PC ten cultural and historic resources code amendments

1:39:22And now Doreen Roy will be uh presenting item PC ten.

1:39:33Good afternoon, Commissioner Doreen Roy, Planning and Economic Growth. Item P C ten.

1:39:56Proposed amendments were previewed. by the horizontal round table. Interested parties on April eleventh and were presented to the horizontal roundtable interested parties meeting on June nineteenth, twenty twenty four.

1:40:15Um This is a table uh for the reasons in the chapter. I'm going to For time I think I'm just going to skip through the table, you have that in your packet. But I will cover a couple of the items in the red line. Chapter four hundred, Permit Types and Applications, Section four oh two, four oh two, point two C four

1:40:46D Uh these codes particularly pertain to um submittal requirements. for cultural and historic resources.

1:41:00Item D, a phase one cultural resource assessment, including the following project scope. archival research and identification of sites adjacent to the subject property. identification of research design and description of field methodology, field work, and analysis of the findings and conclusions. We are adding the survey shall be no older than 10 years and shall be consistent

1:41:31with current CRAS phase one criteria or be recertified by a consultant. All recommendations made by the consultant shall be implemented by the applicant. This is mainly to make sure and ensure that county and state criteria are met.

1:41:54So quick quick question, Doreen.

1:41:57Yes.

1:41:58Is the C RAS phase if I'm understanding this right, the C RAS phase one criteria is the sentence above The underlined sentence. Or is there more specific criteria? I don't have too much

1:42:18They're they're very minor. You're looking at the red line is what has been added?

1:42:28It says it either has to be less no older than ten years old, and be consistent with the criteria or be recertified by a consultant. I'm trying to understand The the difference between meeting the criteria and being recertified by a consultant.

1:42:47Some of the some of the CRASS reports are very old. We have several DRIs that are very old in the county uh with MPUDs. Some of these CRASS reports are very old. They are eighteen, some of them twenty-two. Uh even Euclidean zoning, we've had projects come in where the CRAS report was quite old. So we just want to ensure that the criteria also meets

1:43:18the state criteria because now We for instance we had a project come in for workforce housing recently this year. The CRASS report they were submitting was twenty two years old. So therefore the when you're trying to meet the state criteria, the state is going to Because the property

1:43:49was workforce housing, they received state funding. They are going to require the state to comment. So the SHIPO office will comment.

1:43:59Mr. Moody, if it's if it's okay, can I add uh to what my colleague is in um answering? So there is a section in the land development code which is section 809 cultural resources. So basic So basically that section provides direction as to what um cultural resources are required. So basically, it's cultural resource management standards and facilities management published by the Division of Historic Research. resources and conform to Rule 1A-46 or Rule 9J uh two point zero four three

1:44:29Florida Administrative Code. So the standards are within those rules.

1:44:33Is there

1:44:34Go ahead. Which Terry clearly won't say something.

1:44:42Oh, okay.

1:44:45All right. Um

1:44:46You can't read his sign language, you know.

1:44:50No, I didn't take that in school. Um so do you want me to continue or okay all right so just minor m edits and as you can see the red line, we are replacing the word identify in several of the code. There are particularly seven that um state this to identify any registered or recorded cultural resources on the site. So that's part of the submittal requirements. We want to change that because

1:45:21archaeological sites do not follow these sunshine laws because because of looting. So we don't want to identify, identify, kind of indicate sh locate it, you know, show the location. So we just want them to list.

1:45:43So you have several other codes here in four oh three.

1:45:49It's basically the same thing.

1:45:55Mining operating permits, construction and demolition debris, disposal facilities, Operating permit. and yard trash processing facilities.

1:46:10Then in Chapter eight hundred under natural and cultural resources protection the uh eight oh nine point two generally we are removing that reference to a website that is low no longer active. Uh 8094 standards for surveys and analysis. Again, the same language. We're adding the time limitation for the CRAS. eight oh nine point eight historic cemeteries,

1:46:40specific requirements Uh we are changing the language to read where ambiguous the cemetery boundary shall be identified by qualified archaeologists. The new boundaries shall be marked and any buffer re recommendations shall be shown on the submittals. We've recently had three projects come in. uh that include a historic

1:47:10cemetery or are adjacent to a historic cemetery. So We are relying on the experts' recommendations for those uh rec recommendations and requirements of buffering.

1:47:28Find the proposed ordinance amendment consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Uh the hearings will be for the first reading in August, August sixth, and August twenty first for the adoption. If there are any questions?

1:47:56Kind of the context and the need for the the change in the code. So you've had some projects come in that were either included or near S cemeteries and then you mentioned a workforce housing project that The C RAS was twenty years old was

1:48:17of the belief that there were some new or undiscovered cultural resources there that

1:48:23No. The uh we are making sure and ensuring that the state criteria is met. along with county. So the state criteria А де налик фор Uh the CRAST report being they look at the methodology that is used. So the state uses a different methodology and with their module three uh standards.

1:48:54So if it isn't to that standard, especially when it comes to a project that receives state funding. They look at it very closely. They review uh whether it has uh especially something that is over ten years old. They look at the CRASS report very carefully.

1:49:21Text and four hood. Yeah, the ten years.

1:49:27Or did you want to mention it? Go ahead.

1:49:33I'm just trying to understand the context. There's It's just isn't something I thought was like high on the Priority list of things to address. I'm curious what's what's precipitated the need to change the code. That's all.

1:49:50Essen Nektaros Pito's Planning and Economic Growth. Essentially the change for the C RAS reports. is to pursue the most recent methodology used by the state. Um we can we can make an adjustment to the text to clarify that we use the most recent methodology by the state. That way we don't have to deal with a ten year increment issue. Um but that's it that's effectively what the this text amendment is pursuing.

1:50:20Just just to get it consistent.

1:50:24J I mean just a question. If if you have a site and and you have educate me. If you have a site and you have a a letter, a clearance letter from the from a SHIPO letter. That that shippo letter expires?

1:50:38That clearance letter from the state office re expires.

1:50:42Yeah, they they don't longer give those letters out anymore. They stop doing that.

1:50:48The the reason I'm asking a question is I and I I know this affects a a lot of a lot of properties in the county where you have and I know I I asked this question and I I did get a response and it was a response that came back something the effect of if there's structures and now that all of a sudden they're over fifty years old or something but Th there's a lot of big projects in the county that Historic pr pasture land. There there are no structures, there's nothing there. These projects have been entitled. These projects have had these cultural resource surveys done on the

1:51:18entire property. The property's been split up, now it's being sold off, be it fifteen, twenty years later. Nothing is different on this property. Yet they're required to spend not only the dollars, but waste the time that it takes to go back out and redo these studies to look for historic artifacts. that i in my n to my knowledge didn't show up in the last fifteen or twenty years. So that's why I'm I'm just trying to understand why we're going back and and revisiting this and adding this provision back in the code.

1:51:48I think he asked the question better than I did.

1:51:55That's correct. Yes. Yeah.

1:52:02That's that's the whole thing. We want to make sure that we are keeping in line with the state criteria. Well let me because we we don't know when they just call it the case. Change their criteria. They they don't put a uh uh a time stipulation if you will on on the crass reports. They just look at how the methodology was done in the crass report. And if that original crass report was done back in two thousand three, I guarantee you it doesn't it doesn't hold water today.

1:52:32Okay, so just let me ask but what's the effect locally. So If they're gonna do development they end up having to go get a permit from the water management district. And if the water management district thinks there's cultural resources, they're gonna refer it. Two the state, so Is this a duplication of effort that maybe isn't necessary?

1:53:01Not necessarily.

1:53:09So getting back to what Mr. Girardi was saying, is that I mean they're looking for also, they don't just of course there's no not going to be any more artifacts or like Mr. Girardi mentioned, uh the indigenous peoples, of course, you know, they they already found it if it's already located, and there's usually the master site file in f in the state office. Right. We know where we already know it was it existed. It. However,

1:53:40in the local area, they're also looking at the structures that are now coming into their historic fifty year or older. So they include that into that area.

1:53:56Another state agency is going to deal with this. What's the necessity that we need to do it at the county level? And I'm not saying there isn't a necessity, but can you point out to me what is the county's necessity to do this?

1:54:15It has to align with the state. That's that that would be my answer.

1:54:19Right.

1:54:22Can we save the taxpayers a couple of dollars? If the state taxes sta state agencies are taking care of these issues with state tax dollars, why do we need to do it here at the county level with county dollars?

1:54:39Yeah, it is. Yeah. Then you have to know the L D C

1:54:42I I think the in the intent for the county is uh it firstly it's a compliance matter and it's an ability to track and and uh stand up a historic preservation activity within the county. So I think the way that the proposed language um is written we could probably adjust it so that there isn't additional work that needs to happen but that simply that the C RAS be re confirmed that it's up to date with current state methodology and then we can

1:55:13uh ensure compliance is met.

1:55:19It seems like it's it's it's not intended to recreate a whole process for the for the applicants or for any applicant to come in and have them redo the

1:55:30old reports are in compliance with the new methodology.

1:55:33Yeah.

1:55:34Essentially. So that's that that why couldn't we write the language to say that?

1:55:42I think that's what it says. I and that's what I was trying

1:55:44to understand. But the time limit was reaching for that, but I think there's a better way to state it, which is we should use the most recent methodology I just I still don't

1:55:54I don't feel like I got a clear answer as to what is the county's interest. in this I mean like I said, ultimately when you go to the state agency for your stormwater permitting, if they believe that there is any cultural re and I had this happen recently on a project. Where I applied to Swift Mud. And one of the comments I got back is that some site file was identified and that I needed to submit to they

1:56:24actually notified the State Department of Historical Resources or whatever they're called. that that's what they found and then I was required to where my client was required to retain an archaeologist and go out and do all kinds of samples and provide that in our response back to the district and what I'm trying to find out is what is the count the states doing this Why do we need to do it again here at the local level? That's all I'm asking. What? What danger

1:56:56is there to the county by allowing the state to handle this issue rather than us locally.

1:57:04Right. I th I think that the C R S report is a state mandate. So it's it's ultimately going back to the state, but I also think that the cultural resources are local and so the local jurisdiction ought to be aware and understand what it has um present within the community. uh right now we don't have uh other other than simply Checking for compliance and ensuring that the state methodology is in order, that they've

1:57:34done everything according accordingly. There's there isn't a direct program, but there can be a program in the future if all of our C RAS has been documented locally and we understand the com uh and we understand it all to have a complete program. We don't have have such a program just

1:57:51yet. So then why burden if we don't have a program, why burden an applicant? With that.

1:58:00I mean Terry, I g I guess the point here is is uh we I I know, I think John knows and and and you and your staff all know you everybody's plenty busy w and we seem like we're creating work.

1:58:18Oh uh it's not we're just not creating work for staff. We're also creating cost for the citizens. That doesn't need to h doesn't need to happen.

1:58:32There's been we've had two cases today with dealing with affordability of housing. and I listened to the board's workshop. on housing affordability. And you know what I was shocked? not to hear when I listen to all of those discussions. No one's ever asked why is housing not affordable? No one's ever asked that question or attempted to ask that, answer that question. And here's an opportunity to reduce the cost.

1:59:05Uh you know, the cost that goes into a development. There's already a state process to deal with this. Why duplicate that and add to the cost? We want to solve our affordable housing problem. Let's let's start looking at the costs. of the housing. You know, and every time we pass another regulation There's another cost. And that's why in October Starting in October, then if you want to pass a regulation, you're going to have to provide an analysis

1:59:36of this cost. The state recognizes this too. Maybe this is a good place for us to start.

1:59:42Well Mr. Chairman Mariano

1:59:47the C RAS is a valuable resource when we're looking at the development of a site. to understand the cultural activity that's present on the site and how we might address development as it is proposed. Right? There there's been a number of projects in recent memory at least where the C RAS report played a a central role in understanding how development should proceed on a particular site.

2:00:14Okay,

2:00:14so

2:00:15that's that goes to the nature of my original question. Give me No one's been able to tell me how does that affect us locally. You're saying that that may be the case. What is that?

2:00:25Right. So the the C R S report based on the data that's in there is going to indicate to us perhaps certain conditions of approval that we may want to impose on a project. But that's also part of the database building that I mentioned earlier.

2:00:41You said there were l recent projects and that That the C R S played an important role. What was what did you find? What was the role? What did this do?

2:00:55I mean it's do you have a case study?

2:01:00so typically projects that are near to or at old cemeteries. Um there was uh the project that was proposed for a while at Anklo River Park. Um that report uh was used uh in the understanding of how things could fit on that site. Um

2:01:23Activity that typically a C RAS report will help with identifying. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

2:01:27Terry, I I think everybody understands the value of a C RAS report, but I mean what what's changed in the last ten years that would make a a study ten years ago not as well as a study that was up there.

2:01:43Yeah.

2:01:46This isn't

2:01:46new. That's what I'm saying, that the ten years that the proposed language is uh suggesting we should remove that reference and simply say that if the C RAS meets all the criteria that the state requires All the all that you would need to do is have your the consultant or whoever validate and say yes this meets all the

2:02:12So that means for every project no matter what I gotta go to an archaeologist and get him to certify my report that was just completed six months ago? Yeah, that's my question. That that is the that's going the other direction.

2:02:25What I'm trying to get to is the point where someone says that this is a uh fully updated CRAS that meets the current state standard. If somebody s validates that, well then it's fine. If it's val it's been validated once and then you bring it back, well this was validated in 2022. That's good

2:02:46But what I'm hearing is if Vod If I buy a school site and I bank it, Well I get a crash when I By the school site. And now I build the school twelve years later. I've got to get a consultant. To re basically redo that CRSS or confirm that it I have to pay a consultant to confirm that the CRSS is okay.

2:03:07Well not not necessarily.

2:03:17But how

2:03:18but how is not necessarily the answer to that question? Because that's what this says unless you're proposing. Modified language.

2:03:24Well that's right we're gonna we're Okay, so you We're open to the modified language, yes.

2:03:28But who's confirming that? Because it sounds like I have to pay a consultant to confirm that.

2:03:34Well that's my question. Are you confirming that or is that

2:03:38my idea? Barbara Will Hight, [address removed]. I've enjoyed my afternoon here. I have nothing on the agenda. It's been lovely.

2:03:46And yet you're still here.

2:03:48So I want to just kind of say my piece on this and maybe I can leave. So we came we came across this in one of my CRS's I've been a couple years I think. And so I learned a few things during that and I learned that the standards changed in 2010. And so the methodology to make sure that you're catching all the cultural resources changed. So I think the concern there is to make sure these are important things. The cultural resources, our cultural resources are important. So to make sure that the the updated methodology was used to check, to

2:04:18make sure that we catch all these things. So I don't have any problem with that. But I do have a problem with ten years because it's just arbitrary and it's rolling. So we always gotta go back if it changed in twenty ten, let's find the date it changed and say, ecause we need to make sure they can implement it, after that date in twenty ten, You're gonna have to if you're before that date, you have to come in and recertify, which is just you can and they already changed it and so it didn't have to be the original professional, it can be any consultant because professionals retire and die

2:04:48and all those things. So it's any consultant and you're what you do is if you're before that date You just have to recertify it. So th so it seems like if you if you have a date certain that we can apply and we so we and we know that okay it's important that those get recertified or redone, I think you could catch it. Now staff doesn't want to keep track of when the if the standards change again. That's on them. So that's why they put the date in there so that they it can roll and they don't have to keep up with whether there's changes at the state level. But I think the date and then if they want to update their ordinance again, if the standards change again, they

2:05:19can change the date or whatever. So that's a my practical approach to kind of balance here between the two. Their desire and need to have it to know about these important resources from a land use perspective, but also trying to make it not so onerous on us applicants. And I don't think we'll see a lot of situations where you know our C R S C RAS is that old, but I think if you practically do those two things, any consultant can recertify and you put a date certain in your ordinance, I think you'll have a balance.

2:05:44Well I think that's what Terry was trying to get around with the whole date certain thing. It's just saying the most recent.

2:05:50Yeah, but then it but we don't know what it's not implement you can't implement that.

2:05:53It hasn't changed since two thousand and ten. Is that a true statement?

2:05:57That's what professionals told me. I called some people and like that.

2:06:02Yeah, no, it's sounds

2:06:04like it's a pretty infrequent change. I like much better having the idea of a date. Certain in there.

2:06:09And it makes it implementable on all sides. That's my idea. Thank you.

2:06:14Thank you. Who's getting the invoice?

2:06:30Okay, like can I hear some motion here?

2:06:34So one way or the other, how is it? Well I was just gonna so is that I mean I like Barbara's idea. Is that feasible with you all and That's what I was trying to describe, but yes. Okay.

2:06:45All right. Okay. Perfect.

2:06:46Okay. Thank

2:06:47you. J just different words. W one last

2:06:50question, just out of curiosity, these ones that involved cemeteries, I mean, was somebody proposing to develop over a cemetery or I think they made a movie about that.

2:07:01Uh there was one project, uh we recently had two residential subdivision projects come in on larger uh part of larger MPUD projects. And uh one it particular included a cemetery with unmarked graves in the parcel itself. And it actually extends to a and out parcel that wasn't part of the CRASS report,

2:07:32but it's suspected that there may be burials on that property as well. So There were specific recommendations uh that included a one hundred and sixty four foot buffer to ensure that the and included as part of the design of that property, that residential subdivision as part of the green space, open space.

2:07:59That's good. Yeah. That's what I was trying to get to. Sure.

2:08:07Okay, let's get to it. Motion.

2:08:10So what would the proposed language be to set that date? We don't know that date though, of when the last Update was made to the crash.

2:08:20Not twenty ten.

2:08:22Well that's that's what Barbara thought, you know, based on what she had heard. But I'm sorry, say it again.

2:08:29January one

2:08:29twenty seventh.

2:08:33You find it.

2:08:57Yeah, I mean

2:09:00Thanks. Terry, I'm assuming you're looking for a date. Is that right?

2:09:24They'll get to the date pretty soon I wanna move to continue.

2:09:32Okay.

2:09:33We we we can find the exact date that's listed in the state statutes. and put that into the ordinance to get the date certain that we've been talking about. We we suspect that Barbara may be right, January one, twenty ten. But we'll we'll confirm that and then input the state statute date into the proposed ordinance language uh in time for the board meeting.

2:09:58Okay.

2:10:02So it will read something to the effect of if it's if the C RAS was completed prior to that date. And our s a consultant will have to certify that all the standards were looked at. Okay.

2:10:18Okay. Was that a motion? That's a motion.

2:10:21I'll second. The motion and second further discussion. All in favor?

2:10:27Aye. Aye. Aye.

2:10:30Okay, motion carries.

2:10:59You're doing the next area, I assume? Okay.

2:11:11Okay.