance because I'm hearing what everyone's saying. Could we develop something that is a little lighter and a development guideline tied to the section of the code that you're referencing, David? Um taking
all the comments and the stuff like that we've that we've heard. and um still give some directions though because you might have an L D C section that says all this shall be removed, we still need to give a little bit of direction on what that means. It doesn't need to be, you know, PhD level, you know, geology reports kind of stuff, but I do think we need some kind of simplistic guideline to at least give the applicant. So Uh and I think any applicant would want clear direction on what that would be. So I guess the question I'm asking maybe the planning team or David U, if
we have an LDC section that Is sufficient to be the mechanism to require the enforcement action. Can we develop a very light or similar guideline, you know, document that would go in the development guidelines manual?
So are you suggesting that it's the existing code isn't clear about what ongoing maintenance means? It's not there's no there's no specific criteria there for what that means. And so you want to there's
no reference to this to the speech. Species in question. I mean there there there needs to be something well there
is a reference to the species. Is there is that is there, but if what you're saying is that
It doesn't define what removal is or it doesn't define what ongoing maintenance is or how
in terms and things like that.
To the
crutch. Their obligation is you just have to read the four words after it. It says ongoing maintenance. to prevent the establishment of prohibited invasive species is required. Right. That's the
burden. So I think what what staff would need is some guidance to how do you actually implement what happens to the right-of-way.
To me it makes a lot more sense. Yes. Because you know, it you you're dealing with the real problem, you're not creating a monster.
As a root root of David's question, and that's my question, what's stopping someone from going out to the and that's a great example, the town homes of Lake Thomas today and sighting them and telling them that they need to get rid of air potato.
I think clear direction on how to do that. I I honestly just to be
I'm not understanding that. What do you mean clear direction on how to do that? What d what direction is it? Maybe
maybe area, maybe um team of responsibility, area of accountability. I I'm I'm you know, not exactly sure.
Right.
So I'm I'm just confused and uh I'm not trying to be argumentative by asking this question. I go in and I design and permit a subdivision which includes a landscape plan under 905 in the land development code. So I'm subject in if I removed trees or whatever in the the eight oh six section that Jamie cited. I don't underst so I have an a p a permit that's I'm subject to
all of these requirements. I don't understand where the difficulty comes in from by staff to enforce the code. No different than the zoning code Uh, I got a guy coming to my visit me tomorrow who got a citation for parking semi trucks. on his property, staff goes out and sees semi trucks when they don't have an approved site plan, you site 'em. Here you've got an approved Landscape plan, you're in violation because you allowed these invasive
species to propagate.
So
it could be trending for code enforcement officers.
Yeah, question from Mr. Moody. So are you so in the in the post development scenario of the lands you're saying that authority would rest underneath that section of the code that's tied to the landscaping plan? And that's why I keep going back to this is not
about plantative. In our landscape section of the code, and this is interesting because I know there are actually active cases going on right now you're required to maintain your landscaping. So for instance I'm personally aware of code enforcement cases where Code enforcement officers go down State Road 54 with approved landscape plans and they say, Oh look. There was supposed to be a live oak tree there and a laurel oak tree there and a row
of viburnum shrubs over there and there's three shrubs missing and that shrub's missing and then they give 'em a citation for five hundred dollars for each. tree or shrub that's missing. So they're still enforcing that Plan.
So n 9052E5 already addresses it addresses stuff that the already exists, it addresses the prohibition against planting anything, and it also addressed uh stuff that may exist in the future ongoing management. So it addresses all that.
Good. So does that again don't have the code in front of me, David.
Does that cover all the applications?
Well it's
a little bit more than a little bit. Well, assuming we're not doing making this retroactive and that it's only governing which was I think staff's intent was that he was only dealing with those projects that w submitted a landscape plan. Right. Um so if they submitted a landscape plan, this already says that they can't plant invasives, they have to remove invasives, and they have to have ongoing maintenance to prevent the establishment of prohibited invasive species.
So
That was the root of my question. Is what is there something deficient about that code section that is that is
And the it's I'm trying to be objective here because my code of force of attorneys has said they've never we they've never seen a site for this. So That leads me to believe that there's a reason for that. I don't know what I'm trying to get what is the underlying reason why we haven't cited anybody for violating this code section.
If I had to speculate it's the how to piece. And I I get that it's easy to send a citation, that's easy, but the how do you take care of that after the fact and is that mulching on site, is that herbicide treatment, is w you know, all the various things. And so
Keith. You've just hit on what my biggest problem with this proposal is. And I said this during the first hearing. Colan grass was introduced to the United States in the nineteen twenties. It's been here for a hundred years. Our greatest scientists Our universities Our U.S. Department of Agriculture, our Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service. Nobody has figured out how to get rid of it. And I'm
not saying we shouldn't try to get rid of it or that I want it around. I don't. But at the end of the day, you can't tell me how to get rid of it. The county staff can't tell me how to get rid of it. And all of a sudden I'm gonna make The land developer it's now Lenar's problem to figure out how to get rid of it. And you know how
Lenar buy is a site that's covered with air potato They clear it. It comes back. Lenard didn't introduce the Le Air potato. It was there. And they got rid of most of it. It's coming back. Maybe they should be doing something to manage it. I'm not saying they shouldn't be. But you can't tell me how to manage it. The staff can't tell us what to do with it. So how do you expect the development community or the the guy Let me be careful with my words
here, but the guy who does the directional drilling for frontier communications or spectrum to figure out how to get rid of it.
I I think that's I think that's kind of a good point because we're we're being directed to do something. And I think that no one is saying that we're going to
eradicate So Keith, what I'm hearing you say is that the existing code doesn't provide enough detail as to how you do that ongoing maintenance. So my question is could something just could a sentence be added saying the development review manual will contain the permitted ongoing maintenance techniques. Yes. So data. And then you just have the development review manual identify permissible maintenance
Yes.
And that goes back to the original request I made of staff. Can you please provide A plan which is presumptive in nature. Okay, if I do A, B, and C, I am presumed to have met my burden to control this species. If you tell me I need to burn it, I need to poison it, I need to grind it up and bring it to the landfill, just tell me what it is I need to do. Because all of the ex all the scientific experts in the world haven't figured out how to. get
rid of this either. Yeah.
So but but I think would be helpful and I think you're basically saying could could we create a safe harbor yes provision that says 'cause that's the problem I see with the existing code, and I have to recode enforcement turning on a response yet, but if we had to enforce this in court, I don't know that it would be it may be difficult for us to
I can see a defendant saying, Well, I don't know what ongoing maintenance to prevent the establishment of prohibited I mean they could argue that our code is ambiguous and it it's unenforceable because it doesn't say what the maintenance activities are. So I think what Keith is saying is he wants to create
guidelines for maintenance to prohibit these invasive species.
To be clear, I want to help do that. I don't know if I necessarily raising the banner on this, but but again, just to
be clear, that's a an establishment of to control air potato you do A B C, to do this you do D E and F. It's not developer the HOA will come up with a plan on how they're gonna manage it. Well you could refer to that manual
in this
code.
Right, right, but I mean they could put the
the manual is my my biggest hard burn. I want that manual like gone.
Well,
the code it
blows out so
I mean you could put all of those techniques, maintenance techniques in the code, but it's gonna make the code longer. I thought he was putting the development
guide in the guidelines. The references was
But then our guidelines get put into the development review manual. That's where we put the remote.
Okay.
source.
So that that is Raditz and Development Review, that is the essential function of the development review manual. It's simply for business procedures and reference materials, different things like that, not necessarily specific elements that would go with those.
It is easier to amend the development say say some scientist comes up with some mirac miracle for getting rid of Coging Grass, it's easier to amend the development review manual to add that technique into the manual than to amend the land development code. So
you You you can also the development manual or a couple sentences in the LDC could talk about the formatting of how this notice would be sent to the county. You can always refer to the BMPs through other organizations necessarily. You don't need to create there's nothing we don't need to recreate the wheel. I think Mr. Moody's pointed out very clearly that people have been discussing this for a really long time. What we're trying to do is all of the puzzle pieces. Pieces here is quite honestly figure out how the applicants in the development industry future landowners help us kind
of figure this out. So um I I don't know really what the next step is. I mean I'd be happy to work with the planning team on trying to clean up the guideline and make it a little more leaner and to address the concerns that I've heard today. Well um but I think
Well, it depends on what staff and the Planning Commission want to do. But I mean if you're if you if staff is okay with just adding a sentence to five that says that the permitted ongoing maintenance activities are set forth in the development review manual.
I mean that's a fairly simple change to the code and then you would then bring you know, you'd bring those techniques Into the manual. Into the manual. That's a very different change, that's adding one sentence, which is very different than what's before the Planning Commission today. And
would
that
then make it enforceable
into code enforceable? It would make I person again, I'm not the code enforcement attorney, but I think if there was objective criteria for maintenance
Outlined in that manual.
Outlined in the manual, it would make it easier for us to cite people and enforce it because now you've got objective maintenance deep sorted Mr. Moody's point. This is safe. This is the safe if you do these things you will have deemed to have met our code.
Yeah, I like that. And and just to be clear we will do like you said, that would be by reference in the manual because we'll we're not gonna spell out a hundred pages worth of stuff. We're gonna reference the best management practice at such and such questions. Yeah, we have a lot of this to the manual. Right. So yeah. So you know they will have the
the code amendment, the L D C amendment is literally one sentence. Yes,
for this.
But I think you then would move all of your your maintenance requirements into the development review manual and that's where it's it you put them. Now what it does get rid of Pete to be clear if you go if you're willing to go in this direction is it gets rid of any reporting requirements. And or
plan requirement. I'm I think again, I think you gotta start with at least putting you know uh you have a comp plan policy with nothing at least with not clear enough direction to county staff to to implement something, so I think that's going in the right direction.
I mean I I I'm just again this is not my decision, I'm not the policymaker, but maybe you should if you tried that first. where you create objective criteria in your development review manual and then you try to enforce it. Go ahead and start citing people for violating it. And then if that's insufficient, then you come back with something more substantive and say, We tried we tried to do what Mr. Moody suggested and it failed for the following reasons. And so we have to do something more
So Stringent. Yeah, so just kind of going back in history with the wetland infraction, so the recommendation from the County Attorney's Office at the time was was to develop something in the L D C specifically that we can lean on to for enforcement. But um as long as as long as it's enforceable and I think we can actually, you know, at least take a stab at at what you suggested.
Well M reading again I'm not conferred with all my vote of force attorneys, but my looking at five as is, I think the p the problematic sentence is the last sentence. Okay, because it I'm not entirely sure whether a judge would say that's objective criteria for what is ongoing maintenance for to prevent the establishment of prohibited invasive species because that could be many different things and then you got a battle of the experts
in the c and the in court about the defendant calls an expert and says, Well, I tried these things and it didn't work and then we call and act we so I think they're probably is some merit, even that would help our code enforcement attorneys if there's objective maintenance criteria that says this is what we deem to be okay in terms of maintenance. So
And I'm assuming you can come up with that because that was your intent. Yes.
Um So do you have a language you want to recommend for the ordinance of the easy?
I guess the question really is I I don't know what staff and Planning Commission want to do because that that's a very different ordinance b from what's before you today. What's before you today creates more of a plan and reporting type requirement to deal with this issue. the discussion we just had is more of beefing up the language that allows us to use code enforcement.
Well if I can read the board I think that's the direction that
So so I don't know whether Stop would prefer that this be continued or Stop would prefer that
I if if I can speak to that, I think that uh probably the best thing to do in this situation is is if you do not like the way this ordinance was going, that you would recommend denial of this ordinance to the board with the recommendation of the alternative that we just talked about with the sentence change, then we can take both forward and the board work through which one they feel is best.
That's really up to the Planning Commission. I I can't tell you what to do. This is your now now it's a policy decision for you all as to what
Well I'd like to I'd like to put their name on the floor. I'm sorry, we don't speak from the they don't speak from the floor.
Did you have your name on the list?
Ma'am, you can't speak to the floor.
First of all.
If the chair is willing to let you speak you need to come to the podium. But I don't know if the chair is okay.
Yeah, I'll let you speak.
Don't speak until you get to the microphone.
My name is Eva Bailey. I live at [address removed]. And um this terrifies me, want that to be official, so I'm not gonna sound professional, but I'm just listening to the conversation about requiring a developer to um monitor something and send a report in when they monitor that thing to show that they're doing what they say they're going to do. is not a foreign thing to developers when they have to impact a wetland, have to impact a wetland, and then they have
to recreate it somewhere else on their property to mitigate for that impact. They have to plant a certain plant a certain size. They have to then maintain that site to remove nuisance plants. Nobody tells them how to do it. They just have to have nuisance plants. Below a certain percent cover. So they pay people to do that, and my company was one of those. people, um, to do that. So they maintain those plants, they make sure they survive, they make sure
they get to a certain height, they make sure they get to a certain cover, the desirable native plants, and that they keep the cover of nuisance plants below a certain small percentage so that site is successful. And they have to do that until they are released from that monitoring. Now, supposedly they have to do it in perpetuity, but as you say, when they're released, who has time to go look at that again? So many of
these mitigation areas may become overrun by new suspensions, but still, on the books, they have to still meet those success criteria. And this is something developers have been having to do for a long time. long time. And now it's as if asking a developer to report and maintain something is like a foreign thing. I mean how could you ask us to do that? Well they've been having to do this kind of thing forever. It will cost them some money, yes, absolutely. And every person who buys
a house in that development will probably pay a few dollars more because of it. But nuisance plants really are something that needs to be addressed in this county, all over the state. Um the With Lakucci came and laid a power pole on the side of the road in my neighborhood. In preparation for putting it up. And uh a few months later there was a line of Coven grass on the right-of-way. Never had had Coven grass there before. So that pole was probably laying in a field of Cogan grass before they moved it. They
didn't know there were, you know, there's nobody overseeing or making them make sure they weren't moving Covengrass, excuse me, to my neighborhood, but they did. Now I watch it march down the road. And I've seen places out in the mining areas that are just solid covengrass and and it's not just covengrass, but I'm just saying with some oversight and with some care that kind of movement of nuisance plants would not be as bad as it is now. So education
and and getting this kind of uh reporting and and uh causing people to um excuse me, thank you. Um to keep a keep watch on this and report on it. I mean we're saying that what the county's doing now, you've got an ord uh you've got a a code now and it's not working. So to go back and say just use the code, but wait a minute, that's not working. So just
go back and use the code, we're saying make adm adjustments to the code. But your three minutes is up and I can ask or appreciate the question. Yeah, go ahead. Quickly.
So are you aware that in The proposed ordinance There's no obligation for the developer to go into a wetland on site unless it's being impacted, but non-impacted wetlands to go in and remove nuisance and exotic species.
I did hear those words, yes.
But so that actually contradicts Just what you just said. This ordinance, I'm not saying I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm very familiar with wetland mitigation and the requirements to maintain and monitor and report back to the water management district. But the pro staff's proposed ordinance actually doesn't even require them to go into the existing wetlands and remove exotics and nuisance species, which I was shocked, frankly, when I read that.
I think the I think the the Keith Wiley, uh Director of Parks, Recreation, National Resources, the purpose for that is there's already a permanent function in place that addresses that, Mr. Moody. So no reason to be duplicative.
Yeah.
Uh
So
thank you for
allowing me to Okay.
So I do want to make one more comment. And again it's up to Planning Commission about whether you go with what's before you or some modified version of E five, but If staff's intent is to not enforce this against individual residential lot owners, which your current which your provision says the ordinance before us says that you will not, then that would probably I said E5, the addition could be one sentence, it probably needs to be two sentences. If you're not
going to enforce E5 against individual residential lot,
We absolutely have to make sure that that's in there. That's correct.
Because E5 as written, in theory, would allow Mr. Moody to to call code enforcement on his neighbor if they had a single blade of covengrass. And he would too. That
was
not.
designing the landscaping on every individual lot. For instance at Maratha, they're gonna provide a landscape plan for their grand entrance with all the fancy fountains and all of that, but they're not designing the landscaping on Mr. Gray's lot.
Yeah, I all I'm saying is that I think it would be helpful to not just clarify the same harbor issue, but also clarify who we're going to enforce against If this is really developers, HOAs and C D D probably needs to come out and say that. Right. As opposed to
Yes, we we may need to actually one sentence is probably gonna turn into a little paragraph, but uh you know, we also have the situation where we don't wanna preempt an HOA or a C D D from dealing with a problem within their own subdivision um just because the county is saying that it's not gonna be within our jurisdiction or we're not gonna do it. So like we may not wanna go after an individual residential law
owner of an AJ. I understand your point, but Arguably the residential lot is within the plan that was under revenue.
I'm not actually against what you're suggesting. I would actually be supportive of what you're suggesting, David.
Yeah.
So we can do that. Did you have one additional question there uh as far as procedurally, are you are we going to need to re-notice that if that change is made and this goes to the top of that? Is that a notice issue or Well
first of all your title gets a lot shorter. Um
tree. So but three quarters. Um
I
think we
would
sorry. I prefer that you that you redo a notice for the board hearings. I don't know that you need to renotice
the So this would go forward as a recommendation of denial on the same notice with an alternative recommendation.
I mean I guess one problem is I as long as your title is I'm not sure you actually said you were amending E five.
Correct. So
that wasn't the antenna remote. So then you probably do need to to do a new notice.
The one the one section of the code you were not amending was the one we're talking about amending. So yes, you probably would need to renotice that.
Okay, so based on uh Planning Commission making an alternative recommendation we have.
But but I'll be clear, you can just renotice that for the board hearings. It doesn't have to be you don't have to but it depends on what you all want to do. I am not sure whether the consensus is this is just gonna move on to the board or if the consensus is that you all want to continue this and have this come back to the planning commission. My that's not my call.
I I think a big component of this is enforcibility. is really outside of our purview anyway. So that's something the board's gonna have to take up in.
Yeah, I think that that I agree. I I I think that this probably should move forward one way or the other. Uh I don't know the continuity is going to really gain much ground on it. So
I my personal preference would be to continue it so that we can come back, look at the proposal for um an amended section 905. And hopefully have some consensus amongst all of the parties and stakeholders. I I'd hate to go to the board with a denial, a recommendation of denial like that. I I think it's important that we have consensus and agreement.
Yeah, I tend to agree with that too.
So anyway, I think we've heard everything we need to hear, right? Can we are we at a point where we can make a motion?
How long would it take to come back with some alternative proposal that deals with section nine oh five rather than all these other rather than the proposal that's been placed on the table today. Yeah, I think that's the direction we want to
go.
You're not having to throw the baby out with bathwater with all the work that's been done, obviously. A lot of the stuff could be resolution back.
Okay.
So I I think that that we should move forward to the board with both. Um and if the Planning Commission doesn't agree with the ordinance change that we suggested that that you make that clear by denying making a recommendation of denial of that ordinance. It's with the alternative recommendation. uh that David spoke about and that you guys seem to to be in agreement on and we can move those both of those paths. We do alternative recommendations all the time coming through this commission to uh the Board of County Commissioners. So I I don't think that's an issue. It just keeps it moving.
Brad, the only potential issue would be the what are you gonna notice going to the board? I mean because the problem I mean let's just say the board agrees with Planning Commission. If you don't notice a version of an ordinance that says you're amending E five You kind of tied the board's hands, they would have no ability to adopt the Planning Commission version of the ordinance.
So we could re-notice for the board meeting, specifically for the board meeting with the new information from the Planning Commission to notice both. Honestly,
I really like the way John you the idea you had would to come back and get a consensus that we can go. Okay. without buddy in the water. Yeah, I just think that's the way to go. You get the public and everybody on board. Snap. Let's what we finally decide.
If that's what the commission wants to do, how long would that take? Could it could it be done in another month or
so to to what extent do we as the county team have a right to request this not go that way? Is there any we we feel that that's that's not really the right direction to take on this, so
Well, are you demanding that the Planning Commission vote on this ordinance? I don't know what you're asking.
I I know in a t in a traditional application that that the applicant can make that request that it be voted upon and move forward, but uh,
we'll we what we want to do is continue it.
It it seems like this is a this is a fairly simple change that's been requested by you guys. And then it is uh you know a more complex ordinance that you know we feel is more in line with best practices. So it It's it's a decision that we don't want to make in this particular manner uh through this. It is a policy decision that was said, you know, does the which way does the board want to go with that? It really is we will present two very clear options.
But the only I guess the only I mean I guess I understand what you're saying. We're just saying we'd like to see what the alternative option
is that's gonna be given to the board. And we're not gonna know what that is. if you take just our denial and rec the recommendation for alternative language.
Yeah, but I think they're saying they don't want to take an alternative to the work.
Well no, I don't think that's what I heard them say. I thought I heard them say they they want to take our recommendation of denial for this one, but here's what we did recommend approval for. Well we don't w know what we recommended approval for.
Right. But as as David outlined, I mean it doesn't seem like we're trying like the the the alternative solution isn't really complicated. I mean I think Um Procedurally I don't know how we how we do that quickly, but we're talking about maybe at the most two or three sentences to the existing L D C correct? So that is the same thing.
I mean I'm surprised David hasn't already written it, to be honest, I was sitting there. I don't know what's going on
David. I I probably could, but but what I can't write is what I can't write is what you would do in the development review manual.
No, and and so would that be the full package that you that's right? I prefer to see
it, personally.
Yeah, because that's as I as I understood it, that's more on the enforcement side of it. We're just trying to get the we're trying to actually create the the mechanism to implement through a very simple modification to the LDC.
So Keith, uh the reason I'm I'm struggling here is I don't know what staffers really want to do because you're saying somewhat something s somewhat different than what Brad is saying. What it sounds like what Brad is saying is he just wants Two Planning commission to vote this up or down. And
then make an alternative recommendation. So so d as I understood Brad he's he's he's saying that obviously the ordinance presented today would be a denial and then we're all we're talking about voting on recommended language that would modify the other section of the code that we did not initially include in the notice. So
in order to do that we've got to come up to the l with the language today.
Yes, sir. Yeah,
I mean the
the I mean yeah. Well
I mean we've done this and I've we've done this before. The addition
of the L D C would be fairly simple, but uh I guess the question is but I don't know I this is up to the Planning Commission. I can't tell them what to do. I don't know if they're comfortable moving that alternative forward if there's they don't have the language that's gonna go in the manual. The Safe Harbor language that's gonna go in the manual.
So the the the issue with that is the development review manual is not a commission approved document in and of itself. It's procedural, it's based on business practices and other things. So it's kind of uh
Well we want to see the changes to the land development code. I I understand we don't approve what goes in the development manual, but there's in order for you to do that there needs to be a change to the land development code, which we do review and make a recommendation about.
And that's the three sentences which we said. David was talking about that we could probably do that.
I'm starting to feel like this is getting trying to be stuffed down our throat and I don't like that feeling. So you know, I think we need
I I am capable of drafting three sentences to add D five between now and the I'm also capable of drafting it between now and a continued item too. So This is really up to you all what you want to do. I I can't tell you what.
Listen, I'm I'm gonna tell you right now, and I'm with Mr. Gray. And I'm as a sitting planning commissioner who volunteers my time twice a month. And you know what? Since the day I've been appointed, I haven't missed one of these meetings. I have put hours and hours and hours, and I am tired of this. This is you what you want to do is exactly what you wanted to do here with the development manual and the parking ordinance. In other words, you don't give a rat's behind about what the Planning Commission's
opinion or recommendation is. We're just gonna you guys do this and we're gonna go out and do our own thing. Well, I'm sure the commissioners are listening. They're hearing what the Planning Commission's
Purview is today, and I want to move to continue it for 60 days.
John W for sixty days just to give 'em adequate time.
To give 'em adequate time to revise the code as per our discussion, bring back something that we can all have consensus on. I'm willing to make that thirty days or two weeks. I don't care. I can second that. What I can second it. Yeah.
I mean I I could I could support them. I I think sixty days is a long time. I don't think they need that long and I think the board wants to hear something.
And I understand they wanna get to an October prior to October. I Don't necessarily politically agree with it, but I'll play along with that. So what
is acceptable? I I'll second the motion for thirty days.
D the only question I have for staff is can you Can you get a new notice for the E five change done
We we can't do it.
Yes you can. Yes we can. Okay.
We somebody said two weeks, I wasn't sure if you could still do it in two weeks.
We couldn't do we couldn't do two weeks, but we could certainly do thirty days. Yes. Okay.
Okay, so we have a we have
a
planning commission meeting
date that's
right.
The next planning the thirty day from now, approximately Planning Commission meeting date is August eighth, twenty twenty four, one thirty here in Dave City.
So
moved
her.
Brad, did you need to say something before there's a vote? You give you gave me the finger.
For
the record, can you clarify which
finger on
looking at
We all saw it.
Right. September seventeenth is the the budget meeting for uh the board that this would kind of push us into that agenda range, which could be a problem, so um but I think thirty days for here pushes us to
What date for planning question? B
So that way I guess the thirty days is eight days because of the recommendation.
Okay, so we have a motion and second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries.
Yes.
Move for everybody to the eight eight and then
Yes.
Okay.
Can we go on?