CPAL 2008 VOPH comprehensive plan core reserve village separators
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 59m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 98% of 246 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Yeah, yeah.
Uh it's on. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay. Very good. My name is Ernie Monaco, manager of special districts for Pasco County.
It's my body magnetism. I have actually two agenda items today. One is a comprehensive plan amendment, and the second is its associated companion piece for the land development code to implement this comprehensive plan amendment. I'll read the ordinance itself, proposed ordinance, an ordinance amending the Pasco County comprehensive plan, providing for a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use. Element Chapter two Gulf Flu Six, including text and figure revisions to the core reserve. the Village Separator provisions, existing development
approvals, and figures PH five, PH six, PH seven, and PH. eight revisions to Village Eye Borders. Um I don't have a clicker here Okay, thank you, Denise. Super thanks. Next. Um so today what we're in basic what we're talking about here is this is we're in phase two of the mess of the update for the villages of Pasina Hills update study. The first phase was covered and re and agreed, approved on May 5th. This is now the second phase. There were some underlying items that had needed more time to work to walk through,
and that's basically what we're going to talk to mostly about today. It's the core reserve issue. So what we have is the the the flu measure includes the text revisions of the core reserve. We'll discuss in more detail. The village separated provisions are are are all fine. We've all agreed to that. And there are revisions to village eyeborders as well. But we're gonna cover those things, but we'll just know that the only item that really is left to really decide, and this is where we need your help, uh, when you'll see the recommendation we put together. We're gonna need your input, discussion, then and giving directions as to what recommendation you would like to make before the BCC. Next.
Here you see twenty two thousand acres of the village of Pasadena Hills, and you're probably familiar with that anyway. Next. Okay, so here is the recommended action. I'll try I'll read read it uh carefully here. Recommend approval of the comprehensive plan to the the B C C for the revision set forth Uh um amending goals, policies, text and figures to the village separator. The effect on existing development approvals, figures PH five to eight, revisions to village I borders, and and this is important, this is where we make a decision, including
accepting the recommendation, the core reserve revisions. And there are actually four things, four items that you have a choice on. The first one is from the V OPH property owners group, P O G, uh that's represented by Pat Gasway, who will speak a little bit later, to reduce the wetlands buffer. It was from one hundred feet down to twenty. Yeah. The second came from the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee. They actually went one step further and said, listen, let's not put a number on it. Let's just make it completely the same as the rest of the county. And we'll just make it match Land Development Code 805. I think it was 803.5.
So they just said, we don't need the actual number. We're just going to make it completely consistent with what everybody else has to do with in the rest of the county. And then the third option is to go with what the Parks and Natural Resources Department uh recommends. And we'll get into that. And Melissa Charbonneau will actually talk a little bit about that and be able to answer the technical questions related to the core reserve. And then finally there may be a fourth option as you discuss what you think is the most appropriate recommendation to make before the BCC. Next. So here we have again core reserve, village separators, effect on development approvals, and village eye border. And
that's the order we're going to go. We'll tackle the core reserve first. Next, uh first important is the comprehensive plan consistency, and there are policies that are that are basically support the recommendation to revise the core reserve and the village separators, et cetera. So one is the comprehensive environmental protection strategy to identify and map an overlay for protection. Of the core reserves that is consistent with what we're doing. We're just defining now a closer definition of what the what the actual buffer will be. The second is policy flu 6.2 natural resource protection. That's where field surveys
will help identify the linkages to locally significant habitats. Again, this is this is um well, let me read this because it's important. Core reserves may be expanded or shrunk. Okay. depending upon the accurate up-to-date date. And you'll see a map in a few seconds that was about ten years old. So we are requiring if anyone wants to shrink or expand those core reserves, they will be r they will have to give us evidence that where that where it's been moved. Okay, landowners need to be able to calculate the size and boundaries of the core reserve on their land so that precise definitions are needed. A
clarification was needed for the village separator requirements, and we solved that one. Village separators are still in place, except along the perimeter of the VOPH area plan, since they were intended to separate villages. Uh there was it was unclear what the text was saying, and we wanted to make sure it was very clear. It was to separate the villages. It was not to create a uh an an area around the entire borders. Okay, and we'll we'll get into that later. And then policy flu 62.1 conservation framework. The highest concentration of environmentally sensitive land is located within regionally significant
environmental features such as the core reserve. Uh ecological buffer zones protect these lands, they extend outward from this core and are regulated by state and federal rules, which is important. The intensity of human use shall increase incrementally with the distance from these regional systems. Next. Okay, so we're all talking about now is core reserve is locational criteria. The core reserve overlay, I'll show you in the next slide. It shall be specifically defined by the existence of Category One wetlands. So that's the starting point, okay, within these areas in
combination of the following parameters and resources to the extent that such resources are adjacent to defined Category One wetlands. Here's the map. And you can see the dark green, that's the category one wetlands. And the question becomes, should the should the core reserve be twenty-five feet? Should it just match the land development code? Should it be go back to what it was originally, which was fifty feet, with s with depending upon whether s other things were in the were in the area, or should there be a co uh what you prefer? Next. So I'm going to show you the text changes. This is the PO, the
property owners group proposal. In blue is what they struck out and what they wrote in. And I'll read you what it would be like in a clean version, because maybe easier to understand hearing it more than just looking at this. Contiguous native upland habitats, which includes all land use, land cover codes from the Southwest Florida Water Management District Land Use Classification System in the 300, 400, and with the exception of four. four zero zero the tree plantation section within one hundred feet of the category one wetland limits. They suggested that
you strike out the floodplain because it's covered in other areas. They suggest you strike out category and two and three wetlands that are contiguous to the included floodplain upland. And they basically said a 25-foot buffer shall be established landward of the wetland line of the category wetland if there are no existing contiguous native upland habitats. So what that means is the very minimum the POG is saying give us at least 25-foot border. And by the way, if there are other things we can extend that up to up to up to uh the 100 feet.
So that's the property owners group. And Pat Gasway will be speaking in more in detail about that. Yeah. Then we came to the the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee, And they looked at everything and they said, you know, we agree with almost everything, everything that you said except for one thing. Don't put the 25 feet in there. Just make it consistent with Land Development Code 805.5. And that way everything is the same in pat in VOPH as it would be across the county. The other items on here, one, three, four, five, and six were similar to what the POG wanted. Okay, so that's that's I can go
to the next one.
You can look at that. I'm sorry. Can I just ask a quick question while we're there? So what does eight oh five point five say as far as the other thing?
Uh I don't I don't have the whole text in front of me, actually should have probably pulled it. Uh is it possible, Denise, you can call that finally? Hang on, she'll get she'll read it exactly the way it is. Sorry.
I I think the the twenty five feet is in there, but the issue became if the number changes, then you gotta go back and go change change it again everywhere else in the documents.
I assume that's the case
but I
just want
to
verify what the current number is. Thank you. Thanks, Denise.
Okay. 805.5 talks about upland buffers, and it says a minimum a minimum of 25-foot upland buffer is required around post-development category one wetlands unless the applicant has an unexpired Southwest Florida Water Management District, FDEP, or Army Corps of Engineer permit, and/or a county site development plan issued prior to January 26, 2007. These upland buffers Buffers are integral to maintaining wetless wetland structure and function and are necessary to protect the natural wetland ecosystem from
significant adverse impacts. There's more information that talks about the different activities that can occur within the Category One wetlands, but that's basically what it says for Category One. Then for Category 2 and 3, it says that upland buffers and the loud prohibited uses within said upland buffers. Shall be as required by the Southwest Florida Water Management District or other regulatory agencies with jurisdiction.
So the V OPH Planning and Policy Committee said don't put a number on it, just match the code. If later on you change it from 25 to 50 or change it from 25 to 10, it's an automatic change rather than have to go hunt through the document and change other numbers. Okay, next. Thank you, Denise. Here's the text, um, the actual text that shows you where we put in if you look in the middle of that paragraph, which is set forth in the Pasco County Land Development Code section 805.5. Next. I'm just showing you where we made those changes. And there were two places, the
same thing, the Pasco County Land O' Lakes Code Section 805. Okay, so that's V O P H Planning and Policy Committee recommendation. Next. We have parks and natural resources response. Um, and I'm just gonna read that and Melissa's gonna and a few seconds later from now, she's actually going to explain all this more technical, because she's the technical person there for that. The Parks and Natural Resources response to POG proposed revisions. The P Parks Natural Resources recommends that the original comprehensive plan text, which included the 100-year floodplain, category one and two wetlands, contiguous to the floodplains and uplands, and the 50-foot buffer, okay, to
the to the for the core reserve. They didn't want to see that touched. And then they added additional text which says naturally vegetated uplands may include disturbed areas that can be restored to a state that can offer. Equivalent functions as provided by natural wildlife habitats as determined by the county administrator or designee. Areas that may be excluded from this designation are areas cleared through bona fide agricultural activities and not as preparation for development that cannot reasonably be restored to natural wildlife habitats as determined by the county administrator or designee.
So they've actually went one step further just to clarify specifically what is really going to be counted. as that. So here's the question. The question that you need to discuss and think about is where do you what do you want that buffer to be? Now I'm gonna show you Keith Wiley, unfortunately couldn't make here, but Melissa, who is on WebEx, can go over, she's got some slides that she would like to show and and walk you through this, explain the importance of this. And then I'll come back and we'll go and we'll go to the next steps.
Um Has anybody been able to pull up my presentation? Because I'm unable to share.
It's coming.
Okay, great.
All right. Um, Melissa Charbonau, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Now I'm here today. to speak to you regarding the core reserves. Um our recommendation
Solta valenla. O recommendation is to go with option C. And I will discuss some of the changes that staff made to the comprehensive plan language. The objective of the Flu is to protect regionally significant resources of the core reserve. And those include the Ridge, Lake Pasadena, Kirsey Lake, Buddy Lake, and other significant clusters of wetland and upland habitats.
And to protect these things that are unique within the villages of Pasadena Hills. These things were identified in the previous approval of this comprehensive plan, civilized policy. to protect the unique features and what makes the village's Pasadena Hills special, a special plant area.
Um we stack added language to the floodplain section. so that it will not increase or decrease as the flood maps are updated. And the currently proved figure um three would be the same. For Pratuity. We also included link language. Um Okay. Bernie went over that clarifies the naturally vegetated uplands
and what it should include. It would exclude the areas of bona fide agricultural activities.
Um, let's see, next slide please.
This is where I discussed the changes to the 100-year floodplain, which would be illustrated in figure three, it would not be changed as maps are updated. Next slide, please.
And this is what already discussed again with the naturally vegetated uplands and the exclusions would be that bona fide agricultural activities and then any naturally occurring vegetation that can be restored would be included in the poor reserve. Next slide, please. Um we also added language to clarify when the boundaries would be reviewed of the core reserve. So That this is a large area. BOPH is 20,000 acres, and I believe the core reserves are about 800 acres. And so field
verification of these areas is very important because things do change. And um it's more appropriate to do those reviews at preliminary plan or at zoning. Review.
Next slide, please.
And so we did change some of the allowable uses within the Coral Reserve. Allowable uses include public and private parks, trails, wetland mitigation, and road as required when there's no other um feasible. solution. So we also included floodplain and stormwater management systems to be allowable within an allowable use within the core reserve.
But we would like these outside the native um vegetated areas. Next slide, please. Well, that's it. All right. So it's our recommendation to keep the current language and the intent of the comprehensive plan policies that were originally approved that protect these unique features of Pasco County and the villages of Pasadena Hills.
Thank you,
Melissa. Thank you. Um these revisions, by the way, are in attachments to the agenda memo. Um second, I'd like to uh read a statement from uh Nicterios Pitos, he's the director, planning and planning director, and he unfortunately could not be here because he was double booked. But he asked me to read the statement. The planning and development department supports the parks and natural resources response because of one, the unique character and design of Pasadena Hills, two, the number of entitlements granted at the first approval of V OPH in exchange for creating a core reserve. Three,
the recent reduction of the width of the eastern of the village separators in exchange for the additional new land uses during the discussions over the Corps Reserve and the Village Separators during phase one and phase two. We've actually been speaking about the Corps Reserve for a number of months, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. So there you have in the slides. I'm gonna go back to my slides. Let's go so you can see it. It's easier to probably see. There was really four four choices you have you can make today.
And then Pat Gassaway will speak as soon as as soon as we get back, go back to no go to the next slide, next slide, next, next, next, uh stop. No, okay, right there. Perfect. Okay. So the four choices are accepting the pro the property owners group. And Pat will speak about that in about a second. Accepting the V OPH Planning and Policy Committee recommendation, which again said eliminate the twenty-five number, put it in, just match the code like everybody else has. Three, accepting the parks and natural text revisions, which Melissa just wants more detail for you. And four, maybe perhaps uh y you
want to discuss and come up with something different. So I would suggest we take the time to really examine this, ask questions. Pat, would you like to speak now?
Are you there, Pat? Yeah, you could put him on. I'd be happy to speak, Erie, if you'd like. Yes, why don't you speak Pat? Uh let's put Pat Gassaway's uh slide on there, slides.
Explain the the property owners group the way why they recommend what they recommend.
Thanks, Ernie. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Pat Gassaway with Hype Design. uh representing the property owners group. Our address is 5904 Hampton Oaks Parkway, Tampa, Florida.
In the past several months, we've been engaged by the property owners group to collaborate with the county in order to achieve one basic goal, and that is to arrive at a more level playing field within the villages of Pasadena Hills in order to make them more market friendly and more competitive. Um I think this is a a classic example of uh of of how Um Pasadena Hills has a different set of rules.
And that different set of rules, one originally adopted back in 2008, which this language is surviving from the original adoption. Um was very robust. And in the uh at the time that followed the original adoption. Uh a bunch of things happened. You you you all might be familiar with a little bit of a downturn that we had in 2009 and and the recovery that has uh taken quite some
time afterwards. Now recognizing the robust comeback outside of the villages of Pasadena Hills, the goal was to try and take a look at our rules, update them to the to to today's market. and make it more market friendly. The couple of things that I would point out is the currently adopted rules require preservation of upland habitat uh without
bound, right? So it you preserve in accordance with this, whatever is there. Uh, it might extend uh well inside your property, it might extend all the way off your property and onto someone else's. This practical matter makes it very difficult to plan with this type of verbiage in a regulatory document. The other thing that I would point out is in in trying to seek a uh a compromise position, uh
we wanted to try and and arrive at some definable boundary that could be implementable. That was our goal in recommending a hundred feet. Of course, when there isn't vegetation to save, we recommended the 25 feet, which is the current county standard. Um I think it's important for the commission to recognize that this level of protection is only available during
the development process. So agricultural landowners can simply convert this upland habitat to improve their ongoing agricultural endeavors. There is nothing that prevents that in these words. So the the notion that we have extraordinary protection measures of that particular type of habitat. without preserving it prior to development
means the the idea that this preservation actually can survive until development activities happen. is completely unknown. I think it's really important for us to recognize that these words don't exist outside Pasadena Hills. And consequently, in looking at leveling the playing field, it's it's very different and in fact problematic with regard to the practical planning issues that we've been encountering since the adoption
in 2008. I if the uh commission has any questions, we'll be happy to answer at this time.
Okay.
Uh yeah.
Commissioner Cox, okay.
Yeah, uh Pat, so Tell me
Tell me what the big difference between um what you guys are proposing versus if we uh match it to the LDC.
Uh what we had proposed um would create in areas where there is uh native upland habitat that extends adjacent to the class one wellens We're proposing a one hundred foot uh preservation area of that habitat. Now of course if it doesn't exist, we drop down then to match the current code at 25 feet.
Versus just following the code. Everything would just be twenty five feet. I'm not I'm having trouble differentiating.
Yeah, okay. Right right now, your current code basically says we need to preserve a 25-foot upland buffer surrounding the class one wetlands. What we're suggesting is in addition to that, where there is native upland habitat. We would go up to a hundred feet. of preservation of that upland habitat. So the 25 would expand to a hundred feet if that vegetation existed.
And and
so you're recommended to be more restrictive than the the county's L D C is.
Considerably more, yes.
And and parks and parks recommendation too. Sparks recommendation is fifty in all cases. Is that correct?
Uh actually oh But I I think Melissa could probably answer that best.
Um, our recommendation is to go with the current compliance comprehensive plan language. That's right. protects any uplands that are adjacent to category one wetlands within certain kind of land use types. Um and 50 foot adjacent to any kind of like pasture land that would be a 50 foot buffer, but it would include all the uplands that are adjacent to the regionally significant features that are called out in the on the flu policy, which is
the Lake Pasadena, Kirsey Lake, Buddy Lake, and significant um clusters of wetland and uplands. So when you basically if you have a reduction of these areas, you're not meeting the policy because it's supposed to include the uplings that are surrounding these key features that were uh Significant resources of the county to protect. So Pretty much you're going from eight hundred acres to maybe
a hundred. So and then then the connectivity of all these wetland systems and uplands. is lost so these systems will all become fractured systems um throughout villages of Pasadena Hills.
Melissa, I apologize. I don't can can you explain that again? Uh what Um I I just could not follow you, I apologize.
Okay, so you have the the on-site category one wetlands within the villages of Pasadena Hills and those were identified as the starting point of the core reserves. To build on the protection of these regionally significant features that were identified during the planning process for the comprehensive plan. any uplands that are adjacent to those wetlands would be protected. And then if there's category one or two's wetlands adjacent to those areas, those would also be protected, and
the floodplain that's adjacent to those wetlands. So it makes a core system and when you start eliminating the things that are identified to protect, it fractures those core systems.
Is is there a is that on those neighboring uplands to that core reserve. Is that is that f I don't recall. Fifty feet? Is that a hundred feet? Or does it depend?
It there there is no It's 50 feet when there is like pasture land and it's already in a converted agricultural land use type, but if it's a native upland, it encompasses all of that native upland. So it I I don't know if you could pull up that map that might sh be able to explain it a little bit more for you. That was in your presentation, Ernie?
Oh. Why you're doing that, Melissa, do you have a um estimate on how many acres that is going to affect? So you're talking about affecting one acres.
Total upland acres, I don't think it's on this map. Um But if all of these orange areas that are adjacent to the category one wetlands. And of course, all of these areas would be looked at at the time of zoning application or site plan submittal. The intent of the policy was to protect these core reserve areas and not just wetland habitat and not just the buffer, but any kind of significant native habitat. at that is left
within BOPH along these core systems.
And and is this is this specific to category one or does it include category two and three wetlands as well?
It's specific to category one, but if there is say the category one with native vegetation and then a budding category two or three, it would include bows as well. Okay. So it's only when it's directly adjacent to the coral reserve major um wetland systems.
So this is where I'm getting a little confused too. So I'm looking at this map and um I see a lot of the native vegetative uplands. But the But they're not around Pasadena or Buddy or Kerzy. They look like So is that part of the ridge?
Yes, and within those areas it's part of the ridge and and
I know. Melissa we'd lost your sound. I don't know if you can still hear us but
Mm-hmm.
I'd I'd like uh if we could ask Mr. Gasway to comment on Melissa's
Right. I I I'd be I'd be happy to Um The the notion that the cascading effect Of preserving Um 50 feet of of pasture or limitless amounts of upland vegetation because of their proximity to class one wetlands is the inherent problem. I mean the the idea
that the the property owners are going to have their lands confiscated without compensation. um with with an un unending limitation. With regard to how far away from these category one wetlands this vegetation extends, it certainly creates very large areas that will be preserved. Unfortunately, that has a rather damaging effect
to the landowners and quite frankly puts uh extraordinary burdens on the the the landowners and future developers in Pasadena Hills completely violating the idea that we make this more market friendly and more competitive with the remainder of the county.
That's what I thought.
Well
well and I have to say that I agree with that statement. You know, I was on the B C C when we This whole idea, this whole concept comes about and the whole ideas for um this area of the county to be planned as a unit as opposed to being hodgepodged like most of the other Russell County. So I mean I I think what the property owners group is asking for is uh is fine in my opinion.
Well I'll I'll go on and tell you that I struggle with this. I mean I live out there. I'm a I'm a I'm not part of the property owner group, but I'm a property owner and I live on Buddy Lake. And the struggle I have is that I understand the concept of wanting to be like the rest of everybody else, but but the intent was that this place would be a little bit different. It's got some unique characteristics. And I'm not saying I sit here and know what the exact answer is. Um but I am saying that I'm concerned
That as these changes come in I kinda see it chipping away at the uniqueness of this plan and I'm concerned that it's just gonna wind up being like everywhere else in the county and I don't want it to wind up that way.
So again I sit here I don't know what the answer is, but I'm not sure I agree with Pat and I'm not sure I agree with Melissa. I'm just not Well, like I said, I'm not sure what the answer is. But I'm concerned, you know, again, I I live on Buddy Lake. I w I want those areas to be preserved as much as possible, but I also s understand if you if you all have known me for a long time, I'm I'm for property rights and and someday my kids will probably sell my property and and put houses
on it, right? So so I I understand that as well.
So what are our four choices? Can you bring that one chart up again, please? So yeah,
get the slide has four options. I think it's the next one here. You can accept property owners group recommendation. With the originally recommended. You can accept the V OPH Planning and Policy Committee recommendation, which just struck the twenty-five and said just match it to the code. You can accept the uh parks and natural resources, which wants the original text, but it's enhanced with a few important things. Or you can all come together and have a discussion and and agree. What would you like to go before the board?
Before we get to that, I saw somewhere that one of those originally, anyway, was tied to village separation distances.
Yeah, I can go over the village separators now.
Well, my only thing is is part of that was at one time, anyway, tied to the village.
One more. One more. I'm sorry. Go back. One more. This isn't here. If you look at item number two, I'll read it out loud so you can see it. Strategies for protection of the core reserve in the absence of native upland habitats includes category one wetlands buffer of 25 feet, which the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee would like to make consistent with the rest of the county under LDC section eight oh five point five. Note this was originally a hundred feet. Remember the original text. I showed you, uh which was mutually agreed to by the POG and the PDD in exchange for
reducing the village separators from the 300 foot, 150 feet on each side, down to 150 feet one side only. So what had happened is as we were discussing the village separator. Issues. We agreed to clarify and actually reduce it. Originally it was a 300 on both sides, now it's 150 on one side. And and that was part of a the discussions that we had to say, yeah, it would make we can we can clarify this and actually make it only on one side. When we discussed these things, we were sort of discussing a lot of things together. And
the planning department feels like, wait a minute, guys, we reduce the the the village section.
But I think the issue with the core reserve also is trying to define the easy thing. Where that border should be, which is hard because it's depending on environmental issues. So you see it's not such an easy answer to uh to answer. Because I think landowners have a right to understand how much land they have that's developable. And it's hard to do that and they're gonna go out and get their they're gonna have to ultimately go out and and define the core reserve. And we have to help that by putting in n something that clearly defines it. So it's not such an easy thing to resolve. I'll just say that. But that's what that point is.
I'm sorry. I I'm sorry. If the if the Commission would um would allow me uh just one moment. On item number two, Ernie, I I have to completely disagree with you. The the village separators were never 300 feet, ever, ever, ever. The village separators have always been 150 feet. So that the notion that we've gone from 300 down to 150, and so then therefore there should be some horse trading done with regard to the amount
of preservation of upland habitat adjacent to category one wetlands is not the case. Um I and I think it's wildly important that we make clear that statement. Um the the notion that the language adopted in 2008. was uh was absolutely part and parcel to the discussions of how we went from an unplanned area to a cohesively planned area
for 22,000 acres. We've witnessed what those rules do to the development potential and the market acceptance. of this area. We've we've had nothing happen in this twenty-two thousand acre area that wasn't already permitted before the adoption. And I think it's probably wise at this moment to step back, look at that, and say, what's what's the thing that we should do going forward?
So Mr. Williams, I wanna yeah, uh can I be clear, uh notwithstanding what Ernie wrote into, I don't think that the village separator issue is directly tied to The core reserve issue. I think you can take action on the core reserve issue. independent of what happens on the billet separator if you
Okay. So um two thanks to that. Number one, I want to hear if county can f uh staff can curs with Mr. Gasway's comment. Just to make sure everybody's on the same page. I mean I push back on Mr. Gasway's comment a little bit because you're right, nothing's happened out there, but I I wouldn't go so far as saying it's all because Um it's an uneven playing field. I would tend to to say
that a lot of it's due to the fact that we had a recession. Pasadena Hills is in the n more in the northeast portion of the county and was less accessible. I mean certainly maybe some uneven playing field may play into it, but I wouldn't go so far as that's the only reason that's nothing's happened there.
Um hi, this is Peter Hansel. I'm just gonna Make some comments. I have a tendency to go ahead and accept the property. Owners group. Uh motion or the that's the one I'm looking at the most. I can understand how some people may feel about seeing a beautiful acre, beautiful I'm sorry, beautiful property on that part of the county. uh turn it into basically homes and streets and that type of thing as we move down the road. I remember
looking at that booklet I thought the company had done or the the planning organization had done an ex an ex exceptional job. Yeah. Planning that community.
I grew up in an area that was much like Pasco Hills and I go there every now and then. And it's nothing but homes. In concrete. the last community or the last state I lived in, which was Kentucky, I had a horse farm behind me, in addition to being tobacco I want to go back now to visit my son that lives there in Lexington. It's now Holmes. And streets.
Progress is going to occur. People will move to Pasco County. They will need homes. This is a beautiful area from what I see. And therefore that's why I tend to support it. So that's My comments.
Chris Poole, you got anything you have anything? No, I just
I'd like to uh Mr. Gasway to restate their proposal again for learning screws just so we can be clear and talk about a lot of different things, but if we could if he could restate that, sir.
Yes.
Is is Pat still on What Def?
Mr. Gasway, are you still there?
Mm-hmm.
So I g guess uh I mean as well as
I think this proposal is what is up the PowerPoint right now, which is basically the hundred feet around category one wetlands And then if if there is habitat, if there's not habitat And it's twenty five feet. I think that's the sum of what I'm saying. Right.
And what was the I'm sorry.
was the V O P H committee
deposit again? Strike the twenty five and put matching land development code. Okay. Yeah,
your V O V O V O the V O P H committee was not recommending the hundred feet. Even if there was even if there was habitat.
As a planning commissioner, I'd be I'd be hard pressed to go against what the owner group is is recommending and I would agree with Mr. Hansel and um Mr. Cox.
Yeah, you know, it's a little bit more it's more restrictive and that's what the property owners group feels is appropriate. I think it it beneficial to the area. So uh with that I would move that we accept the property owners group recommendation.
I'll second that.
Okay, uh there's a motion on the floor from Commissioner Cox, seconded by Commissioner Hansel. Did we ask for is there Is there anybody else present? To speak on this item?
We don't have anyone else signed up to speak, nor at the kiosk, nor any emails or letters.
Okay. Is there any further discussion? If not, uh roll call vote.
Michael Cox?
All right.
Peter Hansel. Christopher Poole.
Aye.
Chris Williams?
I'll vote aye.
Chairman Girardi.
Then I could could continue and just go over the village separators and the others just to let you know these are the other points that we've all agreed to. Are you okay with that? That's good. Go back to my Ernie,
to be clear, they need to take action on the other three as well, even though there's agreement.
Yeah, they we'll go back to very first. Right. We're gonna go back to the very first action item once I go through the others.
And when you when you say all agreed to, that means property owners, V O P H committee, the street.
Yeah, all stakeholders. Yes. All stakeholders that we've groups we've signed off on that. Yeah. Okay. So uh could you blow that up a bit more? Yeah, thank you.
Yeah.
Okay, keep going, keep okay. Uh go back one, I think. Okay, so village separator clarification, there was confusion. Um And let me let me read, excuse me. Let me just read what it says. Here, village separators may include wetlands, floodplain, and stormwater management systems, sidewalks, golf cart paths, which are really alternative transportation facilities. That's what we're calling them these days, all the other things with golf carts and things, neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, and other like uses, but no, no non-recreational
structures. The 150-foot village separator buffer is only Required in one of the two adjacent villages for a total of 150 feet, not the 300. That's where the 300 feet came in. It's 150 feet, but yeah, it was gonna be it's being now clarified to go into one of the adjacent villages. Village separator buffers are not required in the village where non-residential development is adjacent to a primary or intermediate road separating two villages, or where the core reserve or are separating two villages. Okay? So you've already
got some things that create a distinction between villages already in place. Village separators are not required in the boundary of a village if the boundary Is not is not adjacent to another village, but is instead adjacent to the VOPH boundary. So if your properties on the perimeter of V OPH, you will not have to put a hundred and fifty foot village separator there. Okay. This th there was a lot of confusion in the last few years interpreting what this meant. And we try to make it really simple now. Instead, Instead is adjacent of VIP. Exclude properties, rural
enclaves, or countryside area. Any other requests to deviate from the buffer locations shown in figures P Figure PH eight, village separated or rural enclave buffer shall be presented to the planning and policy committee for recommendation and decided by the Board of Supervisors at a notice public hearing. What it says basically is here's we're trying to clarify it, but you guys, you property owners, if you have any real issue with this, you can go before the committee again and discuss the reasons. Why you you can't do the hundred and fifty feet.
So question to Chris. I have one concern.
that.
Um, I don't have a problem with it, but I just have one concern. So and I don't know if there's any Examples of this or not. Yes. But you got Two property owners with the village separator between them.
They're in two distinct villages. Yeah,
okay.
You've already got the then a hundred and fifty would do it.
Right. But my concern
is you got
you got two people.
Fighting.
Yeah. And so what's to keep the first guy from coming in and saying, Oh, the village separator's going on the last guy?
I I think what's will happen most likely again I can't speak for the current planning. Brad's not on here, is he? I think what'll most likely it'll be at least seventy five seventy five, so it's fair. I think that's what they're gonna push.
I agree, but I just wonder uh what is the mechanism in place to make sure that happens.
Because when they come with the plans, we hit them with all these rules and they'll say we'll see that. Okay, I'll talk to Brad as well to make sure that that's the case. Brad, are you
there? I I am actually I was just uh just upgraded to Speak. Good. Um Speak. Congratulations.
Congratulations.
Two things on this uh this whole whole system is that uh we're looking at at little individual pieces right now. Uh when this was originally approved, and I think uh Commissioner Cox can recall, it was approved a package of pieces. Um it's very difficult to look at each one individually. And and and understand the impact that it has on the others. That was that goes along with partly with what was we were talking about before, but it may also apply to
this. But in terms of uh uh uh Mr. Williams, exactly exactly what he said is my main concern on this. Uh the first person in can assign this buffer to the other village, technically, based on the way they do the plans, unless it's specifically said in here that they cannot do that. Um, and I'm not sure how we can avoid that other than to put something in here. Uh
Uh and that you know that may be uh That may be a seventy-five seventy-five unless otherwise agreed upon kind of language. Um But it very much could be first come, first serve, the way it's written.
Yeah. And Brad, I I know there's a lot there would be a lot of different situations, but that would be my concern. I mean 'cause you know, there could be all different things in that gap that would you know, a wetland or a or or a varia a variety of things that we create that hundred and fifty buffer. But my my concern is that somebody comes in and there's nothing in between and the first guy says, Oh, the one hundred and fifty is gonna be on the other guy. And nobody Uh it just happens that way. I don't I
don't think that's appropriate.
I'm sorry. And there are some there are some potential issues with it even being 7575. You know, perhaps there's 150 feet of wetland on one side of the village in one village, and the other guy's got all the upland. Um, you know, in which case it would make sense to actually shift that over. Uh, but uh uh, you know, again, it it's it's an individual. We're making a a global policy here uh that's gotta encompass any number of potential
individual situations. So it's gonna be difficult. So as long as there is is a method to look at each situation independently if those arise, much like we have our alternative standard type of situation. Um that may be the way to address some of those concerns.
And did Pat want to speak? Oh
hey Ernie, this is Pat. Can you hear me?
Yes.
Okay. Sorry, we um uh are enjoying some technical difficulties here. I'm not actually Christy Barrero. Um she has much more impressive hair. Um
Uh when it comes to the the idea of village separators, um Yeah. I c I can tell you we've we've uh we've entitled, you know, thousands of units uh thus far since the adoption in two thousand and eight. Uh none of those have been implemented thus far, but the process of having neighborhood meetings. and the preparation of village master plans for each zoning that comes through the process. puts
in the light of day the intentions of the developers. and allows the surrounding community and all of the surrounding property owners to weigh in on the location, the size, and the uses within those buffers. So I I think there's ample uh opportunity in this process that that is different than the rest of the processes in the county to accommodate the the concerns of one individual um
placing a buffer in a location that's inappropriate to the adjacent property owner.
And if I could just add to what Pat said, every one of these projects comes to the Planning and Policy Committee and Planning Commission through the MPUD process. So if Planning commission or the policy committee thought that there was We were not treating somebody fairly with these buffers, they would have an opportunity to weigh in at the time of the MPUD approval. Okay.
Thanks, David. Okay it's okay.
sentence at the bottom that talks about you can deviate from these buffer locations. um by presenting that to the planning s planning and policy committee. And I believe we changed that Ernie to say devi from the buffer locations or the widths. Didn't we? Uh yeah, I think I have to check. Yeah.
I'll make sure it's in there. I'm just
saying you need to make sure your text reflects what
it actually says. I tried summarizing, so maybe in there. Yeah. Okay. The key is widths. Make sure the widths are in there. Okay, I'll make sure I do that.
Um next slide is just basically shows the new map showing the one hundred and fifty foot village separator between villages. Cause that's was an issue last time. We the map didn't really clear up clear that up. Oh wait, hang on go back just back for a second, didn't you just wanna make sure it says that?
Okay, keep going. It's fine. Okay. And then here are the examples of some of the things that you can put in that village separator. And I can't really read it from here. But it's in your your your package. Okay, next.
Okay. Third item is the applicability and effect on existing development approvals. I'm just gonna read this because there are existing development approvals and now we're making some changes, and it's important that we don't uh punish or make make the applicant have to pay more money basically as we made the these changes. So the V OPH comprehensive plan amendments to Chapter 2 shall apply both prospectively and retroactively. To the existing MPUDs already approved in VOPH on May 5th, 2020. The Board of County Commissioners delegated authority to the County Commissioner or his designee to
administratively amend any and all existing VOPH MPUDs in order to conform to these amendments without the necessity of an MPUD amendment application or application fee. after notice to the affected V O P H MP the owner, Such a I'm sorry. Such administrative amendments may occur at the time of the first preliminary site plan, preliminary development plan approval for the applicable V OPH MPD under review. So
this above proposed text allows pre-approved MPUDs to be modified to the for example the connected city master roadway standards because that is what V OPH has incorporated as well. etcetera all bunch of things w without having to pay any additional development review fees or process and captured before the first preliminary site plan preliminary development approval. Okay, uh we don't want to punish her because they c you know, we came in later and decided we were gonna change some things on them. Okay, that's that I'm not sure.
Change that first sentence to say except for excluded properties. Yeah,
I that's I think it's
yeah.
That I think is in that text anyway.
I'm just saying before you get to the board on this, you need to make sure you you're using the current
Okay.
The
exact language for these things. Right. Got it. Thanks, David. Exactly. Okay, and here you can see here's uh figures that have been changed. Now we're talking about village village eye. I'm sorry, I'm switching gears on you. We're moving on to expanding the borders, an internal border of village eye. That came recently in the last two, three weeks. And what we've done is uh as part of the Comm Plan Amendment, we've incorporated it into it. Uh yesterday the VOPH Planning and Policy Committee agreed to this. They said it's can be part of the it can be part of the comprehensive plan amendment.
Uh they They were it was like 6-0 basically saying yes, we can extend the the borders, the internal borders of village eye. The countryside is purple, the yellow at the bottom is village eye, and you can see there's a slight sliver. Go to the next slide, and you can see clearly there are five parcels. You see the five parcels that's are fronting King Highway, right there. King Road, Fort King Road. Uh there are three owners. Uh one is the county, and there are two two other Owners. I have spoken or and emailed uh both of those other two owners, and they they have no problems with
this. Um, and I have also notified and spoken with and emailed Todd Vanderberg from Zephyrhills as well. So there, so there's no issues related to this as well. Let's go to the benefits and why we're doing this. So, next slide. The area Village I has increased by 39.7 acres by relocating its boundary eastward, countryside area has. Then then decreases by thirty nine point seven acres. Residential density transition is still in place within the remaining land in the countryside. The rural enclave buffer on the edge of countryside has not
changed. There is no change in the number of residential units or non-residential square feet in village eye. And this is important because if there were changes in entitlements, the financial plan would be affected. This has no effect on the financial plan. Entitlements are the same in Village Eye, they're just distributed a little bit slightly differently. Village I currently has no entitlements at this time. However, a maximum label of 4,338 residential units, type 2a, and 240,000 square feet will still remain in effect. No change. When fully developed, Village Eye
will have the same number of units as before, except to have a lower gross density because of the additional land area that you've added to Village Eye. Because the number of entitlements have not changed, there's no impact to the financial plan. Affected landowners will have an additional opportunity to construct more units. However, the total amount of residential units in the entire village eye will be the same. And so we amended the the maps that show the village eye borders. Next. The benefits is that Village Eye is located in the southern part of UOPH, close to Sephora Hills, east of
Fort King Road in the vicinity of Village Eye. They're already established neighborhoods. The future land use is residential six. This development pattern is very different than the development pattern further north on Fort King Road. What's happened is that development has occurred, densities have been up higher than before. They needed to look at this a little bit. Basically, the 40 acres of land proposed to be added to Village. has a future land use of res one much less dense than the future land use directly across the street. If these parcels were to be added to Villageari, which is what we're proposing, they would most likely develop as a residential
edge with a minimum of two units per acre, and still require the fifty foot uh buffer at the edge of the village for the V O P H Com plant. Therefore, the density of this additional property would only increase slightly, There will be no change to the full build out of VOPH entitlements, so the gross density remains unchanged and the financial plan remains and unchanged as well. By extending the area Village Eye south of uh the future Overpass Road, approximately six hundred and thirty feet to the east, Village Eye will now have an opportunity to directly access Fort King Road, which basically
increases the uh the the safety traffic and all that stuff. You've got another access points. It will also Create a more cohesive development pattern. It become part of a village instead of being stuck between a village and a road with has a much higher potential density across the street. I think there's some another one more slide on this I can talk about. The final okay, so here we are. We're at now the final recommendation for the Comm Plan amendment. I'm gonna just read the first paragraph, because this is what we will say. Recommend approval of the Comp Plan Amendment C Pel 20-08 to the Board of
County Commissioners for the revisions set forth in A, the Comp Plan Amendment, C Pel 2008, amending goals, policies, text, and figures to the village separator, existing development approvals, and figures PH5, PH six, pH seven, and pH eight, revisions to the village I border. And including accepting the recommendation to the core reserve revisions from one, the V OPH property owners group to reduce the wetlands bar from 100 feet to 25 feet. So all the changes, from my understanding, what we were just discussed 15 minutes ago, right? We
all agreed to go with what the POG proposed revisions were, right? And that's item number one.
To be clear though, it's not always a reduction from 100 feet to 25. Five feet. Only it is a hundred feet in some locations. Yeah,
right. Yes, depending on habitats, right. I'm trying to they've already
taken
act
they already did a vote to to accept number one, so I think they just needed to vote on their remaining three items. I'm sorry,
David say it again. We already voted.
For
number
one on your list
there. Yes. You voted for number one already. We made that agreement, right? So they just need to take action on the other three items. Okay. So then go back to that last the the last slide we just had. Whoops, one one up right there, the first paragraph. If you're ex or if you're okay with that, because number one has been accepted. You need to make a motion about that the other items.
Yeah, so we need to vote on the remaining three items, not including the wetland buffer item.
That's correct.
So village separators.
There's the village separators, there's the borders and what's the third one?
Uh the effect on existing development approvals.
Right. Yeah.
I'll make a motion to uh accept the uh village separators as stated, the um Uh uh adjustment to village I as stated and also the I'm sorry, I can't ever remember the wording of the other one.
Effect on existing development approvals. Effect and yeah, applicability on existing development approvals. The MPDs were approved earlier, right?
That's my motion. Chris Poole.
Okay, Chris Williams made the motion. Chris Poole. Seconded. Is there any further discussion from up here?
I guess do we need to ask are there anybody else here present at the public kiosk or on WebEx to speak?
No one at the public kiosk, no one on WebEx and no letter for emails.
Excellent. All right. Um no other further comment, uh roll call vote.
Michael Cox?
Bye.
Peter Hansel. Christopher Poole?
Aye.
Chris Williams?
Aye.
Chairman Gerardi.
Aye. All right, now we'll blaze on to uh PC five.