Public comment on non-agenda topics
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jul 6, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jul 6, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 15m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 84% of 93 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Um for those of you who have telephones, cell phones, this is a good time to put them on a silent position. So they want to interrupt anyone. Uh before we start the regular meeting we we want to open uh the meeting for public comment on anything that is not on listed on today's agenda. Is there anyone here to speak on public comment?
Mr. Chair, we do have um two people that are physically here and we do have someone on WebEx. The first person who is here for public comment. is Peggy St. James.
All right. Miss Saint James. You'll come up and state your name and your address, please.
I'm Margaret Saint James, nicknamed Peggy, uh [address removed] first thing I would like to say good afternoon, and I'm a little surprised that there are no women on the Planning Commission. And we do represent probably now over half of the people in the world, so I'm a little disappointed, but I'll move on from there. I'm here to make a comment about the Anclo River project. Um I took my grandson there
last summer for the first time to the park and I was pleasantly surprised by how natural the setting was. Um even had grasses on either side of the beach and he loved going and looking at the fish. People were sitting on the beach, people were sitting under the trees. It was a very natural, calm experience. I understand now there are plans to develop that park, the Encloak River Project, and I would
like to say I think it should be kept as it is because As we know, um much of our green space in Pasco County is being built upon and only will be continue to be in the future, and we're gonna run out of green space and this park might be one of the only places left. So I wondered if it's possible to get an update on the Enclote River project. I know the Stantec Cultural Resource Assessment has been released or at least
presented, and the because of the archaeological significance with Native peoples, it was felt it was best not to do the project or to do it with many conditions. I also understand that the governor recently. made a veto on the line item that was to pay for the ramp. and the uh stockage um at the park, I'm assuming that would have been
the the updated version of it. And one other comment I'd like to make um is rumor has it and I'm not saying I believe it, I'm only saying rumor has it. Tätä The change in the park is being done partly to uh support a near nearby RV park to give those people in that park uh access to the water. And if that is the truth, then I resent my taxpayer dollars
being used to support this RV park. Thank you.
All right, thank you. Is there anybody available for an update on that?
We will provide her a card for the person who is handling that item. All right. Thank you.
Excuse me, Chairman. Before we continue, um, can we swear everyone in
Yes.
If you plan to give testimony today on the items that are on the agenda, please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth of all the God?
The next person for public comment is Peggy Byrne.
Two baggies.
Good afternoon. Um regarding the Pittman Massey parcel on County Route fifty two and Happy Hill Road.
Oh I'm sorry.
That
was I apologize, Ms. Burr. Uh you asked to speak in public comment. We haven't gotten to that specific item. Oh no,
just a general general comment. Oh just general comment. And just referencing that information for them. That was referenced at the J uh June 6th meeting, parcel I think, PDD 23-0241. Did the Planning Board handle that parcel? and those changes, as they would have both before and after that, The same as any other parcel?
Was that your comment?
I I'm a I'm asking a question. No, we're not questioning. Oh you don't have
to okay. You can just make it
clear. Uh because in l the reason I'm asking that question is because in light of the fact that we had the wrong adr uh wrong address and a necessity to do a redo One of the gentlemen made a point at that meeting that the parcel number was very important and I brought a copy of that ad that was in the newspaper and the parcel number isn't on it. Everything but map number, page, all of that kind of stuff, but not the parcel number. So I wanted you to be aware and my real question was who is responsible to be sure that
the state requirements are being met when we advertise a meeting like this for people so that everybody's on the same page.
Well to be clear it's primarily the applicant's responsibility to prepare the we're talking about the notice the sum the sign and the Mailed notices are prepared by the applicant.
I'm sorry, are prepared by the
applicant.
Okay, so but there's no one checking to be sure that's accurate. When that's done.
I think generally staff does verify that the the accuracy of those of those ads or those notices, but generally it's the applicant's burden to provide correct notice.
Okay. And when it's wrong we don't do anything about that. We don't do any kind of education process or anything with our planning staff, so we just let it go.
I'm
clear that we had a problem there.
You're stating that it was wrong, but I don't know if it is or isn't.
And the parcel number not being on the ad? I don't know if that's a
requirement, is it?
It should be on the ad according to the state. Am I correct? Maybe I'm not.
I do not believe there's any legal Denise, there's any legal requirement that the parcel ID be in the ad?
There's no legal requirement for the parcel ID number to be on the ad. So then the address
becomes really critically important, doesn't it?
Hearing. There was no you were not confused as to what
property we were taking. But people that are watching this or that are looking at an ad in the paper may not. That's the whole reason for advertising it. Is so that you make everybody in the county that may have an interest for whatever reason to be aware. If you don't have the right address and you don't live a par keep a parcel number, is it on purpose? Uh is this like a witness protection thing where we hide it? That sounds silly? Well I'm just wondering how do we correct it? That's my comment to you. The address was
correct though. The only thing different was the name of the road. It was State Road 54 or 52 versus
County Route 52 as of March twenty ninth, twenty three, right. Which legally would make it incorrect. But you redid that hearing. You redid that hearing to satisfy that point. So you realize that that it legally.
held we held the hearings that were advertised.
You redid the hearing that we did in May and June.
No, that was because there was two different applications. There was a comprehensive plan amendment and a rezoning. Those are two different applications.
So the rezoning and the wrong address had nothing to do with that redoing that meeting.
It's not a redo. It was the first application that came to the Planning Commission was a comprehensive plan amendment. The second application was a rezoning. Those are two separate applications. Same property but two separate applications.
Okay. I just wanted to be clear on that. We just wondered if that that kind of mistake is happening. Is there any rectification of it? I don't believe that there was a
material mistake made with that application.
I'm sorry.
I do not believe there was any material mistake made with the advertising of that application.
Including the state route, County Route fifty two and the lack of
parcel number. In my opinion, that would not be a material Th there's it was still sufficient to put the the public on notice of the location of the property.
Well which matters legally? The the the correct address or the parcel number?
As long as there's adequate identification of the property being considered, that's what matters legally. Obviously I I agree with the Commissioner Moody's point. If you were here that means the notice was sufficient for at least as it relates to you.
I was, but I'm not here just asking for me. Well there were others there were others
here that spoke about that particular.
There were others here that had so they knew
about it?
They knew that there was a problem. That's why they watched me raise my hand and then when you didn't call on me I didn't get to correct you and say it's not State Route fifty two, it's Canada.
Okay, so I just brought it up to ask if that this was handled the same. Or if if there's a correction. When there's a problem, do we look at it? That's my question.
Denise, who's next?
Actually on web
Ms. Carroll? Here is
Sorry, yes, thank you. My name is Doris Carroll. I live at [address removed]. I'm here as a member of the Pasco Democratic Environmental Practice. I echo what Margaret St. Thomas has stated earlier this morning this afternoon. We are very concerned about the Antfo River Project, parcel number 8PA 00010. This
is something that Several I've had several conversations with via email with a park district manager where they claim that they are transparent by the fact that they're answering an email. But yet the whole process has not been transparent because we did not find out about the STANTEC Cultural Resource Assessment Survey. until it was published in uh Sun Coast
News and Tampa Bay Times. That was March 31st. It's now been three months. And now I find out from that park district manager, it is moving forward despite the press C RAS survey recommendations to not move forward since the site is eligible on the national uh historic uh uh uh the national
registry for historic places. What will it take for our county officials, elected officials, to understand the impact on the environment as Margaret mentioned? I have been a resident for two years. However, I have visited this park for 29 years as my mother, who is now 89, has lived here for 29 years. I grew up here with my children. It is a beautiful, quiet
beach and park. Does it need maintenance? Of course it does. Does it need a 20 year old? 2,000 square foot restaurant with the marina rental and the congestion and besides the uh impact on the environment. I see dolphins and manatees there regularly. We know about the eagle's nests. I don't want another Barewater or Hudson Beach or St. Pete's Beach. uh a project happening in ENCODE. Keep
it as it is. You're this will not. And so I know that you don't make those decisions, you'll make your recommendations to the county commissioners. You can bet that we will be there again speaking out. And I want I already sent an email to someone on the Planning Commission board who's on of the WebEx and she has not responded to us. I just want transparency. We want to you ask for public engagement with
Pasco 2050. Where is the public engagement? Thank you.
All right, thank you.
Any comment from the staff?
Or David, yeah?
Typically we don't we're not required to comment on public at the public comment section. Um I'm sure staff is listening and think when that application comes before you the staff will be prepared to address those issues.
Anything else? Denise, that's it.
That's all I have and if she sent an email to someone who is presenting today, she's not responded.
I think we must have missed one.
Public comment. I don't have Ms. Hazelwood signed up for public comment.
Yeah it's
Would you like to speak? Okay, Ms. Hazel, uh go ahead, thank you. I have you signed up for a specific item.
And I think a wrote public comment on that is to the left of the other stuff, so you probably missed it. But thank you for the opportunity, Nancy Hazewood, [address removed]. So um I'm making suggestions to the board, and maybe I will carry through to staff. Uh, we've got a lot of water problems. That's all I'm hearing about today. All the time people talk about the water problems. So my suggestion
is Uh with each application that comes before the board You have a staff member tell you how many dwelling units, how much commercial is around the area. I don't know, you'd have to figure out what kind of area that is. Take that into consideration. See that right in front of you. And then also have somebody uh from biology. Come up and say how that will affect your natural resources.
Something needs to slow down here with the problems that we are encountering and I think it's only gonna get worse. Thank you all for your time.
Okay, thank you.
All right, I
think that was everybody. I do want to clarify for the record that our Natural Resources Department does in fact comment on every single application that comes to the Planning Commission. In fact usually there's findings of fact and conditions that specifically address their comments.
Okay,
good. All right, Denise, how you will start on the register.