Public comment on any item before board
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 Board of County Commissioners, Jul 14, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jul 14, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 16m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 82% of 68 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Yes, I am here, Chairman Mariano. Yeah. I I knew he was there. At more point. So we'll count him in. So we have we have all five commissioners. We're good. So, ladies and gentlemen, now is the time for public comment. Citizens are given an opportunity to comment on any item coming before the board during this public comment section. The board also takes public comment on items to be placed on a future board agenda or other business under their purview. Due to COVID 19 operations to safeguard the well-being and safety of our citizens and staff, today's public comment will be handled differently. First, we will take public comment for those that are pre-registered for a WebEx link
and are currently on queue. After we will read into public comments, documents, records, PowerPoints or videos that have been identified by members of the public to read out loud or played at the meeting. Finally, we will take public comment from those currently signed up at the Kios Station. Comments are not to exceed three minutes. Um, this new format has not waived the request that when you do address the board, comments are not directed personally against any commissioner or team member, but rather directed at the issues. This provides a mutual respect between the board members and the public. Yeah. For WebEx
and kiosk participants after stating your name and address for the clerk, the timer will be activated and will start a countdown. After two minutes, one beep will sound, letting you know that only one minute remains. After the time is up, two beeps will sound, indicating three minutes are up and you should close your comments. WebEx participants will be disconnected when their time is up, and kiosk participants will be asked to move away from the kiosk. Madam Clerk, I know we have a number of people pre-registered to speak. I will let you go ahead and take over from here.
Great. Um ten did pre-register, however there are five that are connected. Three of those five are four R9, so we can just go to the individuals that are here for truly public comment. So we have um the first registered is Mr. Joel Two.
Thank you. I hope everyone can yes, thank you, Madam Clerk. I think every can everyone hear me?
Mm-hmm. Excuse me, Mr Toole, please state your name and address for the record and then start your comment.
Joel 2, [address removed]. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm addressing item C15 on your consent agenda, titled Multifamily Rezoning and Land Use Amendments Criteria underview. I'm speaking for myself as a land use attorney with over 25 years of service in Pasco and also for multiple landowners and developer constituents within your south market area. There are major substantive issues with a one-half
mile prohibition on multifamily projects extending for many miles across the south market area within your urban circle. The substantive issues include direct conflicts with the board's adopted comp plan policies for the south market area, the urban service area, including density transit, et cetera. There are also direct conflicts with the long-term transit plans for the south market area. I also am concerned their potential regulatory
taking and/or Bert Harris Act claims with a 2,000-foot setback area and a requirement for vertical building use integration. This is going to be very problematic in the post-COVID retail user world. There will not be enough retail users to take up a half-mile swap. across your entire South Market area for many years to come. Most significantly, there are procedural issues. This is de facto a comp plan
and an LDC amendment without following your Chapter 163 process and having public hearing to adopt these changes. There has been no use of the normal 130 PM BCC land use agenda process. Instead, PDD is pushing this through on the 10 a.m. consent agenda without stakeholder notice or public input, and more importantly, during it doing it during the COVID-19 virtual meeting process. I am
concerned that this is actually a usurpation of the board's own mandatory public hearing process, adopting the plan amendments and LDC amendments. amendments which the private sector would be required to follow. You're not receiving any Planning Commission or local planning agency input or direction on this. Consequently, I respectfully request that you consider a reconsideration of the directive adopted at your last meeting. That you table this matter and you refer
it to a normal workshop process with public input and then the normal Chapter 163 process to take any such comp plan amendments, including modifications to the South Market area. Through the public hearing process with your planning commission and your LPA for recommendations, and you allow the stakeholders an opportunity to have input. You may come out of the back end of that normal public hearing process with the same result. However, you will thereby avoid many misgivings
and problems with the process that's being followed. And I I hope you'll take this into consideration.
All right, Madam Clerk, who's next?
Uh the next uh registered individual is Mr. William Anderson.
Mr. Anderson, please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.
Yes, William Anderson. My address is [address removed].
Go ahead. All right, great. Well, good morning. I would just like to address the board and just uh state, you know, just a follow-up on Joel 2's comments, uh, to state that. We are a developer that does a lot of work in Pasco County, both retail and mixed use. And we just ask that the agenda item number C15 is pulled into the agenda. And go to the normal, uh, usual state and uh county regulatory process
where it can be heard um through each you know planning and zoning board, et cetera. And we ask that uh the board hears our concerns in this put in this COVID world. It's very difficult. uh to get projects done and further restrictions on development um are are pretty much guaranteeing that projects are even more difficult to be done. So thank you and I will uh Turn my comments over to the next speaker.
Okay, thank you. Um Ms. Madam Clerk, do we have next?
Chairman, the next three that are in line signed up are for R9. So we'd like to hold those till that time. Is that correct?
Um no, we don't take public comment during regular agenda items, so they will have to speak now.
Okay. We have Mr. Mike Sutton.
Mr. Sutton, please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.
Good morning, Mike Sutton, President, CEO of Habitat for Humanity of Penellas and West Pasco County, 4131 Madison Street, New Port Richey. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here to present and speak about agenda item R9, which is Habitat's loan forgiveness request. Habitat believes the redevelopment of Leisure Lane and Van Duren Avenue will be a catalyzing and transformational development for West Pasco County. Prior to our partnership, this area was known countywide for a place of rampant prostitution, drug use, and generally unsafe conditions. Since
merging the Penellas and West Costco affiliates a little over 12 months ago, we've been able to complete seven homes in the town and country villas, significantly increasing production. Um, and this was even through the pandemic. This is an achievement the entire organization is proud of and the work continues to this day. Through a combined effort and partnership with the county, as well as the key, we have already witnessed significant change in the area and hope to see the quality of life for the residents and businesses continue to vastly improve. However, there are significant challenges that remain with
the redevelopment of this area. Outside of the neighborhood challenges already mentioned, additional barriers include the property being in a flood zone, demolition of derelict structures, and some Vehicle infrastructure requirements and low home appraisal values. The County Commission and staff have remained eager and willing partners, yet we are requesting this additional investment to increase the feasibility of the full development of the area. We do not want to lose momentum that has already been created. Municipality funding uh land purchases root for
redevelopment of affordable housing for their citizens is not unique. The County Administrator mentions in their memo due to the property being in a flood zone, alternative federal funding becomes much more challeng challenging to obtain, and other state dollars cannot be utilized for loan forgiveness either. And almost half a million dollar investment by the county will leverage over $5 million in construction, and will very well add over $1 million in tax revenue over the lifetime of the homes. This past year, Habitat presented an eight hundred and
fifty-eight thousand dollar ceremonial check to the Penellic County Board of County Commissioners, which represented the total property values of our our Penellas homeowners paid last year. We expect that number to be over a million this year. We would love to present Clasco County Commission with a similar size check in years to come. This investment makes both financial sense and is in the interest of the public good. We respectfully request the commission approval to forgive the balance of this loan. We thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you, sir. Um next, Madam Clerk.
Yes, we have Ms. Crystal Lazar.
Ms. Lazara, please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.
Mr. Czar.
Mr. Czar. Are you there?
Check your mute.
We have her muted.
Crystal, can you hear us? You can speak now.
I think I hear you.
Here self muted.
Yeah. Crystal, uh think look at your phone and see if you have your phone muted.
All right, when we go on to the next person, you can try her back if you would.
Okay. Um the next individual signed up is Mr. Sean King.
Dropped off the call.
Okay.
Okay.
The next person signed up is Mr. Robert Park.
Mr. Park, please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.
Rob Park, [address removed]. Contesting ordinance 20-19. An ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, changing from residential one. Presidential second. Located at the southwest corner of Aaron Cuttoff and Callient Boulevard Intersection. The report, June 30th, C C meeting. Saw that my comment regarding
ordinance twenty-ninete voted on May twenty-first, twenty nineteen, was mistakenly connected with a different comment. Yeah.
Dave. for the ordinance 2019 application. Data is based before Aaron cutoff was widened in corners, which dramatically increased vehicular traffic. Importance dash nineteen includes the Collier Parkway extensions, Collier Parkway merge, which no longer exists due in part to the BC voting to accept the point.
And the fact that the permit for Conerton Village three and four is expired. Section three of Ordinance twenty-nineteen specifically in part. That any of the photos are out. The ordinance is bended. Where only two of the exhibits are invalid. I asked for that. It's twenty dash nineteen. I've received no email response from my email inquiry on the first and have been unable to contact Mr. Biles
by phone regarding this issue. Right.
Members of the board. The speaker is actually talking about nine ordinance nineteen-twenty. Uh after the last meeting, we pulled the the board records was kind enough to pull the ordinance that he's really talking about that was adopted on in May of 2019. It is 19-20, not 20-19. nineteen.
No, it's it's been in effect for over a
year. Thank you, Mr. Steinsburg. Who's up next, please?
That is it. Like to try uh Ms. Lazar again?
Yeah.
She's back home.
She dropped.
Oh she dropped. Okay. Okay. Well um Madam Clerk, I guess we do have some emails that need to be written to the record, do we?
I have one.
Okay.
This email is from Val G Ferris, uh team leader. I'm trying to find the address the address
I do not have an address for the individual.
I, Val Ferris, am writing in to voice my concerns about boat lift covers. From my understanding, permanent boat boat lift covers are not allowed in Pasco County for saltwater canals, only freshwater lakes. I have recently installed a boat lift over by cover By Coastline Boat Lyft Covers Company. Prior to the installation I called the county to confirm I am good since this is not considered a permanent structure and was given the OK as well as the assurance from the company. Will with these covers
they are not no different than a temporary sunshade. This was installed and I have since been told by the county that I am out of compliance and will soon either need to remove it or face fines. There are over a hundred of these structures in Pasco County on Saltwater Canals. That tells me there is an obvious public need and desire to be able to cover our boats. I firmly believe that not allowing boat lift covers is a serious safety factor. When forcing residents to place manual covers over their on their b on their boats versus
allowing for a simple roof, this does place people at a safety risk falling fail falling off the docks or Boat and heat stroke from the need to place the poles under the hot covers. My boat is a twenty-four foot triton that from top to bottom is approximately six feet tall. That is much more restrictive view than the cover that I have. That is only two feet from the bottom of the structure to the top of the actual cover. Is vinyl.
That is less than an inch. Someone please Explained to me and all the other residents by these covers are such a concern about blocking a view, they are very minimal. I would ask the commissioners to make this priority and draft an ordinance that would meet the needs of the boat owners as well as other residents that feel this would restrict their view. I would think we can all be accommodated or better yet put this in a referendum and let the people speak to it.