PC8 Land Development Code docks and seawalls amendment

2:16:13Okay. We're doing P eight now?

2:16:22Sorry, doing a lot of musical chairs today.

2:16:26Good afternoon, Denise Hernandez Planning and Development. This is item P eight. Uh you're sitting for this item as a local planning agency today. Um I'll read the item as quickly as possible through title and then go uh over why we're here today. Today you're hearing an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, section one hundred one thousand one point four visibility, one thousand one point five NAG ability, and protection of water courses, appendix. A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability, repeal, or f providing

2:16:56for several inclusion into the land development code and an effective date. The reason why we're here today is uh just to give you a brief history of our section 1001 of the Land Development Code, Docks and Seawalls, and how that came to be. On March 27, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners adopted ordinance 0706, which amended the Land Development Code require the uh not the land development code, rather the Pasco County Code of ordinances relating to the obstruction of navigability and the protection of county. Waterways. In 2010, the

2:17:26Board of County Commissioners amended that same ordinance to prohibit roof walls, enclosures, or other similar visual obstructions on docks. On January 1st, 2012, with the restated land development code, the dock ordinance was moved into the land development code and was assigned Section 1001 Docks and Seawalls. Fast forward to 2017, the Board of County Commissioners held public works held workshops on docks. At that at that, it was around August of 2017 or so, the BCC provided direction to move forward

2:17:56with an ordinance allowing roofs or similar coverings over docks on privately owned lakes. Over the past year, there have been other changes that the Board of County Commissioners has debated regarding docks, regarding seawalls. On February 5th, 2019, the County Attorney's Office, based on the Board Direction, presented an introductory ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. Within that introductory ordinance, several revisions were being proposed to Section 1001 docks and seawalls. Those include 1,001.4

2:18:28visibility to allow roofs, walls, and enclosures to be constructed over docks on privately owned inland lakes. Amendments to section 1001.5, projection and location of docks and seawalls. So that section is going to be renamed to allow more of the canal to be used for a dock in the situation where there is a dead end of the canal. So in other words, right now the uh the uh It just When Yeah. Right now the code as

2:18:58it is written uh only allows a third of uh projection into a third a third of the width of the waterway in the canal with an actual dock. So this allows a greater projection at the dead end of canals as long as certain criteria are being met and those are in the ordinance. Additionally, we're making some uh changes to define or redefine some definitions associated with the mean-high water line and with waterfront properties. There will be a separate amendment because these are two other

2:19:28areas within the introductory ordinance that was presented to the board to clarify that permitting will be required for the docks, seawalls, associated equipment, and roofs. Also, there will be provisions, and again, this will be a separate amendment to the Pasco County Code of Ordinances, which does not come to the local planning agency. Amending Chapter 114 Waterways to require seawall maintenance on all seawalls. And uh so with the

2:19:58amendments that were proposed to the Board of County Commissioners on February 5, 2019, through that introductory ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners directed the Planning and Development Department to proceed with public hearing on the proposed amendments. So today we ask that you find the proposed ordinance amendments consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval of the ordinance amendments to the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm here with any questions that you may have.

2:20:24And I believe there may be some folks in the public who may have some questions on this.

2:20:30Are we only talking about lakes, Denny?

2:20:32We're talking about lakes, uh inland private lakes, not on um coastal waters.

2:20:39Okay.

2:20:40That was a direction from the board.

2:20:42Yes. So I I have quite a few questions. I don't maybe we ought to allow the public to speak first, but Yeah, that's that's the ordinance is not dealing with just lakes, it's dealing with Waterways in general.

2:20:57With waterways in general, however, allowing the or uh one zero zero one deals with waterways in general, which includes lakes, um, canals, the Gulf, but the roofs over is for inland privately maintained lakes only. That was the direction of the board.

2:21:18Okay. Let me uh do we have anybody here that would like to speak or have questions?

2:21:25Okay. And then we can get back up with the

2:21:28extra.

2:21:30Uh Bill Thomas, uh [address removed]. Uh I'm actually here for uh uh I thought This was supposed to be for the roofovers uh around the canals and open water on the Gulf. and that's not what this is all about. So really I don't have a whole lot to say. Uh, except for uh I did want to say something about uh the canals

2:22:01and maybe the roofovers, if that i is anything has anything to do with anything that's going to be coming up here at all. Is that correct or or not?

2:22:13We don't know what the county is going to recommend and at least. Well then

2:22:16I I I really don't I don't have much to say about it.

2:22:21Because when I read what is proposed here, it is prohibiting roofs. In anything other than a lake.

2:22:29That's a correct statement.

2:22:30So if somebody has a roof now and it gets damaged, they won't be able to replace it.

2:22:35Well there's a section here that talks about the nonconformity. So it if it is um so twelve hundred talks about if it exceeds more than fifty percent of the value, then you could not. That's a correct statement. But that was always the case. So if it predated when the dis determination was made that roofs are not allowed over docks, which was in 2010 or so, so if those are legally nonconforming. If they want to replace them because of damage, then they have that section in 1200 that talks about nonconformities.

2:23:06If they want to maintain them, that's a different story. They can continue to maintain them.

2:23:10But but the item that Mr. Thomas is concerned about is affected by what's in front of us.

2:23:16Well uh th the the bigger the bigger picture here is I guess that uh If you're not allowing roofs over uh the boat lifts I I I don't I don't see the relevance in that. Uh and the reason I'm saying that is because uh Uh, if a boat is in the air and it's on a lift, it is blocking the view from whoever that may be. uh h putting a roof over top of it. to protect

2:23:46what you bought, I don't see why that's a problem. Uh I I know that these people they spend uh thirty, forty thousand dollars for a boat. Uh I want to make sure that it I've been out there and I've watched thirty uh birds on top of a boat and they just wreck it. And uh it doesn't matter what you do. Uh you can't keep 'em off 'em there unless you put a roof over it. and

2:24:17the sun, it beats 'em up pretty bad. Uh it's just my my take on it. I I really don't uh

2:24:26I don't see where uh a roof over is inhibiting anybody's view. uh the boat lift itself is i hi inhibiting a view. So I don't see where a roof over top of anything makes any difference. It's my opinion.

2:24:44All right. Well that that's I mean, I think maybe there's people up there that would agree with what you just said. I just don't know if what we're talking about addresses what is concerned.

2:24:53Well and and that was my that was my thing. I I I apologize for that. I actually thought that uh it was for that.

2:24:59No, no apology required. Um We can we'll we'll speak to that when we get through the other people that want to have questions. All right. Okay. Make sure and make sure that's clear to you.

2:25:10All right.

2:25:10I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you very much for coming.

2:25:20Roger Sanders. [address removed]. And I was swar um swore whenever. Um I was basically coming up here to talk about the same thing he was. But I'd also start a petition And I had a lot of signatures around our neighborhood and Sea Ranch and Leisure Beach. And I don't see how to obstruct any view either. Because it what's gonna be that high up? 'Cause the roof's up higher than the boat. And because of the tide movement,

2:25:50your boat's up pretty high. And um And the m the two story houses are gonna be looking down anyway, so they're not gonna obstruct them. It just doesn't make sense that they have that rule. And like you said, the boats were a major expense.

2:26:06I'd appreciate any help I could have.

2:26:08Thank you very much.

2:26:11Anybody else?

2:26:16All right. Denise I don't see anybody. Could we

2:26:19Okay, clarify

2:26:20those points.

2:26:22I've been here a long time and so I might be able to give you some history as to why The board directed staff the way they did. Um The original prohibition on roofs over docks originated Primarily out of some. issues in Gulf Harbors and there's They're not here today, but If we rewinded rewind a few years, you would see this room packed with residents of Gulf Harbors opposed to Ruth over Docs and the fact that it's impairing they

2:26:52believe impairing their vision. Of the Gulf. Um However, it's not a little bit more than a Who you haven't, to my knowledge, had any substantial opposition to roofs over docks on lakes. And so The board Rather than

2:27:13the history of what happened with Gulf Harbors and tackle that issue about where and to what extent Roofs should or should not be allowed on docks. on Ru on Bruce Over Docks on the Gulf. They said, Well w we don't have any issue on the lakes. Let's get that approved. Since there's no controversy about that. and move that forward. Along with these other changes that her being talked about. Um and then let's push off this larger fight about whether you can have roofs over docks on the Gulf. to

2:27:43a later day. And so the The board direction at the most recent direction we got was move this ordinance forward. It's not necessarily precluding you in a future amendment to allow roofs over docks on the Gulf, but I think there's the majority of the board did not want to delay Getting roofs over docks on the lakes because of that lingering issue on the Gulf. Am I making sense?

2:28:09Yes, perfect sense.

2:28:14Roof Silver Docks on the Lakes since there's no controversy over that. And and they sort of punted on the issue of roofs over docks on the Gulf because there has been controversy. Associated with those those particular routes.

2:28:29Right. I'm not saying that eventually the board won't get there, but They didn't want to hold up somebody who was trying to get a roof over their dock on a lake from doing it today because of the fight that's occurring in Gulf Harbor. That that's how this got to where it is today. Okay. You wanna add anything, Denise?

2:28:48Thank you, David. No, I that I w I was here during that time as well and I remember all that happening. So No, I I think you nailed it. That's exactly what occurred.

2:28:58Okay. And I the other thing is there was even a a alternative relief application that came to the old planning commission. That I think got denied by the old plant. Or was it

2:29:11that was denied and that one was a roof overdock on the Gulf. Yes.

2:29:16There's a there's a tortured history of the roofs over docks on the Gulf that I think

2:29:20the

2:29:20board was trying to avoid with this particular ordinance.

2:29:23And that didn't happen that long ago and it was also a fairly Half full room, whatever.

2:29:31Okay. Well um yeah I guess uh just to make sure that you understand th those of you who came home to ask about it is it Doesn't preclude that you're gonna be able to do something in the future. It just doesn't deal with it at this moment. So I think that's a that's a very fair statement, right?

2:29:52Yeah, and I there may be a majority of the board that's willing to allow it at some point. It just that I don't think they were willing to tackle that with this particular ordinance. And that's how it got to you, like this. More than one way this game.

2:30:04All right. any anything else? Any other questions from up here? I I've got a few I

2:30:09got quite a few. Sorry. Um so under visibility. Uh B one. So currently it says says um

2:30:23No dock or similar structure shall exceed a maximum height of fifteen feet above the mean high watermark. Okay, so now you're proposing that This height limit also applies to lift Pilings, roofs, walls, enclosures. So so for um uh So the problem with that is is that I'm a voter.

2:30:51Mm-hmm.

2:30:51I put a I put a lift in my backyard. Which would be hard since I don't live on the water, but If I did live on the water and I put a boat uh a lift in and I put my boat on it.

2:31:04I'm gonna be above fifteen feet when I pull my boat out of the water. So From a practical standpoint, and I'm telling you as a voter, Number one doesn't make any sense because the second I pull my boat out of the water, I can promise you I'm now well in excess of fifteen feet.

2:31:23Uh I'm well in excess of fifteen feet of the mean

2:31:25high

2:31:26watermark. So I mean even the the lift might even be that high.

2:31:32And I believe the intent of this is that similar structures were always considered lifts, pilings, roofs, walls, and it's just defining what the similar structures are. That's why the s the term similar structures got struck in through because it was exp better expressed as to what similar structures are.

2:31:51But I don't think you're better e expressing it because the second you say a lift You're gonna put a boat on that lift. And

2:32:00you know, it it's gonna be higher than fifteen feet. So now you've got a a a an issue where You get one neighbor mad, another neighbor You know, they may not like that boat because it's obstructing their view and it will. Yeah. Um The Also the

2:32:20The roofs and overhead coverings again. I don't personally agree with as being a boater. I mean I know how much money I have invested in my boat and You know, it's not uncommon for somebody to spend more money on a boat than they do their home. And you want to protect it. I can assure you that's right. Um so But I hear the fight that is going on and I won't stick my toes in that. But um I do think that the The lift issue there needs to be um addressed.

2:32:48Just to clarify too is exactly what the ordinance says today, except that it was broken down in a different way, stating that if it existed prior to June twenty ten and that you also have to have a permit.

2:32:59Right, right. Um

2:33:03So uh the next item down a thousand one point five. So obstruction provision you're completely striking that?

2:33:10That's being stricken because it's being addressed in the other sections.

2:33:15Show me where, because I

2:33:16must

2:33:16have missed that.

2:33:18Oh sorry, this is where this obstruction prohibited. This is where we're going to make a change to section I apologize, it's in the last slide.

2:33:29Of course it's not moving now. Okay. So this is we're gonna we're gonna make a change to the code of ordinances and we're gonna talk about seawalls and obstructions in that section and it's going to be called um Dock and seawall maintenance and that's all gonna go into Chapter 11 Waterways of the Pasco County Code of Ordinances instead of being in the land development code.

2:33:54Okay, so that's gonna be a that's a board issue.

2:33:56Yes, that's a board issue.

2:33:58All right. So I I just wanna say that you know uh I'm assuming that you're gonna include Um a prohibition from dumping or putting any type anything abandoned into the navigator

2:34:08water was yes it's uh a b I think the subsection is called abandoned or derelict property.

2:34:15Okay, then you go on to two in that section. Um I apologize. It would now be the new A Item two exemption so number F.

2:34:27Yes.

2:34:27Uh the applicant provides an engineering certification.

2:34:31Mm-hmm.

2:34:31That the projection is not Will not impair the navigability of the the channel. Um so what does that mean, engineering certification?

2:34:42S uh so the way that it was envisioned and we discussed this as at the ordinance development team, is that there would be a letter from a qualified professional stating that there would not be um uh r that boat access could not would not be um the navigability of the channel would not be impeded. That's what I'm saying. what we had discussed.

2:35:06Okay, so my I guess my question is the practical application of that. Where do you find an engineer And it is is that really the intent for you for someone to have to hire an engineer to do this certification that mm my dock goes out ten feet and my boat is ten feet wide, so I'm twenty feet out. Wouldn't it just be better if there's a a survey done? Showing that as I mean I know I could get a surveyor to do that. I'd to the engineers in the room, can I get an engineer to do that?

2:35:35Pretty specific. So Way you see.

2:35:41Well a survey is already required in this application so in the application a survey is already required. So we have to do the

2:35:48rights. Now I'm seeing that I've got to hire a surveyor and an engineer. I mean I'm just asking, is that what you mean by this?

2:35:56Yes, that's what it that's what it would mean. You would have to have a surveyor to do the the rights, the navigable rights, and then you would have to do have an engineer to or or whatever professional does this type of thing to specify that it's not impeding navigability at the end of the of the canal.

2:36:13If the concern is the phrase engineer, you could staff could change it to engineer or other qualified professional. That way if if there's some other professional that staff feels is appropriate to

2:36:28I think the issue was the staff does have uh does not have anybody in house, of my understanding that can say with any level of expertise whether it's impairing the navigability of the channel. So they want the applicant's representative, some expert to say If I build this, it's not gonna stop. Boats from getting by.

2:36:48Well th well this is at the end of the channel. Mm-hmm. Right? At the end of the channel. I I'm just concerned, I mean, is can you find someone to do that is what I guess I'm asking.

2:36:58I again I don't know exactly what type of engineer can do this, but let me ask you something with We write down this or you write down this when your staff do you check what is going on in Pinelas, Hillsboro, if they ask something similar. For me doesn't make any sense to be honest with you to

2:37:16This particular section uh applies only to a very, very specific situation which is the dead end of the canal. So we're just basically allowing the excess of of the use of the dock to exceed a third of the width of the waterway at the dead end of a canal. So Uh do other locations discuss this? I believe they do and I believe that this this information may have been taken from the from

2:37:46another Uh local government, but I am not absolutely certain.

2:37:51Ultimately what it comes down to is I think staff doesn't want somebody to build a dock that's gonna stop somebody else from getting their boat through.

2:38:02The question is who's best to

2:38:06Say that that hasn't occurred. I I don't know if it's not an engineer, who would it be? Uh If you wanted to say engineer or other qualified professional, I don't know That may work. But clearly staff does not have anybody in house that can make that determination.

2:38:24Again

2:38:26In my opinion, a solver would tell you, you know, what is the distance that we have free in the canal to navigate there. So Do we have standards in the canal that they need to be meet the the the needs to navigate in the canal. Can we find that information?

2:38:50More depth, less depth and and navigating that part of the of the channel.

2:38:57Right.

2:39:00Right.

2:39:01Do you imagine hire somebody that specialized to check the depth of the channel and all that? That would be cost prohibitive. It's not realistic.

2:39:12Well, their alternative is to meet the one third requirement because staff is basically saying If you meet the one third, we know it's not going to impair navigability. So this is somebody that doesn't want to meet the one-third. And so there's a presumption in the ordinance that if you don't meet the one third, you may be impairing navigability. But I think Denise is right that there's not gonna be that many people Most people just meet the one third.

2:39:38They build their d they build their dock. This is a very individualized situation where somebody wants to exceed a third And staff says they're okay with it as long as it's not gonna impair a boat from getting through. If you have a better idea of who could be a little bit more than a little bit of certified that that's not going to occur, I think staff would be open to it.

2:39:59When you get into navigability, it also depends on what are you trying to navigate down the channel. I mean, are you trying to bring an aircraft carrier down? It's not gonna go, okay. But uh but a kayak will, you know. So

2:40:13Yeah, but there's somebody probably would have to that's why somebody does a site specific analysis of the boats that are using that canal, the depth of the canal, the width of canal. I just think staff doesn't want to have the do all of that work or be liable if somebody can't get their boat through.

2:40:30Well David yeah This might be a s silly question, but we're talking about the end of the canal and we're saying a third. The problem is some people turn around. But the canal is th two hundred feet long. So you're s you're using the term a third.

2:40:44Of the width. Third

2:40:46of the width of the canal. Well, okay, you said the width.

2:40:48Yeah

2:40:48the width.

2:40:50And even at the end somebody might be using the end to turn their vote around.

2:40:56Staff has no way of knowing whether what this is Point two. But if if your concern is that you don't they're not sure they can find an engineer to do it Maybe just change it to engineer or other qualified professional The Maybe there's a boat captain that's qualified to make that who's got twenty years of driving a boat through narrow channels that could

2:41:21Maybe you could. Well I mean

2:41:26I'm just whenever I see a requirement for an engineering certification, my thought is is that okay is there such an individual that does that? So if you're building an ordinance that and there's not that person that does it, then We're gonna be back here again. You know, and somebody get caught up in this trap.

2:41:44So I

2:41:44think

2:41:44that could be solved by just saying engineer

2:41:49I mean I I think that works for me.

2:41:54Okay. I do agree with Mike that I I think there's an issue with the fifteen feet above the mean high water mark. Um

2:42:06I think it'd be more likely to be fifteen feet above the Top of the seawall.

2:42:13Mm-hmm.

2:42:15Yeah, there's a

2:42:15seawall. Yeah, assuming there's a seawall.

2:42:21I I personally think that this I think you need to massage this a little bit more before you before we pass this one way or another. Um

2:42:31moving on to the like item E there flotation material. Is that being stricken because it's going in the other?

2:42:39Going in Pasco County Code of Ordinance.

2:42:42Got it. Okay. Um

2:42:47And then under definitions

2:42:52Well you have here mean high water line. It shall also mean an ordinary high water line of non tidal natural natural Water bodies. The precise delineation of the ordinary high water line or mean high water line shall be determined through a site specific studies. and field determinations by the applicant And Swift Mud. uh the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and or the

2:43:22Army Corps of Engineers.

2:43:27So I'm again I'm asking Apple you know, how you're going to apply that. So Somebody has a piece of property and and they need to know where the mean high water line is, are we saying here that there needs to be a site study W what the way I'm determined it needs to be a site study by the applicant and Swift MUD. The Department of Protection. And or Army Car Corps of Engineers.

2:43:56So when we get a survey and it shows the mean high water line, that's already determined that's already shown on the survey based on the surveyor's information who has already obtained all this information from all these locations. So I don't know that that is any any any different other than defined this way than what we currently do today.

2:44:17Yeah. 'Cause I'm always concerned when I when we start putting in here that the Army Corps engineer can get into something. Or spud can get into something. I would much rather say as determined by a survey, by a licensed surveyor.

2:44:30Okay.

2:44:35Then on waterfront property, um

2:44:41A navigable Water body. So does that include lakes?

2:44:46Lakes are navigable. It's just I think the di the differentiation here is that So a lot of people say to me, Oh, I have a drainage pond behind my house. I'm like, is it navigable? We're like, well, I could put a remote control bold in it. I'm like, no, can you put you know. So I uh this is this is actually a term that's not defined. So this is now being defined. As you can see it's strike through underline, I mean bold and underline. So it's a non-defined term, this term here.

2:45:13Waterfront properties.

2:45:15It's not defined right now in our code.

2:45:18Okay.

2:45:20We're now just defining it.

2:45:21You're defining it as as a navigable water body.

2:45:24Yes.

2:45:24Um

2:45:26now I'm gonna ask you

2:45:27by navigable by what? I mean

2:45:29By a motorized vote.

2:45:31By a motorized vote.

2:45:32Yes. Okay. Not a remote control boat, a bo motorized boat.

2:45:36But what about I mean if if somebody lives on a small lake,

2:45:39mm-hmm.

2:45:41you you may or may not put a motorized boat in there. I mean it may not be appropriate to put a motorized boat in there, but it it's okay for kayaks and they'd want a dock with a roof on it. To

2:45:52protect your county.

2:45:56Because this ordinance already tells you you could I mean if it goes through this ordinance already tells you you could do that.

2:46:02All right. Okay.

2:46:02Yeah. Because it's a private Main you know, inland lake.

2:46:08So so what are you asking us to do? To approve this?

2:46:11We're just asking you to find it consistent with the comprehensive plan and just move for approval to the Board of County Commissioners and I can make whatever modifications that the pl the local planning agency suggests. That are consistent with the board's direction on the item.

2:46:39Yeah, that's a m that's the main item for me too, and I don't know how we'd we'd fix that on the fly here because

2:46:48Well I think you could give direction to staff to

2:46:53You have some idea of what it should be? I guess that's the issue is you don't know what it should be.

2:46:58Yeah, I I really don't because um

2:47:06That's too funny.

2:47:15A thirty foot boat on a lift was probably about the m the max that you would see. But now, I mean, they make lifts to to lift a forty, fifty foot boat out of the water. So it's gonna be a lot higher. Where do you measure it from? So I I don't I honestly don't know the how to how to address that other than say I think that that's gonna be a problem.

2:47:39Well I think you'd give staff direction to Fix the paragraph. And make it consistent with What's in the real world. Um and they'll have to just investigate what that is. I agree with you, you're not gonna be able to fix it today, but Um

2:48:00I suspect staff could get that fixed between now and the time it gets to the board. Did you agree, Denise?

2:48:05I suspect that it can happen, but it might be a walk on. 'Cause this item is due tomorrow.

2:48:11But there's two public hearing in front of

2:48:13the board. Absolutely. It could definitely make it before the adoption. For certain.

2:48:18What I you you really need to do is look in it down in the the really heavy dense areas that have lots of boats like in the Miami area and stuff like that.

2:48:31huge, huge boating areas and I think there's probably some direction and maybe their ordinance is on how they deal with it. Um

2:48:40Will do. Um you also want me to place in um Just I just want to make sure that I'm doing everything as you need. One thousand one point five uh A to F, you want me to add or other qualified professional?

2:48:58Individual individual.

2:49:01other qualified individual.

2:49:05Okay.

2:49:09And then on the mean high waterline definition. you want me to state the precise delineation of the ordinary high water line or main high water line shall be d shall be as determined by a licensed surveyor and mapper.

2:49:23Right.

2:49:25Swift Mud and Department of Environmental Protection, Army Corps Engineers.

2:49:35Yeah.

2:49:39Additions and comments and deletions, I would move for approval.

2:49:43Okay, so we have a motion. Yeah, second.

2:49:48Yeah. Okay, any further discussion? All in favor of the motion? Opposed? Motion carries.

2:49:55Thank you.

2:49:57Thank you.