PC10 High Ridge lots 2 and 3 comprehensive plan amendment

42:38Good afternoon. Shall we fente a long-range planning? This item is going to be a PC PC 10. So this is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment for high ridge lots two and three. A small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future Linux Map 2-15 and sheet 10 from IL Industrial Light to Calm Commercial on approximately 3.5. Of real property located to the east of Galen Wilson Boulevard and south of Ridge Road. Um

43:08and this is PDD twenty two zero four six four. Would y'all like a presentation on this item?

43:16Yeah.

43:19Alright.

43:23Oh. Thank you. Alrighty, so this is C Pass twenty two fifteen, High Ridge uh Center, Lots two and three.

43:36This property is located within the Wat uh Westmarket area and that is also in the urban service. So the proposal is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the Future Land East Map 2-15 Sheet 10 from IL Industrial Light to Com Commercial. This is generally located east of Galen Wolsen Boulevard and south of Ridge Road. The resolution to this is to conduct a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the Future Land East Map 2-15 Sheet 10 from I.

44:07Um has also been submitted to change the zoning from I one Light Industrial Park District to C2 General Commercial District.

44:18So staff are coming today with a recommendation of denial and the following policies, then this is why staff have found this um proposal to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I have noted them here, but I will also go um through them one by one just to kinda outline what the comprehensive plan says, what the intent of that section is, also taking into consideration um direction we've been given um from the board and um Yeah. So the following um policies that we have found it to be inconsistent with would be policy flu 1.6.1,

44:49commercial development, policy flu 1.6.2, the location of commercial development. Policy Flu 1.6.4, neighborhood commercial uses, policy ED 1.4.4, limitations on the conversion of important employment locations, policy flu 1.8.7, economic development, and policy flu 1.8.10, preservation of capacity for employment generating uses. So I'll start from the first one

45:19so that would be policy flu one point six point one. This item does not meet the intent for that flu. With it, you're setting the guidelines of where commercial development may occur. So it does state in policy flu 1.6.1 that commercial development may only occur within the com flu, the ROR, mixed use, town center, employment centers, and PD. The subject site is not located within a TD, the subject site does not qualify as a conflicting zoning and

45:50the subject site does not qualify as a commercial infill.

45:55Policy flu 1.16.2 contemplates when you are able to do a comprehensive plan amendment to the commercial flu. So this item does um uh this uh flu requirements of policy flu 1.6.2 it identifies the areas that are gonna be suitable for that commercial flu classification to permit commercial development The subject site d uh is located at the intersection of an The subject site is not located at the intersection of an RTO and collector roadway, thus

46:25not meeting the minimum locational criteria. That is the first need for us to assess, and it does not meet that criteria. The next policy is also to consider amendments to the comprehensive plan to the comflu. This item is for uh one point six point four The policy identifies areas that are suitable for the common fluid classification to permit neighborhood commercial development. The subject site does meet the minimum locational criteria for an amendment to the conflu. So that's going to be along an arterial

46:56or collector. Although an amendment would not be supported as the conflu generates less employment than the I.L. future land use would. An amendment to commercial is in consistency with the policy elsewhere of the comprehensive plan. So although it would find consistency here, it does have inconsistencies elsewhere within the comprehensive plan.

47:16The next policy to review is policy ED 1.4.4, and that is the limitation on the conversion of employ of important employment generating or locations. Pasco County shall recognize the high priority of retaining employment-generating land uses as in appropriate and compatible locations within the county, and shall recognize this priority during the review of plan amendments, rezoning requests, site plan reviews, and permitting processes that involve the conversion of the EC Employment Center Future Land Use or IH

47:47Industrial Heavy in the IL Industrial Light Future Land Use Classic. classifications to a different use. The subject site is appropriate and compatible location for the Isle industrial future land use classification. There are no wetlands located, geographical restraints, and there or insufficient infrastructure. The proposed amendment requests removing the aisle industrial uh industrial light future land use. The conversion of the aisle to commercial generates 41% less employment opportunity than the aisle flu wood in the Yeah.

48:20The next policy that we found it to be inconsistent with would be policy flu 1.8.7 for economic development. So that policy comes with the intent um to encourage development, which will contribute more to the county in revenue, then it will consume in services, provided that such development can be accomplished within within the spirit of this comprehensive plan. Location within the west and south market areas are encouraged. So this site is located within the west market area. area. The subject site is located within that uh market area and

48:50the I.

49:00Absolutely.

49:02So Shelby, I'm trying to understand and I understand the arguments on the other policies, but I'm not sure I understand this one. So

49:11The statement that you said IL flu contributes more to the county revenue than the common flu, what is that based on?

49:16So David Engel from the Office of Economic Growth and he has performed a fiscal impact analysis on this and that is one of the attachments in the packet that you have.

49:25I did look at his analysis. It's not a fiscal impact analysis. It says it's an economic impact analysis.

49:31Okay.

49:33So there is a difference.

49:34Okay.

49:35Um a fiscal impact analysis is generally a tax analysis or a a tax generation analysis. I looked at Mr Engels analysis, it's an and it's an employment generation analysis, not a Revenue generation analysis. So

49:52I I guess I have some concerns about you putting up a PowerPoint that says that the IL flu is gonna contribute more to the county revenue than the com flu when there's no support. I mean I looked at his report, it doesn't talk about revenue at all.

50:07Okay.

50:07It talks about employment. So I mean if your statement was that the IL flu generates more employment Then the com flu. That is supported by Mr. Angles. analysis but I don't think you could be representing that it generates more in revenue Unless you have an analysis a f a true fiscal impact analysis to support that.

50:32Absolutely. I can request that for the right-of-way. So

50:34it's two concerns. One is your PowerPoint, And two

50:39the fact that you're calling it a f Mr. Engels analysis a fiscal impact analysis when it really isn't. It's it's a it's a jobs analysis.

50:47Okay.

50:48And for both of those reasons I don't think you should be relying on one point eight point seven to for this denial because I don't if you read one point eight point seven literally, it says Pasco County shall encourage development which will contribute more to the county revenue than will consume in services. That could be true for commercial or industrial. I mean, my general understanding, and Mr. Pitos can tell me if I'm wrong, is that

51:16Many non-residential uses contribute more to the county in revenue than they consume in services. It's really the residential uses that tend to consume more in services than they generate in revenue. So I'm not sure I mean I guess uh maybe Mr. Pitos has a comment on this, but I I don't see how one point eight point eight point seven applies to this situation. And if you or Mr. Peters have a contrary argument, I'm welcome to I wanna um I'll

51:46listen but I'm not I'm not seeing any evidence of that supports it for Mr. Ingalls. Email.

51:54Okay.

51:58me comparing employment generation per mile to Employment generation of C2. Nothing in there about revenue.

52:07I can definitely request that information for you.

52:10I'd like to pay you back on that too. You know, I think it's you know, we've got blinders on o in this particular instance because this particular applicant, I'm familiar with the property. He he's created which was not there before. uh roughly twenty acres of this I L property that the county thinks is so invaluable. And then He's asking for two acres of it to be commercial. Which is on Ridge Road. To me that's a

52:40logical use of the property. the IL property that we're that we hold so dearly wouldn't even be there if it hadn't been for this applicant. So I think we need to take that into account too.

52:55And that may be Mr. Chairman Mariano. But so my point is that I don't think you can base a denial on this particular policy unless you or Terry have some information that I'm not aware of.

53:13Do you think that's a good idea?

53:22I think that the um the issue was I understand what you're saying, David, in terms of the fiscal impact analysis versus the economic impact analysis. Um the I

53:36mean I actually think just to be clear, I think that Mr. Ingalls analysis supports potential inconsistency with one point four point four and one point eight point ten more than it supports anything related to one point eight point seven.

53:52Uh understood. And I think the impact analysis in the agenda memo actually stands on it in its own section in the feasibility analysis of the site. Although there it is titled Fiscal Impact Analysis and it and it should be titled Economic Impact Analysis. Um I mean I think the conclusion for 187 was that Um because i the contribution to the Gross County product um as an I L use over COM is five

54:22to one and the scales are that sort of uh in favor of I L Uh that uh it would generate it could have the potential to generate more revenue. However, as I understood what what David is saying in terms of We're not looking at, you know, the highest revenue producer. We're just looking at what produces a net revenue uh under policy flu 187. So I I would agree with David that it it supports more uh

54:53policy ED 144 and policy flu 1810. And then again, I'll I'll just underline that the analysis itself stands on its own on page five under preliminary feasibility analysis number one.

55:09And I think it was just being used in this case as a as backup for for or support information for one eight seven.

55:18Okay.

55:21You can continue with your rest of your presentation, I'm sorry, go ahead.

55:24Thank you. So the next policy is policy flu 1.8.10, preservation of capacity for employment generating uses, and that is the county shall, through the development review process, ensure that adequate land and transportation capacity is available for present and future high-paying employment generating land uses, such as office industrial, employment center uses. So through that, then adequate land. and ANC capacity is available for the subject site for an employment generating

55:55use. Commercial development has not been identified as an employment generating use for the future land use classification.

56:04Um so in general then the site Is located what

56:11Okay, I'm not gonna get that part to work, my apologies. Um so these are the two lots uh that front Ridge Road and Galen Wilson Boulevard um to the west there. Um Yeah.

56:25The current future land use there is IL, that there's an entire area of that industrial light area. So this does act as um I believe roughly it's around uh 45 to 50 acres of that IL flu that work in tandem. The proposed feature in land use here is commercial. There is commercial located across the street, and there is ROR in the general area.

56:50The current zoning right now is IL. Um in 2018 a rezoning petition um occurred to amend the um entire area um in purple there to um I one for those light industrial uses, thus creating a light industrial park.

57:08And staff do you come um to the local planning agency to find the amendment inconsistent with a comprehensive plan and do you recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners?

57:16Mr. Chairman asked another question. Of course, David. Yeah. So Shelby, what percentage of the I total IL land use are these two partials.

57:28I would have to do some calculations to get you those numbers.

57:33Well I'm just trying to figure out why

57:37Because I think IL and I won't allow up to fifteen percent uh retail anyway. So I guess I'm trying to figure out if they submitted for a retail use on this site Why wouldn't staff just as long as it was under fifteen percent, why wouldn't staff just

57:52Absolutely sorry. I

57:53guess why are we even here?

57:54So the I. The IL Flu supports up to fifteen percent of support commercial. So that doesn't allow for all types of retail. Ideally we want to do see um types of commercial that will be able to support that industry there. Um so that's gonna be different from just per coming in like with um your quick service restaurant versus an actual sit-down restaurant. Um so the examples that um are given in that future land use are for daycares restaurants, um Dry cleaning centers, hotels,

58:25motels and service stations.

58:27So do we know what the applicant's proposing to do and have staff did staff determine that it wasn't support commercial? What they're proposing to do there? Okay, we don't know what they're proposing.

58:37I believe in initial conversations it was car washes, but I I can defer to the applicant on that if that has changed.

58:45Well use proposed.

58:50So potentially the use could fit within the I.L. flu, yes.

58:53So so the site is these two sites are allowed to be retail. I mean well if they're under fifteen percent. Is that accurate? Well I mean I guess I'd like to know if they're under fifteen percent.

59:03Yeah, the the I.

59:08Commercial. Uh that would be applicable to the I L the whole fifteen percent would be applicable to the I L District in which it's located.

59:17But if these were the first two in And they were under fifteen percent. They could be retailed today.

59:27Retail that is consistent with IL, right. Okay. So

59:31is that the reason why the full range of CT between staff and the applicant is Staff would only want support commercial whereas the applicant wants something that may not be support commercial. Is that the r the reason that we're

59:43here? Well I think the applicant could answer that question because it's the applicant applied for a change in future land use to COM. But we the applicant

59:54was aware that they could get fifteen percent support retail. Correct, yes.

1:00:00Does does the applicant own this entire assemblage? Because I'm looking on Mapper and it looks like there's a bunch of

1:00:05they may speak to that, but I think at one point they do.

1:00:08Well but I will tell you I believe and Terry can correct me if I'm wrong, that the way they do the fifteen percent retail it's first come, first serve. So if they came in and put retail uses there, I think it and if it occupied the entire fifteen percent, it would effectively preclude everybody else, whether they own it or not. Does that make sense? Yes. Is that accurate, Terry? Yeah.

1:00:35Can I ask a quick question, Scarf? Sure. You mentioned that the site in 2018 was rezoned to IL. Was there a companion comprehensive plan amendment that was already comp planned IL at that time or?

1:00:48No, sorry, the future land use in that area was already I L. Let me go back. So this entire gray area, this entire area is that IL flu. So all of that is original. The amendment that was made was for the zoning in 2018, and I believe that's when Mr. Blackwell came in the first time and he had that amendment to I want to permit that those types of uses.

1:01:14Okay.

1:01:17Uh these uses that you have col colored in is originally as I L. You got a Wa Waze on one of 'em, there's a shopping center on the one across the street. They're all commercial.

1:01:27Mm-hmm.

1:01:28So why why have you got to color differently?

1:01:32So this right here is the future Land use map, so if you see the gray color, that is the I L future Land use.

1:01:42Yes, sir. So the orange section is the ROR, the Wawa that you're referring to is in that ROR section what does permit that commercial development.

1:01:50I'm talking about the gray area that you have right next to the orange. That's not I L.

1:02:00Right at the boundary? Is that the location right?

1:02:04And it's Home Depot. Oops,

1:02:08more.

1:02:10You got you got a Home Depot right there and then you got you got Wawa next to that, and now we're across the street, you got a shopping center and you got Um uh fireplace store over there. Yep. Paint store. Right. So is

1:02:24it a music store support commercial for IL? 'Cause I buy my guitar strings across the street.

1:02:34I I haven't we haven't analyzed the buildings across the street, but the the Home Depot and the shopping centers to the east of this site is ROR. So portions of Home Depot are in the IL. Um and you could classify that 15% is being used by portions of Home Depot, but Home Depot also has an industrial character to it to some degree in terms of The types of materials it handles. So that future

1:03:04land use line does crisscross the Home Depot building, but the majority of the Home Depot entitlement likely comes from the ROR designation that is at the intersection of Little and Ridge. So how would

1:03:21that work, Terry, when you're calculating the fifteen percent? Do you are you counting any of the Home Depot or not?

1:03:28We would have to go back to those approvals to see how the how the retail percentages were calculated. Um And also probably do the same thing with the guitar uh I forget the name of the business now. Um with those types of uses on the north side. Um but it brings up and it bears the point that you first come, first serve. If you uh if they take up the fifteen percent that there is no fifteen percent

1:03:56available for the

1:03:56IL.

1:03:57I asked was it support commercial?

1:04:01Uh I It depends, be and it all depends on what's um how it was classified, because there are some uses in C three Um that participate in support commercial activity for IL or I1 and IL uh combinations. So um I can't answer that question off the top of my head if it's

1:04:23it just seems very subjective to me. I But if

1:04:27the thing that I would like to underline is that if the fifteen percent is taken up by Home Depot, a conversion to come further waters down the industrial area that's already designated.

1:04:41Well I Terry I think we kinda need to know the answer about how you would count Home Depot because My original question was, can they build commercial under the 15%? Allowance. And I'm not hearing definitively that they could because Home Depot may be occupying part of it. So It seems like that's kind of an important thing to know. How how we would count Home

1:05:11Depot.

1:05:15It's it 'cause I guess part of the Home Depot was in I L and part of it's not. Is that I'm not good with this

1:05:20map.

1:05:21Sure. So it's part in I L and part R R. Right.

1:05:29So

1:05:32So that IL flu is according to the Metmos thirty four point two, so we're about what, five acres of Support commercial, is that correct?

1:05:43Well is that taken on a parcel by parcel basis or on a district basis?

1:05:52I think it uh it it should be the district basis because if you try to do it on a parcel by parcel basis, depending on the size of the parcel, the percentages would be a good thing. Would you

1:06:00include the aisle across the street in that district?

1:06:04I believe it's all the same polygon and to on the map. So that would be the district.

1:06:12Well, my guess is my prediction is if you include the Atlanta to the north ridge Those two parcels probably are below fifteen percent. I don't know if they are or not if you include Home Depot though.

1:06:27So I've asked staff to run an analysis in which they'll check how many acres the Home Depot is occupying as compared to uh the overall future land use of the IL flu district, uh and then that should give us a good idea for what percentage has been used up. Well

1:06:49I'm just trying to figure out if there's some compromise here that allows them to put retail on these two sites without sacrificing the policies that the staff has identified in the In the agenda mm. And it seems like there would be if whatever they want to put there w could be classified as support commercial and it's under fifteen percent.

1:07:19I guess we should probably I mean I guess we hear from the applicant what they intend to put there because if if what they intend to put there can be classified as a for commercial, we may not even have an issue. Right.

1:07:32With continuing with the existing I L. Cons continuing with the existing I. L because that means they can still put what they want there.

1:07:39Right, and I don't think the planning and development department would have an issue with continuing with the existing ILP.

1:07:46Hello, yeah.

1:07:49All right, would the applicant like to speak, please?

1:07:55Well well I'm sorry, is this do we still have questions to staff?

1:07:59Yeah, w yeah, well we'll see what you hear what the

1:08:01applicant says and then we'll have questions. Steve Booth, seventy-five no just moved [address removed]. Um I have been sworn I'm an attorney representing the applicant. And I'll grip my teeth a little bit and say that I can't really address all of these issues with the with the uh staff comments, having just received

1:08:32them ten minutes before this meeting. But with that being said, I think that we have to look at the forest rather than the trees on this. And mister Gray hit on it that we do have an application for commercial zoning along with this if this is approved. and everything around there is commercial. Now I don't know if this particular uh exhibit. Now can you go ahead and pass those out?

1:09:04Shows uh that the Home Depot

1:09:08Move to receive and file.

1:09:09Second. Second. Motion is second. All in favor? Aye.

1:09:13Aye.

1:09:13Aye. Thank you.

1:09:17This is the zoning map, and I understand that we're not considering that at this time. But you can't understand the logic and the appropriateness of our request until you see all that commercial around there. It's uh we have a we're required to put a connection to the Home Depot that's right next to us. For these uh for this entire IL

1:09:49and um It that connection is right along uh lot three there, which is one of the lots that's subject to this.

1:10:02The discussion about percentages, the 15%, uh what uh David has pointed out is correct that this entire AL could have 15% support commercial. the rest of the lots in there would be 200 by 100 typically and they would not typically support any uh commercial use and I would doubt that the commercial use

1:10:32would want to be back in the middle of the industrial. But the frontage, right on Ridge Road, is really only appropriate for commercial. Now David's question was Well there are certain commercial uses that are considered Support. that we could put there. We don't have any contracts with any of those. And the problem is this. It's twofold. Number one,

1:11:04These are not the type of commercial uses that they identify in the code that we can put in there that anybody has come to us and said, hey, we'd like to buy the lots and put it in. You're allowed to put in a bank. You're allowed to put in a daycare center. you're allowed to put in a motel, a hotel, And a restaurant. Restaurant, maybe, okay? But Nobody's knocking down

1:11:34the doors to purchase those two lots. And Part of the reason, and this is the second point I wanted to make on it, Is That ordinance talks about staff looking at these and determining if there's support and all that. You know, we got buyers when they come in, they want to close in as soon as their due diligence is done. You think we can get uh approvals for that type of thing with public hearings and all that, and

1:12:04it's just killing the project. And I look at what they identified, not the staff but the ordinance identifies as potential support uses And I don't know why some of the regular ones in the other ones in commercial zoning weren't included in there also. There doesn't, I don't think, seem to be a lot of rhyme to reason as to which ones were included as support and which ones were not. So,

1:12:35quite frankly, we were relegated to coming back in so that we could have a better mix of what could potentially go next to a Home Depot and has an access road to it. and across the street from a shopping center, etc. That would be that somebody would come and say, hey, you know, we would like to develop the property with that type of use. And we think that it uh it is appropriate and

1:13:06it's quite frankly with due respect to staff, it's laughable when we're talking about economic issues. With two small lots that they say we could put in uh a dry cleaners and a uh a bank. as a support. Is that gonna really have any effect at all? It's gonna it it seems to me that it just is uh is a tempest in a teapot there. And I would uh respectfully

1:13:37request that you look closely at the map that we've got here showing the actual uses. of the property surrounding it. and would say that it's totally, totally appropriate for these two lots. We can't generate anything that would constitute a support Use can't generate any contracts at this point. We haven't been able to. Been trying for several years. And the only thing we were relegated to,

1:14:07as I said, was to seek a calm classification, a flu classification. so that we could indeed market it to try and get something that's more reasonable and in line with everything else that's out there. So

1:14:25Steve, I I guess just to play devil's advocate, I mean staff does issue zoning letters. I mean they I've seen them if you're unsure about what can be used on a particular piece of property, I've seen them issue a zoning letter saying it can be used for these thirty uses or these forty retail uses, and so I think there is a way to get

1:14:51Well could go there.

1:14:56I can't uh put a lot of faith that As to Who how that determination is gonna be made. I don't know how the determination was made to include those uses that are in there. There's other ones that I would look at in what is allowed in commercial C2. And say, Why wasn't that included? But apparently a a staff member at some point, not the the folks that are here presently, 'cause I think it's been there a while, but said, No, that's not an appropriate support use.

1:15:26And so we're gonna have to every time somebody comes in with a contract, contact the staff and see if if uh that's a useful.

1:15:38Or Not wait for somebody to come for a contract. You ask them to generate a letter saying here's the here's the twenty-five retail uses that can be placed on this site and then you can take that and use it to sell the site To whoever. I mean you can rely on his owning letter.

1:15:56I think what he's saying is nobody's coming knock down their door for that. And I agree with Mr. Booth. I have the Both the C three and the I L zoning district standards here and I look at the permitted uses and I understand. I I I look at what's there in the neighborhood and probably retail which is not listed in any of the permitted uses in C three or I L and the reason that I bring C3 up is because I L is inclusive of C three uses. Retail's not

1:16:26included in that list.

1:16:28And

1:16:29if you look at that corner, it's all retail.

1:16:31And we're fronting on Ridge Road. And none of the rest of the property will be used uh as commercial because the lots are not conducive to that at all.

1:16:41Do you own the rest of the lot, Steve? We uh we've sold most of the lots? Yes. So how would you address I mean a staff raised the concern that Allowing this site to go to Calm now allows more retail to be used on the rest of the site because now it gets its own 15%. Now it's

1:16:59what,

1:16:59David? Well I mean I could see South being concerned that if they allow the site to go to com Now the rest of the industrial site gets its own fifteen percent retail.

1:17:17They get support commercial. To get they get something that's not industrial.

1:17:24Well uh those are generally permitted uses in those districts to begin with. A permitted use in the IL is a bank.

1:17:32But David you'd still have it doesn't go

1:17:34against the fifteen percent. That's an allowed use.

1:17:38You you'd still have to come in for a rezoning of the property and anybody uh this board and the Board of County Commissioners then would look at it and say, does this make any sense to use uh fifteen percent in what's left of the IL in the middle of this industrial project?

1:17:55I guess let me ask D uh let's tear that question. For the retail that's in I1, is that permitted as a the support retail? Is it permitted as a write or does it require a rezoning?

1:18:09Oh, I'm sorry. This is I L and C three.

1:18:15Can you repeat the question, David? I'm sorry.

1:18:17So the support retail that's allowed in I1 Is it as a right or do you use it require I mean

1:18:30'Cause I'm seeing well I'm seeing some retail uses like restaurants.

1:18:36I'm trying to figure out what where's the

1:18:39But those are the permitted uses in the district. They don't need a conditional use, a special exception. They can build those by right under that z under that Euclidean zone district.

1:18:50But the fifteen percent is that in the comp plan?

1:18:52Yes.

1:18:53Yes, that's in the comp plan. I think there's also similar language in i in the I One zoning district standards. Um but since we're only talking about comprehensive plan, Um I would stick to the I.L. language that that Mr. Moody was referring to. And so if it's a s if it's support retail that filters through the IL flu and is enabled by the I1 zone, Uh whether uh as

1:19:23a permitted use, as a condition use, or s special exception, they can move through accordingly. uh because it it the IL would allow those support uses. So if I one has something as a permitted use, then it's a permitted use. If I one has that as a use that meets that criteria but it says it is as a conditional use, then they come in and get their conditional use and so on and so forth. But it the use is enabled by virtue of the IL flu's fifteen percent support commercial

1:19:53rule.

1:19:59And we're supposed to just accept it. So I'm gonna go back to your memorandum. It says we're just supposed to accept that while COM can generate employment potential, it's generally understood to be less than the potential of that of I L, I H, E C, et cetera, et cetera. I got a problem with that because when I go to the Department of Economic Opportunity website and I download the 15 top employers in

1:20:30Pasco County, not one of them is an industrial use. Whether we include public or private employers in the list. And then we get a memorandum, an email. That says this site will generate more jobs as IL than com. There's nothing to back it up. It's a nebulous statement in an email. I saw there was a spreadsheet that was supposed to be attached. Why weren't we provided with the spreadsheet? I submit drainage calculation reports this thick and they're

1:21:00gone through with a fine-tooth comb, but I'm just supposed to take a nebulous statement in an email and accept it as back.

1:21:09That is the analysis that was provided to us as commentary on this project from the Office of Economic Commissioner Yeager.

1:21:17I have no idea how he came up with that conclusion. And then the other thing is if it could generate so much jobs, this project is zoned IL, it's land use IL. Well I went in a cellar this morning before I came here. There's only one. One, active permit application and it's by the applicant himself. There was another that was withdrawn. And I can tell you as a practicing engineer in the area, I've done a dozen layouts in

1:21:47that center, none of which have come to fruition yet. So right now the center is not generating any jobs.

1:21:56Terry, can I ask a a question regarding the employment generation and and the the statements that are made as far as employment generation for those land uses, does does the size of the parcel matter in that statement? And my and what I'm what I'm getting at is if you have a a twenty acre industrial site I can buy off that that's gonna generate a lot of jobs, but I mean wha what is the large job generator for an acre and a half parcel?

1:22:23Well the the the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council report that came out in April identified twenty acres, I believe it was twenty or twenty-five acres or so, as um the a a good size to target for these IL development areas. So when you establish the IL future land use Uh it's they're not all going to be, you know, the corporate business park campuses that that we see sometimes on the east side of the county. And

1:22:53here on the west side of the county, uh, we do have a number of IL future land uses that are subdivided, that have been platted essentially. Um but that's another form of of business park. Uh so Uh I would argue that the twenty the hundred and fifteen acres that is this whole industrial light future land use designation, uh a good chunk of which is actually um the

1:23:24school is actually included in it. Uh I think it's Chasco Elementary. Um which which is allowed in in the IL flu as a public semi public use. Um The hundred the the entire hundred and fifteen acres would be what you would want to preserve in order to attract the industrial businesses that would move into that IL flu. To parcel them off uh Well that's what Pasco Kangi has done in the past and that's what we've been directed not to

1:23:54continue doing. Uh in in terms of preserving the I L, IH and E C areas.

1:24:01Well I I mean I asked that question and I I was involved with another piece of property in Pasco County that had similar land use and zonings and I've been involved with that project for probably fifteen years, okay? And it sat there vacant for probably twelve years until and and ran across a lot of these same issues, frankly. I mean you talk about support commercials you know, support uses. Um, you know, the that project, the problem we came into, I mean we we went in there I went in personally probably for six to eight years every

1:24:32time a user came in trying to get a determination and it would take weeks to get a determination. And the determining we we literally had no idea. I mean, I understand there's a list of uses but every single user that's out there comes in and they don't Half the users we get or half the users that come in don't fall under the specific categories that are listed in the code. I mean a swim school. A swim school is not listed there. Is a swim school re I mean I'm not asking to make a determination now, but that's that's just an example. Um I mean I personally I think that the location of this just makes

1:25:02sense for For commercial uses.

1:25:05Uh

1:25:06especially of a parcel this size.

1:25:08I if I may. The I think the economic uh conditions have changed post pandemic. Um Pasco is seeing a higher interest in industrial land development. And we recently completed the Ridge Road connection to the Sun Coast Parkway and I would say in a number of years there'll there'll be a connection all the way to US 41. So there's going to be uh Ridge Road is going to connect to the strategic intermodal system

1:25:38for the unit for Florida. Um and so When we have established ILI1 areas, uh the default position that we're going to take is to preserve them. Uh and in this area I recognize that there's quite a bit of retail, but the comprehensive plan currently states that this particular segment of Ridge Road should be an employment generating location that does have, based on the economic impact analysis

1:26:09that the Office of Economic Growth has given us. More job generating potential.

1:26:14The second largest employer in this county is Publix.

1:26:21Okay. There's no industrial U employer in this county. that pre employs more. So I these are very nebulous statements about You know, these are job generators, they generate a lot these job industrial generates more jobs than commercial. Well the numbers don't bear that out. The statistics don't bear that out. So

1:26:43Mr. Moody, with all due respect, because Mr. Ingle isn't here to defend himself, but I think what he would probably tell you is that as a general rule, industrial generates higher paying jobs than a public's. And so if you look at policy one twenty point two

1:26:58If we're allowed to put a fast food restaurant in this zoning district.

1:27:03Well, if it's a support commercial use.

1:27:07And

1:27:08I wouldn't call those high-paying jobs.

1:27:11Yeah.

1:27:12Well also if you don't have any industrial going in, they're certainly not paying any jobs. That's that's the point. You know, where where's all the industrial if that's such demand? I mean uh w we're we're really involved in the Ridge Road development uh personally and and business and I don't see any demand for industrial use in that corridor. I don't I haven't gotten one question before. Not one c not one phone call. It's all retail.

1:27:38Can I put my two cents in?

1:27:42Ridge Road is a major road, correct? And I guess to the I guess north, south I guess to the east would be Little Road. You already have a, as you said, a uh commercial business now you called it uh what was it? Home Deepo, thank you. Um

1:28:06I can't see why those two lots could not be commercial. In fact, if anything else, in my opinion, that's what you would want there. They're on a major road. light industry in my opinion is back off of a road in a complex area where you can have parking for workers and things and folks like that. To me this In my opinion, I can see it as commercial property.

1:28:33Terry, I'm trying to think if there's another potential compromise here between staff and the applicant. Is there

1:28:43Would staff consider if it was gonna if it went to P D instead, this whole thing went to P D, so that you can ensure the remainder of the site stayed industrial and it was only these two lots that went to retail. Through some negotiated form of what could go there. Would that be less objectionable to staff?

1:29:11One moment, please.

1:29:22No,

1:29:22I

1:29:22think

1:29:22it's something that's a cute.

1:29:26Uh David, are are you referring to making the industrial park P D or just the two parcels?

1:29:32I'm saying you make the whole thing P D.

1:29:34Okay.

1:29:35He doesn't own all the property. But staff can ch the board can change land use whether over whether the owners agree to or not. I mean the board can Staff can initiate a P D if they wanted to to make the whole thing P D And they could allow retail only on these two lots. The only reason I say that might be a compromise is because then it ensures that the integrity of the remaining industrial on

1:30:05the site.

1:30:08But still allowing retail on these two parcels.

1:30:17Right. So I'm only

1:30:19throwing it out. I mean if you don't you can't you need time to think about it, I just think about it about it.

1:30:23I I think we would need to think about it, but I think the the offer had been made in twenty eighteen to do something similar. But it w the uh I think it was declined at that time because it would take too long to accomplish sub area policies, etcetera. To answer the the question um that you had earlier, David, in terms of You know, what percentage is Home Depot as compared to the rest of the the IL area? So the the IL district, well It's partially showing on the overhead here. It's a little

1:30:54it's a little bigger than what you see on the overhead. It's about a hundred and fifteen acres, the entire polygon. And uh Home Depot, depending on the measurement, whether it's five whether you measure just let me see if this actually works. Does this work?

1:31:12Okay. Okay, it uh who's controlling the mouse?

1:31:17I don't know, I was controlling the mouse. Um

1:31:23Right. So the Home Depot site is basically that diagonal line uh that you see right there. Right. That diagonal line east to the orange or to the red. Um ROR area. That amounts to about five point nine acres. That's about a five that's five percent of the hundred and fifteen acres. So you would uh Basically, understand that at that point there's about ten percent

1:31:54remaining for support commercial. By another estimate, if you take the Uh you know, all the way straight down to the right angle, the areas behind Home Depot basically. If you include that, um that becomes about nine point two acres I believe ish. And uh it increases the percentage slightly to about eight percent, which would mean that about seven percent race. So there is some support commercial.

1:32:23I don't think the applicant wants to be limited to support commercial because they don't know what that is. Right. So the reason I suggested maybe P D would work is because then it doesn't matter how much Home Depot takes off because the P D is its own district. Correct. You don't have to worry about whether Home Depot consumed any of it. Right. It also allows you to ensure that these two changes to retail for these parcels don't set a precedent so that the whole rest of the industrial part doesn't become commercial too

1:32:53because you've You're through through the P D you've ensured that that's the only retail. Just those two lots. And that and then you can ensure that the rest of it doesn't get an additional fifteen percent. You know, you you you actually to a certain extent are preserving your you're pres potentially preserving more of the industrial land because you're guaranteeing that it's only those two parcels that would become

1:33:16right.

1:33:16Whereas right now up to fifteen percent of it comes Yeah. I could make an argument you're preserving more industrial through a PD that says those are the only two you get.

1:33:27Right. And and I believe that's what staff had previously requested, but that request didn't go anywhere.

1:33:34Well I guess I'll ask the applicant. If assuming staff were to initiate something like that, what is your objection?

1:33:40Mm-hmm.

1:33:41Because it gets you retail and it wouldn't be limited to support retail, it could be general retail.

1:33:46Well, y you know, David, I think the question is how complicated do we make this? You know, the rest of the

1:33:53I'm trying to come breakoncile. I I understand that. There's two policies that the board has adopted here and I'm trying to figure out a way to get you retail that's consistent with these two policies. I haven't heard any argument And with all due respect to Houston, you came here and I'm not saying you had time to look at it, but Somebody has to explain how Trinity needs to Retail is consistent with these two policies. And I think there's a way to get there through features. 1.4.4 or 1.8.10.

1:34:20We tried that a number of years ago in this project, and after two years, three years I guess it was of finally getting uh site plan and plat approval, and those were discussions that were had with what those particular uses, those support uses would be. But the point is that the rest of it has all been sold off as industrial sites. We've got thirty lots in there. These are the two that we're asking for.

1:34:51Steve you have no way of controlling that. If they came in I'm just being honest with you, you can't need restricting now because you don't own some of them. Right?

1:34:58That's correct.

1:34:59So if somebody came in for a McDonalds on one of those lots I don't think staff could stop it as long as it was under the fifteen percent.

1:35:07Well uh if you think that there's gonna be a commercial venture like that inside the middle of an industrial. I'm not suggesting it be inside. I'm

1:35:15saying right behind the two that you're converting to retail. There could be easily be something

1:35:19next to

1:35:20or right behind with the

1:35:21There's the ninety-foot uh major transmission line right through the middle of all that also. I mean it just the likelihood of anything like that, David It it's just I think we're jumping through hoops that really shouldn't be necessary. And the other before I forget it, I wanna I wanna comment on one of the things that uh Mr. Gerardi said there. You know, talk about employment issues. if these are commercial under what is allowed in the industrial that we

1:35:51could put in there if we could ever find a buyer to do it. Is that gonna have some type of a major impact? on on the uh economics of that project, it's not gonna have a darn thing to do with it. It just those numbers are skewed based upon large projects that would have generally speaking. This is this is very unique In the sense that we're talking such about such a small percentage, and we're talking

1:36:22about it being surrounded by commercial. on Ridge Road. I mean, it just uh when you boil it all down and you look at it like that, I don't see that there's any logical answer other than that.

1:36:34Explain to me what the problem is with the P D suggestion. I'm sorry? What is the concern with the P D suggestion? It still gets you general retail. I'm not just saying support retail, I'm saying you get general retail on those two parcels under a P D.

1:36:49applying for it for the Just those two parcels?

1:36:54No, I'm saying a P D that covers The whole park.

1:36:58Well you're gonna have to the county's gonna have to initiate that because we've already sold um the vast majority of

1:37:05the

1:37:05right-of-way.

1:37:05That's why I asked Terry the question if that's something that could be done. I don't know if he's willing to initiate it or not. I mean I guess we'll ask Terry. What if the other property owners yet? Well but it's going to be industrial now. I mean it's not changing. They're still just ensuring they stay industrial is what it's doing. Steve was saying they intend to stay industrial, so I don't know why they would.

1:37:24What I could see

1:37:24though,

1:37:25I could foresee is okay, well the applicant wants this commercial allocated to him and then one of them coming in and going, Well, why don't you allocate some to me 'cause I'm having a problem developing my lot too. But

1:37:37that's exactly staff's concern, is that they want to make sure that if they provide retail on these sites, the rest of the park doesn't become retail.

1:37:47The rest of the park. I I don't know how the IL land.

1:37:51Well if he if he changes the land use to com that only affects those two sites that has no impact on the remain the develop remainder of the development.

1:38:01It does because they get their own fifteen percent retail.

1:38:07I I don't understand that logic, David. If if you're saying that the fifteen percent would apply to what's left, then how come we're aggregating over there with that that that is industrial that's in the uh uh zone uh Home Depot? Well Terry said that would be five percent of the thing. Well so then if that's the case then we should come in for fifteen. percent commercial of everything around there that touches it that is uh industrial. That just

1:38:37that just doesn't fly.

1:38:38You could today get 15% support commercial. That's where we started this conversation.

1:38:43With everything that Home Depot has there that's IL and frankly that's something I would want to research.

1:38:49That's five percent of the lane.

1:38:51I don't know how they get C2 on a on an industrial lot then whenever they did it. I mean we'd have to go back through the records to find that.

1:39:01They may have counted it toward the fifteen percent support. I know.

1:39:04May

1:39:04what? It may the staff may have counted it towards the fifteen percent. I don't know.

1:39:08Well the whole thing that that shopping center was all under common ownership And it was sold off in parcels, you know, there's multiple restaurants in there.

1:39:18Steve staff uh that also the PD cures that problem because you don't have to include the Home Depot in in the P D. You could just the P D could say, those two sites are retail, the rest of it's industrial.

1:39:34You can just ignore the Home Depot problem. You

1:39:37don't have to include a Home Depot in it. Yep. I appreciate that, but I'm trying to understand the concept of of doing a lot. of ad making us add in the Home Depot as far as the fifteen percent that you're concerned about then and not dealing with it just on our parcel. I I just didn't I don't understand that. Because

1:40:05staff is saying that they when they look at the fifteen percent they're looking at the whole district, not just one parcel. Be I don't think you'd want them to look at one parcel because that means your little parcels would have to be eighty five percent industrial and fifteen percent retail, which is I don't think what you want. Certainly not. It doesn't make any sense. So it actually does make logical sense that they're looking at the whole district. But Terry's saying that even if you include the Home Depot, that's only five percent of the land.

1:40:34Well, I wonder how much of that was I L when when that uh was zone C too? Was it just that piece? I don't know. You know there's there's uh been a history I don't know,

1:40:43but I'm but I'm I still haven't heard why the P D is objectionable to you. Why what? Why the P D is objectionable to you if it gets you the retail uses that you want.

1:40:56If that well let me ask you this question. What's the physical process of go into P D if they wanted to do that, they have to go back through the whole thing again. I mean I think that's what they don't want to do.

1:41:10Well, I mean, I guess I can hear from Terry whether staff is willing to initiate something like that.

1:41:17So who would ini you're saying that potentially staff would initiate it? Well I don't I'd have to see if Terry's willing to do that. I don't know. Okay, but let's assume that he is. I got it. twenty-six or so other landowners. that I've got to convince them that this thing that the county's doing to them will be uh in their best interest. Yeah. I'll be back here in five more years trying to get this stuff. He would give them

1:41:41the same uses they have under I one, I L and I one, other than the retail.

1:41:49I I think that that's hoop that we shouldn't be made to jump through. I think we we think

1:41:54Steve, I don't know how I could possibly defend this this proposal as being consistent with these two policies. If you've got a written explanation about why it is Then I think you need to produce that.

1:42:05Well I couldn't I couldn't do it in ten minutes, David.

1:42:07Right, but I'm saying then maybe we need to continue this so you can provide that explanation. But I have concern the

1:42:13problem is is it's the there's a presumption in the policy that because a job is in an IL land use that it pays higher than something that's in a comm land use. And I don't think that's a correct presumption. I haven't seen any shred of evidence presented here today to back that up. I'm sorry Mr. Engel's not here to answer the questions, but all I have in my file is an email. And again, I go to the DEO website, I look at the 15 top employers in this county, and not one of them is industrial. I'd

1:42:45like

1:42:45to ask

1:42:46you

1:42:46if you don't like but they're not there. Mr.

1:42:47Moody, if you don't like the way the policy is written, then you would ask the board to take the policy out

1:42:53of

1:42:53the complan. But it is there. You can't ignore it. You can't ignore the comp plan. That's not what this L body does. So Either somebody's gonna have to produce an argument that this change is consistent with these two policies

1:43:06Or we vote

1:43:07on it. Or With all due respect, Mr Booth, I'm not gonna let them vote on something that's inconsistent with a complaint. That's not that's that's uh that's against state law. If you've got an argument that's consistent with these policies and they agree with you, fine. But you have you have not produced anything that says it's consistent with these two policies. I understand you didn't have time to do it. I'm not blaming you. Okay, but somebody has to produce an argument that's consistent with these two policies. Or we look at PDE which I don't think would have

1:43:37this problem.

1:43:39I don't think Terry answered your question about whether it would he would initiate it. Well Terry

1:43:45you wanna address that comment question?

1:43:49How is it violating eight one point eight point two? How does this proposal violate 1.8.10? It says they need to ensure that adequate land and transportation capacity is available for present and future high-paying employment generating land uses such as office, industrial, and employment center uses. Okay. As staff, we know there's transportation capacity because there's a TNA statement in here that. Says there's that says

1:44:19there's adequate facilities with or without the flu amendment. So that's been shown. And what hasn't been shown is that if we take this land off the I. L roll, that we now we don't have adequate or sufficient amounts of I. L land. Well, who determines what that is?

1:44:38So there have been the board has commissioned studies through the Tampa Regional Planning Council that does show we have a shortage of IL Land in the County. Now, I don't know if this one's properly situated or not, but there are general analysis that's been done by the Tampa Regional Planning Council that says we have a shortage of IL Land. So whether this is the right location or not is a different question. But I'm not saying it's impossible to demonstrate consistency with these two policies. I'm saying I don't think you have the evidence before

1:45:08you today to do that. So if you're inclined to approve this, I think this needs to be continued so that somebody can develop an argument and data, and Mr. Booth is perfectly capable of doing it, he just didn't have time to do it. He's I'm not blaming him. He only had ten minutes to look at this. If you didn't have time to come up with an argument about why this project is consistent with these two policies then you should continue it and let him come up with that argument. But I don't think you can just ignore the comp plan. Corsair, I disagree with the common point. There might be an

1:45:38argument. I'm not saying there isn't. I just haven't seen it. All I've seen is

1:45:42not saying I haven't heard from staff that there's not adequate IL and I don't care what the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council says. They're not here to prevent present evidence either. And they're the same T V R P C that just spent I don't know how many ch d how many tax dollars on creating a animation of turning the Gulfview Square Mall into Arlington, Virginia.

1:46:01Okay. Mr. Pitos, in your opinion Is there adequate land for employment journey land uses, Office Industrial Employment Center uses, and Pasco County

1:46:12No. I would also argue that the harbor's less market area is very short on employment centers. So this would be another that would be another reason why

1:46:24Mr. Petos. What's the unemployment rate in this county? It's uh I think shy of four percent. It's three percent. What's the national unemployment rate? Higher than Pasco County. It's three point five percent. So I don't think we got a shortage of jobs.

1:46:46Yeah, those are the things that I'm Well, I I I think the the county policy is not necessarily uh simply on the quantity of jobs, but also on the types of jobs, skilled labor and that sort to bring into the county.

1:46:57Can you bring me a cab technician? 'Cause I can't find any.

1:47:01I can't find planning

1:47:02zoning text.

1:47:06Well to be clear the policy talks about present and future. So The Mr. Pitos's point. The county's not just looking at what the current job market is, you're looking at the future as well. So Again. There may be an argument that this change is consistent with these two policies, but I think you need to give Mr Booth some time to prepare that argument. I I don't

1:47:34Standing up here and cross-examining Mr. Petos, I don't think is sufficient to vote the respect.

1:47:39Mr. Chairman Mariano.

1:47:51It i you know there are articles that w that uh are being presented by people who either aren't here don't have any backup support data, you know, uh what is what is a support commercial? I mean that's what does that mean? Um the person that was up here making the presentation said that a fast food wouldn't wouldn't comply with the support So you're telling me if you have a bunch of workers back here working in the

1:48:22industrial, they won't want to go out and get uh a Chick-fil-A sandwich or lunch? I mean that uh to me that's just not thought not well thought through.

1:48:31The the I One zoning district doesn't allow drive through facilities. So it restaurants could be allowed in the IL future land use, but it's the I One zoning district that prevents Yeah, but we're talking about making these commercial. Right, but the I one zoning district allows restaurants except for those that have trified. No,

1:48:51that'd be the C three district says that. That doesn't say that in the I one district.

1:48:57Well the the C

1:48:57three builds in the right here.

1:48:59The C three builds into I1, so it's it's a

1:49:01No it says I one includes any use in C three. And it says C three that drive-thrus aren't allowed, but it doesn't say that for I L. These are zoned I L.

1:49:12Regardless, I suspect that staff would I suspect they would find that a restaurant is a support commercial use. That a restaurant is a support retail use.

1:49:25I don't think that I don't think I suspect if if somebody if they were if a re if a restaurant came in there and wanted to use it, I suspect staff would find it was a support of retail use. Because it's allowed in specifically allowed in I WAN.

1:49:41Uh I mean from from what I've heard today and maybe this is out of order, but I I I tend to not agree with staff for denial. So I don't know th I mean we can sit here and talk about this for an hour, but it sounds like it has to be continued so we can develop some kind of

1:49:56One point four point four and one point eight point ten. Right?

1:49:59Right. I agree.

1:50:03That's all I'm asking you to do. Don't make a decision that's inconsistent with compliment unless you have some analysis to support it.

1:50:13Steve are is are you guys Exce is a continuous acceptable?

1:50:20Like to the Newport Ritchie meeting?

1:50:22Yeah, to the next meeting. As

1:50:41We would prefer that it not be continued and I would like to make one comment is that when I read staff's objections now It appears to me that those are staff conclusions. I don't think there's evidence to back those conclusions up. And I think accordingly this board can say we disagree with staff and we find it is for their lack of uh uh statement as to what the problems are,

1:51:11I would say. And then you could go

1:51:13further. I totally disagree with Mr. Booth. I think you have to at a minimum explain why you feel it is consistent

1:51:18with those policies. Yeah.

1:51:19Okay,

1:51:20David, if you got if I could have a few more minutes, I'll just try and go through why I think that it is and Um as to the objection under uh the commercial development And I don't know the exact definition. It's been many years since I've been involved in this stuff for obvious reasons. It says this site has not been identified as a conflicting zoning, which I would agree with, nor does it meet the criteria for infill determination. You know, you look around the commercial, it clearly

1:51:50is what I would think would fill in a long ridge road there like you were suggesting. um the neighborhood commercial uses. um generates less employment, that's the same argument that there isn't any documentation that Establishes that as to the uh conversion of important employment locations, quite frankly that's absurd when you recognize that all the rest of it is in fact industrial

1:52:20and it's going to be used that way. The lots are conducive to that. The whole thing was built for a r an industrial subdivision and to suggest that that the two lots there, if they had something, a different commercial use than what we could put on there now, would change that dynamic. I just totally think that that's a falsehood. Um

1:52:49Will contribute more to the county in revenue than it will consume in services. If that was the whole project, I agree with their argument. But as to those two lots, it is.

1:52:58I already asked staff to draw up that one. So you don't need to point your point so

1:53:03um and preservation of capacity for employment generating uses. Again, if it was the whole thing, I agree. But those two lots, which could be some form limited, Limited to support commercial is not going to change those dynamics in any way, shape, or form. And I think that our argument is valid such that you can move forward with this um request. And we

1:53:34would not wanna continue and trust me, we've had so many issues getting to the finish line, it's been difficult.

1:53:43Alright.

1:53:47So I think that's a good thing.

1:53:50I think to find it consistent with one point w four point four, you're gonna have to make a determination that these two partials are not appropriate and compatible locations for

1:54:04I east per I basically for I L And then you'd also have to find it consistent with 1.8.10. You'd have to make a finding that there is adequate land available for present and hot future high pain and cleaning rain.

1:54:22Based on whatever your personal knowledge is of those two patients.

1:54:28So one point four point four I think to find it consistent with that you're all gonna have to make a finding that This site is not an appropriate and compatible location. for employment generating land uses such as IHILEC.

1:54:48Is that LOTS two and three? Is that what you're saying? Because

1:54:51because one point four point four talks about converting involved the conversion of EC, IH, and I L to a different use. That's what's occurring here. So the only way I think you can get out of that is if you find that this is not a high priority location or not an appropriate and compatible location for those types of uses.

1:55:15Why is it? Hasn't the um

1:55:17in one point four point ten you said? I'm talking about that was for that was a one point four point four.

1:55:22Hasn't there inability to to find a a user in that category I mean proven that that that it's it's not a location of high probability and high need.

1:55:35Yeah, and I think it's David saying that it's

1:55:38up to you to say whether it's appropriate and compatible, but you're gonna have to determine that it's not appropriate and compatible. For E C I mean the way I read one point four point four You can't convert. Okay, it's pretty pretty strict prohibition on converting those land uses. The only way I can see you can get out of it is if you say it's not a high priority site and it's not impropriate and compatible for those uses. 'Cause it talks about recognizing the high priority and retaining employment general land uses in appropriate and

1:56:08compatible locations. If it's not an appropriate and compatible location for E C I H I L then I you could argue that one point four point four doesn't apply. Mm-hmm. And then as far as one point eight point ten goes, I think you're gonna have to argue that There's already adequate land and capacit well transportation probably isn't an issue, but there's adequate there's already adequate land for present and future high paying employment generating land uses in this area.

1:56:41If you feel like comfortable making those findings, I think you probab well I don't know how much facts you have to support, but if you think you have those facts based on your personal knowledge of the area then presumably you could find it consistent with those two policies.

1:56:59All right.

1:57:01Anybody wanna make that motion?

1:57:04Let me see if I can get some correct wording here.

1:57:07Just a minute, one one second, Peter. So he moved the motion. Do we have a second?

1:57:12What's the

1:57:13motion?

1:57:14Uh what day we

1:57:15should

1:57:16find

1:57:17Wait I think your motion is to approve the land use change.

1:57:20The motion the motion is to approve the land use change and we are finding that This is not appropriate and compatible. These these two s the two sites we're talking about, not the entire industrial park, we're talking about the two basically out parcels to this thing that Front Bridge Road. That those are not appropriate and compatible. Locations for industrial uses. Yes, for industrial uses.

1:57:51And I think Jamie's argument and the applicant's argument that they've not been able to find the users. And like I said, I myself have done multiple layouts in this place. I know who's been looking at this place.

1:58:04And then one point eight boy ten.

1:58:08But

1:58:09there's And I that there still is sufficient land. We're talking if we look at I don't know what the total amount maybe Mr. Pitos can answer that, what's the total amount of I L zoned land and land use land in this county, but what percentage of it is those two little parcels? I think there's probably more than adequate space left if this goes away.

1:58:33Needs two and three to become commercial based on your verbiage. And I have you had a second yet? Not yet. I'll second that. Thank you.

1:58:42Okay. So did you do the last one, the one point eight point ten?

1:58:45Yes. Okay. Well I think what he said you stopped yourself to attack Mr. Petos, but I think I think what you were trying to say was that you believe there is adequate land available in this area for present and future high paying employment generated land uses.

1:59:05even if we only look at the remainder of this particular development.

1:59:12Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second.

1:59:15By the way, Mr Booth, that was the analysis I was looking for. So with all due respect. And you realize you didn't have time to do it. Okay, but

1:59:24I'm good and old Dave, I don't think I have my feet as well.

1:59:27I'm saying I'm doing your job for you up here. Give me a little help, but but anyway, go the motion's been made.

1:59:36I'll sign Mr.

1:59:37Booth a bill later.

1:59:40Be

1:59:40serious.

1:59:42And I'll call the motion as soon as I make one remark. Ridge Row is a uh an ex an important artery in that community and I can see and I as I said it before, commercial property, alone artery there is important. So I call the motion.

2:00:01All right. So all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion carries.

2:00:09So we have to make a motion on the county's request to the easement.

2:00:11And Mr. Pitos, the attack is not personal.

2:00:19to make a motion on there to deny this request or

2:00:22you made a motion to approve the language chamber? You don't need to you don't need to rub it in.

2:00:35What kind of man?