PDD 210048 CPAL 2007 Salem res 3 to res 6
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Nov 19, 2020
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted, because it is an image-only scan, so nothing in it is searchable here. It still reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Nov 19, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 8m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 98% of 63 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Sure, we can start. Uh Denise Hernandez, Planning and Development. Um item PC one um is actually going to be pulled from the consent agenda because we did receive an email of objection which I would like for you to please uh receive and file. The applicant did not ask that it be read into record, but this was put this was received after your agenda packet was put together. So it's on it's on your desks if you would please move to receive and file.
Move to receive and file. Second. Second.
Okay. All in favor? We roll call vote?
Michael Cox.
Aye.
Peter Hansel.
Uh Christopher Poole?
Aye.
Chris Williams?
Aye.
Jamie Girardi.
Okay, so I will read the item the item title into record. It's PDD 210048. It's a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAL 2007 Salem. For a large scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 20, changing from res 3, residential three dwelling units per gross acre, to res 6. Six residential six dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 77.21 acres of real property located on the south side of Tower Road south of Bexley Village Drive. Today
we ask that you find this consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Okay, and I think that item's getting pulled. Do we ask for public comment now or wait?
Yeah, we can ask for public comment. I believe all these items will have presentations, so you'll have a presentation on each and every one of these items. Mm.
So i is the applicant virtually in attendance?
The applicant is virtually in attendance.
Did he did we get proof of publication on all these items? No, we didn't.
Thank
you.
That's a good point.
Yes, the items were published in the Tampa Bay Times on October 28, 2020, November 4, 2020, or by affidavit of certified mailouts and site postings.
Thanks, David.
Um we also need to scare in any witnesses, please.
So if we could have the clerks where everybody in.
So anybody speaking if you would uh raise your right hand and do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you God? Thank you. Thank you.
Did you m wanna make any comments, Barbara, on the item?
Sure. Hi, this is Barbara Willheight, 6327 Brand Boulevard, New Port Richey Florida, 34652 for the applicant. We do have staff recommendation of approval. We received an email yesterday from a neighboring property somewhere in the vicinity, I guess, that we noticed. I know that you look at that email that the um person that corresponded with us going to the multi family. When
we first noticed this this compliant amendment, we just noticed the Complant Amendment from Res 3 to Res 6. And we got a lot of calls about concern about multifamily development. Now first of all, res six isn't enough density for multifamily apartments, but regardless. We sent out a new notice and also explained what our pending MPUD is for, which your staff report has in there what the pending MPUD is. But our we went out and sent a new notice out and explained the pending MPUD, which is for no more than 325
dwelling units, single family, detached and or townhomes. um all single family product, no multi and we made sure we were very clear there was no multifamily. So um based upon that, unless the planning some specific questions, I think we've addressed the concern of the person in that email. Um he was writing concerns about multifamily.
But there's no multi-family proposed. You will see the MP later. The way staff handles these now is you don't see them together, which causes me concerns, but I haven't been able to. convince staff to do it differently like we used to. We used to bring these two together. And so in any event we will bring the MPD back and you'll have the opportunity to go through that and we'll renotice the MPUD. And so if the public has any uh questions about the zoning Um they could um participate at that time.
Okay, thank you, Barbara. Um I mean Denise, if does this get pulled from consent, so do we take public comment now or do we wait?
Okay, do we have anyone else who is pre registered to speak or at the public kiosk kiosk?
There's no one pre-registered to speak at the public comment kiosk nor is there anyone on WebEx.
Okay. If the chair is speaking, we can't hear him.
Okay. Um Do we have anyone else who has pre registered to speak or at the public comment key asked to speak? And I think Denise answered no. Okay. And I think we already received and filed the email, so d does that have to be read or not?
Uh it was not requested that the pr that the item be read into the record.
Okay, so are we go moving on to the next consent item agenda or are we
Well actually this one was pulled from consent, so you can vote from this item and all the all these items are gonna have a presentation. So they're really not gonna be able to do that.
Okay, so we're gonna go ahead and handle we're gonna handle the regular item now. Okay. Questions from up here?
Mr. Chairman Marianox, I'll move for approval.
I'll second
Peter Hansel. I've just I I just have a question.
Um I know there's some radio towers out there now. Are the right? Is that correct?
Yes,
correct.
AM broadcast station towers out there, yes.
I'm just curious, are they not needed anymore? Are they being moved somewhere? Or is uh they have another location? Or I'm just curious.
The AM radio towers are not in this parcel.
Is that accurate, Barbara?
I think they are on this parcel and I don't remember what the client said Um, I know they're moving forward to remove those. I don't remember if they're gonna be replaced or what the story was with them, but they will be removed. Um what property spec.
But they so they're going away. They are going away, yeah. Thank you.
Okay, so there's a a motion by Peter and a second by Mike Cox. Uh is there any other comment?
Uh roll call vote.
Michael Cox?
Aye.
Peter Hansel?
Aye.
Christopher Poole?
Aye.
Chris Williams? Aye. Chairman Girardi.
Aye.
One to the right.