APC7 LDC Amendment 61 land development code amendments
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Oct 20, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Oct 20, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 49m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 95% of 571 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
All right, the your the last item on your agenda is APC seven. It's PDD twenty-three zero zero one seven and while my colleagues bring up that PowerPoint. I will tell you that this is LDC Amendment 61. This is the set of package amendments that have been worked on through the ordinance development team as a result of different things. Some things have to do with implementation, other things have to do with board direction, and some you'll see some Scrivener's errors in there. And then you'll also see things that
were requested by the Tampa Bay Builders Association. by the industry.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
So these proposed amendments were presented to the horizontal round table. Actually, one of the amendments when we get to it in 802 that was presented to the horizontal round table on June 15th, 2022. I presented the amendments to a subgroup of the horizontal round table on October 12, 2022, and again yesterday on October 19, 2022, the to the horizontal round table at their regularly scheduled meeting.
So we're going to go through the list of the different items that are included in your agenda packet of the changes that are being proposed and I'll tell you where uh the the where they originated from. For the most part. So the first item that's being changed is amended is Chapter 300, Section 304, public notice procedures, and it's the table in 3041, required public notices for development application approvals. This basically adds a row in that table for comprehensive plan amendments to be mailed, published, and
posted. This is from the direction of the Planning Commission and from the Board of County Commissioners.
The next change is Chapter 300 Procedures, Section 304.2C, public notice published. This is basically in anticipation of Section 50.011 Florida statutes, which basically allows publication on publicly available websites. So we're just adding the words any by any other means. So newspaper publications are kind of going by the wayside. So beginning January 1st, 2023, I believe that's when the actual effective date of this of that of that statute is,
we'll be able to do them by publishing them in a publicly available website. And I think there's some there's some folks that are working on that process for the county as we speak.
Okay.
So the following section is Chapter 400 Permit Types and Applications, Section 402.2 B. Zoning amendments M P U D. This basically clarifies that projects that exceed the capacity of 1200 daily trips are as shown on Table 402.2-A.
It this is gonna be a little bit clearer when I tell you that 9015 traffic impact study is being stricken and that's where that twelve hundred daily trip table r resides. So that table is now being moved to four oh two point. Two, because it calls out 1200 daily trips. So how do you know what projects exceed the 1200 day daily trips unless you have a table? So we're including the table in there. I do want to say that we will be discussing probably within the next couple of few months and into 2023 about do is
that really an appropriate threshold, 1200 daily trips. So that's something we're going to be talking about. Additionally, to kind of lessen the number potentially of MPUDs that are that are coming through, we're including that projects that are subject to a development agreement, special exception, or conditional use do not require an MPUD. So the following section that's being modified is Chapter 400 Permit Types and Applications, Section 403.3 F1, preliminary site plans, time
limit on approval. That section now has language that if the building permits expire after the sixth year of the PSP's approval, the PSP also expires.
This next item touches several sections, which is just basically replacing the term permit with placard. So, in other words, it's now no longer a hard copy site development permit, it's a hard copy site development placard. That's called out in 403 stormwater management plan and report, 4035 construction plan, 4037 mass grading, 40310 landscape plan. Plan and in five twenty two connected city and PUD.
The following section is um I do want to say that there is a typo on your memo. Um I just realized that either earlier today or yesterday. Instead of saying non-substantial, it says consubstantial modification. I apologize. So it's uh it's basically removing the statement that only portions of development affected by the substantial modification are subject to additional review. Well A non a substantial modification is basically you look at the entire
thing. Only those, so that section is being moved to non-substantial. So it should be. Only portions of the development affected by the non substantial modification are affected are subject to additional review. So the next section is I need to talk about definitions before we get into the section. So this is something that Kind of like the genesis of this was through Planning Commission. If you remember last year we had an alternative relief, I believe it was in December, and it probably
got continued into January from a firm called EYS regarding conditional uses and the definition of a family and those types of things. So this kind of hopefully we think will fix um all those um issues. So basically our definition of a family, if you see that up there, it was basically an unlimited number of people. It didn't It just says it could be a single person, two or more persons, whether related by blood marriage whether or not related by blood marriage or adoption.
So this definition is directly from Manatee County. Um and I w uh David uh worked very hard on this. I was just, you know, in the background on this one. Um and he did a he did a great job and we did speak to and work with the um uh the uh I forgot the type of law that he does. Mr. Housing
Act Attorney.
Say that again. It was
the Fair Housing Act.
Fair Housing Act. Yeah, Fair Housing Act law. And um and this is the result of that. We um also changed the definition. Um now the concept is called the group living arrangement.
So Denise, if you could just go back to the part one, just to be clearer. So The reason the de this definition is important is because this is this is the only type of family that can reside in a single family Dwelling. That's the reason. So, You need to understand the definition and the context of zoning, which is that I in single family neighborhoods only if you fall within this definition are you considered a family. If you don't fall within this definition
you're gonna be something else which Denise is about to cover in the next definition. Okay.
Right, so if you don't fall into that then you're basically a group living arrangement. And it explains, you know, what a group lim live arrangement could be. It could be a um boarding home, it could be a fraternity, it could be a convent. You know, there's uh they're not it's not limited to these things, but these are some uh ideas of what a group leaving arrangement is. And the following definition that That was modified is the definition of a residential treatment and care facility. Because a residential treatment and care facility is really more of
a facility that employs the services of skilled and licensed health practitioners. So we wanted to make sure that that was what stood out in that definition, certainly.
All right, so how how is this in the LDC now? So residential treatment and care facility and this is no change to land development code. They continue to be permitted uses in C1, C2, C3, I1, and I2. No change. That's still the same. It's now also no no change is there they continue to be conditional uses in AR, AR1, R1 MH, R2 MH, R1, R2, R3, and R4. These this is the change with residential treatment and care facilities.
It's now a uh conditional use in AC. It was previously a permitted use in AC. Now a conditional use, not mentioned in AC1, but now a conditional use in AC1, AR5, AR5MH, ER, and ER2. Group living arrangements, change this is this is all changed to the LDC. Permitted use in MF1, MF2, MF3, conditional uses in AC, AC1, AR, AR1, AR5, MH. A R five, E R, E R two, R one R
one R one M H, R two M H, R two, R three, and R four.
Can I can ask a quick question? Sure. Was this change brought about by the uh occurrence of the group home in the Quay Hollow area? Yes. Okay.
And so if that home came in after these code amendments were adopted It would clearly be a group living arrangement because they were requesting more than six unrelated individuals. Which this clearly says that's a conditional use in the residential zoning district. So The issue we had in that with that Particular facility was our Code had not been amended with these requirements, so It allowed them to have the argument that You could have an unlimited number because of our definition of family.
You could have an unlimited number of unrelated people living in a single family home. So but no more than six.
So this Uh If that would have come before the board with this wording here, that would have been a
conditional use application. They would have had to require they would have had to submit a Conditional use application. If you recall
was asserting they didn't have to because it would violate the Fair Housing Act. Now we ended up imposing conditions on them through the alternative relief process. So we may have got to effectively the same result. But This makes it perfectly clear that Staff's original position was that facility needed a conditional use. It wasn't until we got the Fair Housing Act complaint that we had to reevaluate the issue. But I think at the time Planning Commission told us You need to go fix your code. Right. It shouldn't happen again. That's what Denise is doing.
Yeah, you could still have up to six unrelated people, but And that's how many codes are drafted. is that you get up to six. This definition of family says you can have up to six unrelated Or you can have I think two related and then up to four unrelated Or in an unlimited number of related.
W one one of my main concerns with that was the terminology for skilled and licensing uh staff. And if you recall it was brought to our attention that some of the staff You had a very broad very broad definition of skilled or licensed because the uh
The Number of people that were really there as in a custodial fashion. In other words, they're going to monitor the movements of the residents from point A to point B to ensure that they did not go beyond the boundaries of the property.
So I think under these revised definitions, that facility either would have been a group living arrangement or a residential treatment arrangement. care facility depending on the level of skilled care. So but regardless, under either scenario, it would have been a conditional use.
Yes, both of those are listed as conditional uses in that district.
Just out of curiosity, David, how is the definition of family, Denise, if you could flip back to that, is that pretty consistent with other codes in the states? Yeah, in fact it's less from manatee. It's identical
from the Manatee County Code. Yes.
So if I'm reading this right, if you're a natural family, it doesn't matter you can have a thousand people. In a house.
Well, Yeah.
Building code has some occupancy limits on a home that that would come into play. But From a zoning perspective, yes, you're correct. In other words, the the Florida building code.
requires that you that you have a certain amount of space per occupant. To comply with the Florida building code. For fire safety reasons and other reasons. So But if you're asking from a zoning perspective, does the building department go around and
Well so the ans the answer is actually yes, because that was an issue with elevated use services was that Part of the reason they weren't able to expand too much beyond six or why they were having difficulty expanding beyond six. wasn't necessarily because of zoning, it was because they were having a hard time meeting the Florida building code requirements.
So the question I have about the definition Marriage and adoption are very clear to me, but what is blood We live in an age where I can go get a twenty three in me test kit and in a few weeks I'm gonna get something back that says I'm related to the Prince of Wales or something, you know, and then is he my family, is he my blood? It a another question came up in my own family. My my father's brother got divorced.
So is his first wife still my aunt?
Brothers? Brother.
Yeah
so that'd be an uncle. So when I was when I was born they were married, so he was my uncle and she was my aunt, but then they got divorced, oh I don't know, five six years ago, is she still my aunt?
I think if you're no longer related to the
family.
If you're no longer related to that person by marriage and sounds like you wouldn't be or blood, it sounds like you wouldn't be. I would guess my answer would be no, you're not. Now, they still may be able to live with you because of B and C.
Well I understand it's when you get over the six people that creates the concern and I'm I'm not opposed to the sixth person cap what I'm getting at is that someone could really stretch this definition as to what constitutes blood. Is your second cousin, fifth cousin Forty fifth cousin, your blood?
Well, I can tell you that historically
we haven't had an issue with What I'm getting I guess what I'm getting at is if you If you're saying that there are occupancy limits defined by the Florida building code, isn't that more definite rather than trying to get into who's who and who's related or not related and So as long as you don't exceed those occupancy limits or
the problem is is that this is a zoning restriction. The building code is depending on the size of the home. And so you could have a very, very large home in a single family district that can accommodate way more people than a small home so Single f the definition of family is has to be flexible enough to deal and the for zoning perspective has to be flexible enough to deal with all of those scenarios. So this is saying regardless
we
have
to we would probably run into a problem is if we have fifty people in a two bedroom home. It's not if we have fifty people in the fifteen bedroom mansion.
I understand but This is still saying that 'cause remember, we're talking about what what is appropriate in a single family neighborhood. So you have to decide what is what is a family. When you say single family neighborhood, So I don't think that even if it was a big home, if it had fifty unrelated people That's probably not a family. That's a Fred House. Or a sorority or something.
When you say by blood that's not a precise
definition of what constitutes relation in a family And you I I will tell you, I one, I don't object to this. But I think you're potentially opening yourself up for people that come in here and make all kinds of crazy claims as to how they're related. I can think of I used to live in River Crossing. And When you turned onto my street, the very first house on the right. was owned
by, well I'm not quite sure who owned it. But they were an Asian group. And what we noticed was every other few weeks. the group of occupants in this house would turn over and what they were were labor for the Chinese restaurant next to the public's. adjacent to the neighborhood. And Could they claim they're all family? How would you ever if they s if they claim they were, how could you prefer that?
constrain who's related by Blood. I think the intent is Well I understand your intent. I just You have to remember that our existing code said that already by blood. And the Manatee County Code says it by blood. I'm we can look in to see if there's some jurisdiction that have defined what it
means to be related by blood. Yeah. I I can see the point there because th with DNA testing, I'm sure we've seen in news people, if I go down or someone goes down to have a test and that DNA can all of a sudden bring forward a number of people that you really don't know that well. I can see the science of today And of the future could could backfire with with the with the with the blood concept.
Yeah, if we were talking twenty five years ago, I don't think this would be a question.
And from a legal perspective I don't see how you could eliminate blood from that definition. No,
we you can't eliminate blood because clearly if somebody's your father, son, daughter, brother, sister
I'm not sure if that's what's being suggested, but you know, uh to to constrain that I No,
I'm not arguing the point to to to eliminate it. I'm just saying that it's opening up Pandora's box because of of the science.
that people forty-five generations down the floor they're my blood. Yeah,
somebody knows.
Grandparents, cousins You know But we can figure out if there's some way to
constrain the number of cousins, you know, you don't want I understand your point. Um define the term
blood, here's what it means. You know, uncles, aunts, and it cut it off at a certain point. Right. So Denise d'Ascape.
So Second Cousins.
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know that we we've encountered a code that Maybe because all codes are older, I don't know. uh that deals with that level of distinction of what is blood related. So but we'll have to figure out if we can Create something.
The only thing we could do probably would be limited by the number of generations.
Yeah. That's an interesting concept, sure.
Well but even if you limit by generations then you have to figure out how many cousins.
You know, is the seventh cousin I well
I will tell you this is so much better than what we have now because now it's like unlimited. You could claim anybody as
your
family.
Yes. Right now remember remember go back to what our code reads today. You could have a hundred people in a single family home unrelated. That's what we're dealing with currently.
And I gr and I agree that you're trying to limit it. I'm just not sure. And again, you're the lawyer here. that the word blood gets the limitation you're trying to achieve. So
yeah, we'll we'll look into see if there's a way to define what is Fair enough. How far up and sideways on the Chain of relatives you can be to be considered blood related.
Well all you have to do is get the winning lottery ticket and I'm sure you'll find all the family
you never knew you had. Come
out of the woodwork. Yeah.
So uh Denise, between Denise and I we could probably research that between time this goes to the board and see if we can define what is blood related.
Absolutely. All right, so moving on this next section is this came about because a lot of uh and particularly also newer staff members say to me, Hey, they've gotta have a pu uh park in accordance with nine oh five point one. Is that considered a private park and they have to have a special exception? I'm like, No, that's considered an accessory use. So now we're clarifying and R1 MH, R2 M H, R1, R2, R3, R4, MF one, MF2, and MF3, that neighborhood parks required by 905.1
are accessory uses. Can I ask a question?
Absolutely. Okay. So is there any Sighting requirement For the park. That would or is there any buffering requirement for these parks?
I I we do have um Mr. Tippen on here and I believe we probably have someone from Parks and Natural Resources on the
Because where I'm going on WebEx. I'll just get right to the the question that I have is by making them an accessory use. Some of these facilities may have swimming pools, they may have club houses. They may have
That's an amenities center. That's a little different. That is called out specifically as a special exception use. That's an amenity center.
And our code doesn't code doesn't require the construction of an amenity center. I think what Denise is saying is if
All right, let me simplify it.
Well the code doesn't require the construction of a gazebo either. Oh okay, okay.
What I'm getting at is those become accessory structures. And then the accessory structures are only required to be set back from their side and rear property lines by five feet. My concern being Say we have a situation where the developer opts to place the neighborhood park and it backs up to Mr. Hansel's backyard. And now all of a sudden he has the accessory structure. five feet from his
rear property line.
Are
accessory structures uh permitted in a park like that? Or is that only for residents?
Well I I think what David was saying it doesn't require the construction, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't construct it. They could, right?
Mr. Moody's asking is So like if they put a can they put a pool in a neighborhood? Are accessory structures subject to setback requirements?
Accessory structures are subject to setback requirements, and Mr. McMoody stated what the setback is, it's a five foot setback.
So your concern that that's
But you create a neighborhood park. And for instance, the building code exempts swing sets on a residential property but not a public playground. And then we cite the Jungle Gym and the Slide and the Swing Sets right next to Mr Hansel's backyard because that's where the developer opted to put the neighborhood park and Maybe he doesn't want all the screaming children in his back
So I'm gonna ask a question that's from my team that's behind me because this is this is standard practice. This is how things work today. I'm just co codifying it into the code. Have we ever had this as a problem in the past?
Hopefully not, and I don't want it to be.
I'm just c it's just it's basically codifying a determination.
Can I just add before you speak, Brad? I'm not sure this change in the code affects the issue you're concerned about because it's saying
And that's actually you're good, because that's the root of my question, is does this change the status, does this make something now a structure associated one of these parks, an accessory structure that would have some reduced setback that it otherwise would not?
I don't th tell me if I'm wrong, Stop. I don't think it is. It's just saying that it doesn't need to go through special exception approval
for a private park.
For a private park. park. The theory being if we're codes requiring them to put in this park,
you shouldn't have to go through
a special exception approval to get that approval. Your issue is once the but how that park is constructed and whether it's meeting setback requirements I'm not I don't think this is necessarily changing the subback requirements but I'll
defer to staff.
So I'll defer to staff.
imagine that They make all n all structures comply with setbacks, but I'll defer to Brad on that question.
That that's correct, David. Um it's not gonna change that. Um and and to Denise's question, the I it's rarely an issue because generally the the amenity center is constructed before the people are purchased the homes around it, so they know what's there when they go to buy it. So you uh you know you're right next to a playground if that's the case.
But my concern is that for someone buying in a new neighborhood, it would be that if it were backed up to an existing neighborhood.
Okay.
And again it's the neighborhood itself has buffer standards? Well I don't have an objection. All I'm asking is is this changing the status quo? I
think all it's changing based on my understanding, is that A neighborhood park that's required by code doesn't need a special exception approval. That's my understanding of the change. It's not affecting anybody's setbacks. Is that accurate?
Accurate.
Denise, while we're on parks, is there a limitation on the size of the park that can't be built?
Limitation on the size of the park?
Right.
Um I believe there might be s someone online with for a neighborhood park for a neighborhood park that is. Yeah.
I don't know the definition of neighborhood park. I know there's regional parks th and and so on.
So I can probably
answer
the question. Yeah. There's minimum sizes. I'm not aware of any maximum sizes in Usually the market would st would stop the developer from making their entire neighborhood a park. I mean, 'cause they they're gonna want to put lots there, they're gonna sell homes. They're not We don't we never needed to put it a maximum because the market stops them from being a maximum. Does that make sense? Yeah.
It does. W where I'm coming from I guess is at one time in my life I worked for a parks and rec department and
Sometimes parts can be have a negative impact. Yeah. in a community that had certain elements that would use parks for activities which were not positive, gang fights, that type of thing. I know it becomes a police matter at that point in time. So that's why I was looking at the fact that the size of a park. I'm not concerned about too much of a neighborhood park built in.
So this is not like a regional park or like a private park or that type of thing. This is like the neighborhood parks that are required, like an an open space neighborhood park requirement. In the land development code for a subdivision.
Yeah, that's why I was asking about the size, David. I was looking at For instance, you have Wesley Chapel Park, a beautiful park out there. And f when I first moved to Pasco County, I worked with some folks to try and create that park out there. And at my age now I don't really have that much of an interest in parks other than the fact that it does benefit a community as a whole. But I'm concerned about as communities grow. Like the west side of Pasco County. is relatively older and mature and I know that
are probably some gang activities out here and there are I And that's all I'll say about that. So they tend to gravitate to parks for a variety of reasons.
Okay, so let me be clear. is talking about are only neighborhood parks, not the counties, district, regional, large parks. Okay, so it's There are neighborhood parks that are typically maintained by an HOA or a C D D And those HOEs and C D Ds can secure those parks however they want to. So if they want to You know, I live in a C D D where our basketball courts have fences all around them and you need a secure entry to get into the basketball courts.
So there are many HOAs and C D D's that secure their facilities to address the very issue that you're talking about. Okay. There's nothing in our code that prevents that.
Okay.
What our code requires is they have a place for the residents to recreate. It doesn't say they can't secured in some way.
No
So that H O A or that C D D or whatever neighborhood was assumed to be using that neighborhood park. as long as they all all have accessibility to it. then they can secure it however they want to secure it.
So but these are not
County District regional parks that that tend to be open and unsecured. They're only the neighborhood parks which they can secure them if they want to or not secure 'em if they don't think it's a problem. They don't have to secure them.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, the next section is f um 500 zoning 517.3. This is R4 High Density District. Um it basically modifies the lap coverage to be a com combination of principal and accessory structure coverage to sixty-five percent. So you just heard of Aries right before this one and you know Um they just couldn't wait till the the code get updated. Yes you have. So You're welcome. Thank you. The next section is um this is a Scrivenerzer, F 22.3,
Q MPUD conditional uses. Uh changes the section from 401 to 402, should have always been 402. And it corrects the term short-term rental. They've been called vacation rentals for years and years already. Um, and modifies 4015B to 4025B.
Next section is
the restriction now on vacation rentals?
So if the if the vacation rental w did not exist prior to the adoption of the ordinance in nineteen ninety nine and r and was actually Um actually Um what is it called? The person the those folks were required to register. If that if and if n and if it's not in the plat that you can have. Um uh vacation rentals or in the M P U D plan, then it's requires a conditional use. You've heard one and actually you just heard another one last last Not
two planning commissions ago
for
Mr. Malicos. So they have to go through the conditional use process.
Is there any active enforcement of this going on? I mean now that we have V R B O and Airbnb Airbnb and the like. And I mean I know I can tell tell you I know someone who cleans these residences, these vacation rentals on a weekly basis every second. I can follow up with code
enforcement as to what their enforcement activity is on these. Um so I'm not familiar with Uh David, have you heard anything in the County Attorney's Office whether that's something that's being enforced?
Because I'm sure there's a lot more of them than there are registrations.
You have to remember that the tax collector is enforcing the collection of the tourist tax, which is the probably the f primary enforcement mechanism to make sure that if there operating as effectively a hotel that they're paying the tourism tax, the tax collector. So I think he does some enforcement, but I'm not privy to everything that he's doing. But part of the reason we turned it over to the tax collector. Do you do those collections because We wanted him to help with those that enforcement.
Okay.
But I think Denise is correct from a zoning perspective, I'm not sure we're doing A lot of enforcement. Unless it's com unless we get a complaint. Of some kind.
Well for the most part, I mean the these types of properties are well kept. They have to
be. Oh absolutely. Like I said, I know somebody who that's they make their living cleaning these things and every Saturday morning they gotta go clean them up before they g get turned over and yeah they are absolutely kept. That's how they're not blight. They're not blighted
like a lot of the rental properties.
But occasionally they go there and on Saturday morning and then the place is trashed 'cause they got a rowdy group that took it and
So next section is five twenty two point five two A nine. It basically um adds animal hospitals and veterinary clinics as principles as permitted uses. Previously it was special exception use. Sorry about that. Is this where I should be? Okay. Following section is eight hundred natural and cultural resources protection, tree preservation and replacement. So this is um the agricultural loophole. Um it hopefully um closes that
loophole. Uh we do I'm I don't know if David wants to talk about it.
Well this
is another one
that rose out of arose out of a planning commission meeting actually. Um This was CPAP, right? Yes. So if you recall there was an allegation that trees were being removed under an agricultural exemption Um And if you recall I stated that the code says that that exemption expires once you submit an application for a site plan approval. I asked Brad at the time then what happens and I think that's a good thing. I'm not sure that certain people were not
going to be able to do that. happy with his answer under the existing code. So so we've tried to clarify Exactly what happens when that agricultural exemption expires. So in twenty sixteen we changed the code to say that it expires when the site plan is submitted. But it it wasn't clear about what happened. So how do you measure the trees that were removed once it expires? So we've added language that clarifies They will look at aerials and and other surrounding areas to determine
the existing code is it didn't really create a safe harbor for what I would call true ag properties. Um so Because the intent in twenty sixteen wasn't necessarily to stop a true agricultural operation from removing trees. The intent was to try to stop people from using that exemption solely to avoid our tree mitigation requirements. So we've now created a safe harbor that says that if you've been under ag zoning and agricultural classification for at
least five years. or you've been under AGZone and Agricultural Classification for at least two years and then you at least wait at least three years to submit a site plan application. The those are permanently exempt. In other words, they're not 'Cause we're considering those to be true AG operations. They weren't doing it solely to avoid our code requirements. So that's effectively what the code amendment does. It also clarifies Wind tree removal is allowed in a wetland. And it's basically only if it's been gotten either a
permit exemption from Swift Mode or they're following
adopted by the Department of Agriculture. So That's effectively what is done. It's basically trying to clean up something that we did in twenty sixteen but we didn't Finish the thought process on it.
I understand where you're going and I wasn't a member of of this commission when that particular case came, but I was watching it that day, so The question I have was was the accused actually or does the accused actually practice agriculture on his property? Is he a rancher? Is he a
statute requires that it be a bona fide agricultural operation? I don't have enough facts to know whether he was actually engaged in a bodified agricultural operation. If he wasn't He would not qualify for the exemption at all.
Okay. And then
But if he was This makes it clearer that that That exemption expires as soon as he submits a site plan approval. Sure. Unless he had been doing it for
And I will tell you that I have a Sort of client. that I know has done the same thing. Um But I have some concern That We're establishing a time frame, five years that may not be reasonable for someone someone may actually we may catch people un There may be an unintended consequence here. one of the thoughts that I had as I was reading this is Like
somebody moves into Pasco County and sets up a blueberry farm. We had a lot of those going on for a while. They set up the blueberry farm. They do this for a year. And then all of a sudden war breaks out in Russia and the Ukraine and the cost of fertilizer goes through the roof and then Hurricane Ian comes along and destroys the fertilizer industry in central Florida and it becomes no longer economically feasible for him to continue his
blueberry operation. Now he has to wait three and a half or four years. before he can opt to develop his land when he was legitimately practicing.
It says that if he Submits before then he's gonna have to mitigate for the trees that were removed.
Well, right, but In this case. Here you're Catching the guy. H the intent was to continue the agricultural operation, but because of market forces or th things that are beyond that person's control, they're now caught up in this.
Yeah, I mean I understand.
Because the problem we were having is that people were claiming the I exemption for a very short period of time. the soul for the sole purpose of avoiding tree mitigation requirements. So I don't know where to draw that line. I mean Clark Hobby raised a similar concern. That's why we changed the five years to a somebody who can only does it for two but then they wait.
It stops. the potential abuse because otherwise what happens if somebody comes in and says, I did a blueberry farm And then they submit their site plan application the next day. I mean that's the pro that's the problem we're having. And so that was the problem we were having in twenty sixteen when we originally
So if someone wants to exercise the exemption for tree removal, are they required to pull a tree removal permit?
I would tell you that in the case of my sort of client, because he's never paid me a dollar. Um All he did was email Will Poon and say I intend to h have an agricultural exemption in place on my property before March first of whatever year it was and bing
bing he went out
and cleared
all the
trees.
I believe the the code exempts them from tree removal permits, but Brad, is that clear?
So the question is could we require them I'm looking at this whole business of okay, so once the exemption expires, then we've got to try to determine if they O mitigation for trees and how we're going to determine it. Would we be better off to require them to request a tree removal permit pursuant to the exemption and then provide a tree survey at that time
so there's no question And my partner and I went back this morning, we just looked at a few properties and said, can we actually count trees off an aerial photo after the fact and we'll It was pretty easy with some cypress trees and some pine trees, but man when you got oaks and they were joined up in a cluster, there was no way to tell how many trees. And then the mitigation's based on the number of inches. uh at diameter of breast height. So how can you look at a aerial photo and say, well that tree's ten inches, that one's
twelve, that one's fourteen? That's almost an impossible task.
So our experts or arborists do believe that it's possible to do with aerial photographs in Not just their photographs, but also comparing similar trees in the vicinity. So they can look in an aerial and they're they're also saying that our aerials have gotten way more sophisticated because you have street street view now. So you can look at you can look at the street view and you actually can measure only on the street though.
But but I'm saying they can they can determine they can determine with pretty good certainty you the size of the trees that were removed based on aerials and or comparison of trees in the vicinity. To your first point though We were trying to strike a balance. So we did you can do a survey before you start removing trees under ag exemption. That that possibility is in there. Right.
And I read it and I go, Why would anybody in their right mind do that? Okay, but that's I think that's
the answer to your question to your question though is We didn't want to make every ag operation have to do tree removal permits. I mean that was not that wasn't the intent in twenty sixteen, nor is it the intent Now that's just more burden on Brad's staff. If it's a legitimate ag operation to say you've got to do a tree removal permit every time you Clear enough rag. So If they want to do a survey, that option is available for them. But if they don't Well we're saying and you don't qualify for the Safe Harbor
then this specifies how we'd measure what was removed.
For eternity, it only goes back to twenty sixteen. This isn't because that was when we first did that. We're not saying we're gonna go back till nineteen
What trees were there? 'Cause there's mo most of this agricultural clearing that occurred occurred well before twenty sixteen. That's From what I've seen. So We don't think anybody was intentionally doing it to avoid tree mitigation But certainly if they did it before twenty sixteen, before they knew that their it was gonna get expired We can't really blame them for that. But in twenty sixteen we clearly said it's gonna expire. At some point. So The problem is
is we just said it expire but then we didn't say what happened. in twenty sixteen. So this that's what this is trying to Clarify. I acknowledge there are some jurisdictions that require tree removal permits, even for ag And we could certainly go down that path, but And that would give you a certainty as to what was there. But it's an additional burden on the ag community, which we didn't want to impose. That was not our intent. Our intent was to stop the potential abuse of
the ag exemption Not
Okay. So then
the question then becomes And I can be convinced.
What's why five years? Why not ten years? Why not Three years.
I
think five years came from Hillsborough. They have a similar provision that talks about when is something considered ag or not. Um We got a comment from Clark Hobby that that seemed a bit long. So I mean based on that comment that's where we created the additional one for the right-of-way. Two years as long as you wait.
Right, but you're as long as you wait, you're still making it five years.
True. But again it's not saying that you couldn't develop, it's just saying you wouldn't be able to rely on the Permanent ag exemption.
And so It's kind of a policy issue. I mean if the Board of County Commissioners told us five years is Too long or if the Planning Commission wants to recommend a shorter time frame That's not a legal call. I I'm just saying that what staff came up with was five years. So The issue we were trying to deal with was when is somebody a legitimate Ad user Obviously two months is probably not legitimate. I mean so but where you draw the line
I agree with you. It's a policy issue that ultimately somebody will have to decide whether they'd you know they'll have maybe they'll try five years and determine later.
my understanding, assuming he was bona fide, and I don't know if he was or wasn't, but assuming he was He had been doing it for five over five years. So he actually would have qualified for the safe harbor. So
And that's hard to explain to the commissioner that called me and said, What the hell are you doing? But but at the same time you have to protect legitimate ag operations. And so The fact that we didn't catch that particular guy, I'm sorry, but but You gotta draw the line somewhere as to what is a legitimate ag operation. I don't know if it's five years. Okay, that's what staff is recommending.
Two, three, or four.
I understand your line of thinking. That's just That's what I was trying to understand is what we're where what we're playing with. The real
issue we had was that was was people people were basically saying we're ag exempt and then literally within six months, a year, they're saying they're submitting their application for a subdivision. And so in that case it appears that they were doing it s for the sole purpose of avoiding tree mitigation. That's what we were trying to stop. I do agree though that there's a Some line though where somebody's doing a legit they were not clearing trees just for to pre prepare for development. They were doing it 'cause they were doing legitimate ag operation.
But you have to draw draw a line somewhere, as you said, and and we did the best we could.
Fair
enough. And by the way, in twenty sixteen we didn't even have a safe harbor. It just said it expired. So So there wasn't even a safe harbor for the people that have been doing it thirty years.
So one could argue that it's an improvement for the legitimate ag operation.
Okay.
All right. Coming coming down to the stretch. Um next section.
I love you, John. Next section that's being modified is eight oh five. Eight oh five wetlands. Um it adds that F it adds F D E P as a reviewing and or permitting permitting issuance agency. Mm-hmm. It further clarifies that public roadways are not subject to reasonable use test determination. It provides that the reasonable use determination applies to non-public roadways and linear public and private utilities. And it removes that statement
about non-gated roadway open to the public travel pup to public travel. in the public roadways
section. And it leaves the decision solely to the county administrator or his des his or her reasonable use
determin yes.
Okay. So the reasonable use determination. If The applicant feels like the county administrator unfairly denied them in that reasonable use determination. Does the applicant have any opportunity to appeal it to this board or to the county commission?
It's in four oh seven point one It's in the appeal section.
And by the way, it would be appealed to this planning commission. The Planning Commission. And then only if they didn't like the Planning Commission decision would it go to the Board of County Commissioners?
Mm. I've always had a problem with the wording and or. Uh
Because Swift Mud could be the permitting agency. So, like Southwest Ford Water Management District may be the permitting agency, Army Corps of Engineers may be the permitting agency. It's not only FDEP.
It depends on If we were doing a subdivision, Swift Mud would have the jurisdiction, but if it was just something that happened on a single family lot, F D. E. P. would have the jurisdiction Or if it was A project in which FDEP would otherwise have permitting jurisdiction, say for a new county wastewater treatment plant, FDEP would be the agency that permits wetland impacts.
So why can't we just state what agency has a responsibility for what? Because sometimes agencies, no, it's his responsibility. And the other one says, No, it's your responsibility. No. Or you see what I'm saying? That's it it kinda
The Florida Fire Prevention Code and the Florida Building Code Like to use the term AHJ, authority having jurisdiction.
Okay.
Well
I spilled it.
We we do have the folks from natural resources. I'm not sure if they want to add they're they are elevated to speak if they would like to
on the matter.
I'm gonna win the argument anyway, so you know. I I just always have had a problem with that 'cause when I worked for this agency before I retired. I did it. It was always well it's it's and or it's or You know, and nobody got anything done. So or it was my way of getting out of something too. Hey it's ours. You know?
So
anyway,
it's just my knowledge I we've never had an issue with and or being misinterpreted. So but
And it also there's a comma as applicable every time.
Federal system is different.
All right, next section is We're just getting clarification. Next section is 901.5. That section is stricken because um traffic impact study was eliminated in 2011 and it's now reserved. The next section is 905.2D landscape and landscaping and buffering. This is per the direction of the Board of County Commissioners on 2.8 of 22. We're updating the minimum number of shade trees table for a lot that's less than 6,000 square feet. Now you need two trees before you needed one. You've probably
seen that in all the MPUDs that are moving forward through the Planning Commission already, because that's a direction that the board Gave us. And then it also adds that a shade tree may be placed in the right-of-way that fronts the lot. So you're probably seeing a lot of um street trees or that type of terminology, but we're now codifying that.
We're gonna have a discussion.
Okay. And it also clarif let me let me finish this section. It also clarifies that the buffer landscaping um is to be located between the fence and wall and the street road right of way, not behind the fence wall on the uh piece of property. So yeah, John.
Do you have a graph here?
How long was this discussion gonna be? I don't know. We're taking a break. Yeah. We'll take a five minute break. I'm in a break. Okay. That's why I took my own break. Yeah. That's what
made me think. Maybe somebody else.
Because I d I think the one I took sort of nine oh Sidewalks? Yeah, that's the one. I don't
know that we have a section about sidewalks.
Yeah.
Fences. And then nonconforming signs and then concurrency. Okay. Yeah, we don't have anything else. We don't have anything about sidewalks.
Trying.
Well Dave, if I can bend your ear for just thirty seconds. I think sidewalks should be
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Mm-hmm.
In my opinion,
no. Yeah,
because Chuck wasn't easy.
That's right. I stayed in the right-of-way.
think that's the only way you know it's gonna get done.
Yeah. Well I'd prefer the C D to do it because that's a tax, tax to me, which I can take off my
Or C D D. I've I meant I mean there'd be some common entity
to do it.
I don't like it when individual homeowners do it because I don't know that they're
Correctly. But the county has code enforcement that can go and enforce it too.
Hold your thought, 'cause I got a couple of pictures we're about to see. And it goes directly
to your discussion. I guess this is gonna be a longer discussion than I envisioned. I never took my break, so give me a second. Yeah, go ahead. Take as long as you want.
I'll tell you what, you remember a couple months back we talked about distance on having meetings in east side, west side, well of course there's no neutral side, which is the center of the county. Today it took me close to an hour and ten minutes to get here and I was traveling
You know what I never understood Peter? I never understood why it's anyway. I mean historically the county seat is Dade City. But because of the rapid growth that happened here in the seventies and eighties, this be kinda became the de facto But I always wondered why didn't we set up at that at that point we should have said okay Lando Lakes is the place for That
would've been nice. It would have been central
for everybody.
Yeah, that would that would've been very nice. I appreciate that.
political people in Land O' Lakes and I had a long discussion way in fact we had a meeting here one time many years ago now. Uh exactly where does Land O' Lakes begin and end? It starts at the if you take
fifty four across four to fifty two or no no me
Well, okay, let me that's the north part. Okay, but it starts it starts really at the Sun Coast or Veterans Highway. And it goes all the way over to probably I seventy five. That's how they consider it. 'Cause uh 'cause we were having a dispute at the time on that uh All the way to I seventy five. Oh yeah. Where is Wesley Chapel beginning at, right? W Wesley Chapel really technically starts about
It goes to the east as far as out
to seventy five. It takes a lot more than just Washington. San Antonio and
Yeah. Well San Antonio will be on the other side of after you pass under seventy five there.
Well, that's how they felt about it. And uh Or she did. And uh she was a good person and we used to go b a round and around about that all the time.
I know you're talking about Probably Sandy Graves, right? Yep.
Yeah. She and I went around that uh the the t the outlet center there. I wanted that in Wesley Chapel. Because technically you got that uh creek that goes through which named Cypress Creek is that that's it. She I said, Well why don't you take everything West of uh Cypress Creek and we'll take everything. Uh south or southeast of that basically of and that would have put the that Tampa outlet into well and I don't like the name Tampa, but the into Wesley Chapel area. Oh man, I thought
she was gonna shoot me. Man, check very tiresome. Oh she is. She is.
What? She's a good person.
She is. And when where
does Lutz start?
Well
that's always uh question. By the railroad station down there in in in in Hillsbrook County. That's where Lutz is at. But no actually one of the individuals who used to be in the chamber for Wesley Chapel owned a business That was on Wesley Chapel's Boulevard. Her mailing address was Lutz. And she was like about a half a mile not even that far, about a quarter mile uh west of where we live at for Lexington Oakes. When you drive in Lexington Oakes, her her business was probably
about a thousand yards down if that much and and it was loose. That was a mailing
adjustment. 'Cause everything south of fifty four along forty one is loose, right? Yeah. Technical I mean as far as mailing. I mean that. Yeah.
Same with Spring Hill, right? To me Spring Hill was always in Hernando County. Now if you're on Shady Hills Road your address is Spring Hill. Actually,
just
north
of just north of uh fifty two on Forty one. That's where s that's where it starts.
Yeah, that's where Pat Millary used to live out here.
So yeah. Sorry about that. Sorry. Any any time
All right. Now that Liam's sitting, we can go ahead and start.
I will try to be brief. Can you show the two PNG files? There's actually there's four. Yeah, yeah, yeah. One's close one's zoomed out, one's close in.
Do you have the close ups or the
other thing? Sure, the close ups will tell you the story better.
So this is my concern with planting trees in the right of way.
There was just a recent amendment to the land development code in the landscape. and buffering section. And in A vehicular use area, a landscape island, went from an eight foot minimum clear planting space to a ten foot clear planting space. But now we're going to say you can go out and you can plant trees in the right-of-way. So can we look at the set of the PDF file that's the plans for Starkey Ranch?
The uh you tell any manual one?
No.
The last one, the RD Museum.
Yes, I think that's
Sorry, did I not rename it?
I
Okay. If you scroll down a couple of pages you'll see the typical street sections for the streets in Starkey Ranch. And they're fifty foot ride right-of-way like we Typically allowed to do that. I think it's the next page. There we go. And in those fifty foot right-of-way, the distance between the edge of the pavement or the back of the curb and the sidewalk seven and a half Feet. So now we're proposing to allow trees to be planted. in an area less
than we would in an island in a parking lot.
I won't make you pull up all the graphics, but I also brought excerpts from the county's utility manual that doesn't allow you to plant trees over utilities and it requires a clear zone. of fifteen feet adjacent to the lot lines in these PUDs so that tree roots don't grow into utilities. And it seems like that this proposal to plant them in the right of way directly conflicts with all of these things. And in fact if I won't do this 'cause I'm no Chuck's in a rush over here. If we scroll down and look at the utility
plans for Starkey Ranch, what we'll see is that all of the storm sewer, the water lines and reclaim water lines are all in this strip between where we're proposing to plant trees. So are we creating a conflict? I pulled another section of the land development code over here. David Roadside Design and this is Section nine oh one six E. Vegetation. Grass or other low growing vegetation that is easily maintained
shall be used on medians and roadside clear zones. And then it talks about it. that we shouldn't put landscaping in the clear zone. So I went and there's a table in here with the clear zones, anywhere between six and ten feet. Well we're talking about seven and a half that's available in a fifty foot right-of-way. So I'm not sure. that telling the f folks we can plant them in the right away is the best policy. I'm pro tree. I like trees just as much as the next person does, but We
need to be careful about putting the right tree in the right place and then the Since I don't want to just create a problem, I want to provide a solution. It says that you'll put a shade tree. Could we have an understory tree? with shallower roots and smaller crown out in those locations. Rather than something that's gonna create problems for sidewalks, utilities I understand there's a commissioner that wants all the trees. I get it and I understand you're following her
direction. But we need to think beyond It's all fine when the tree has a three inch diameter at planting and a five foot crown spread, but Over the years when it becomes a thirty inch diameter oak tree and the roots are popping the sidewalk up and We need to think about that when we approve the forty foot wide lots. You have a fifty or sixty foot wide tr high tree and it falls, where does it go? And a on a twenty foot setback lot. Goes right
into somebody's car, their roof. I just had one come down just before Memorial Day that was a eighty foot tall tree. And I was lucky that it didn't take out either my house or my neighbor's house. But it did have to get a crane to get it out of the other oak tree it was caught in.
Right. That's what I'm suggesting is that we should probably rethink the idea of putting the traditional shade tree, oak tree, sycamore tree in the yard. Maybe we could go with things like crepe myrtles that are Smaller and
Yeah. I I thought the Red, I thought the county did update their uh tree list, didn't they? The
Yes, the the tree list is updated. Uh any tree has to be the right tree for the right place. So if there's a certain amount of space for a tree, then the tree that goes there has to fit certain definitions. Uh root barriers are also required now that weren't then that obvious from some of the pictures.
and at least one of them has to be planted in the front yard and I assume we're allowing it in the right away in lieu of planting it in the front yard.
That's that's the intent.
Well the reason is because we only have twenty foot setbacks to these houses and there isn't enough room to plant these trees.
Some Brad, could you address whether it's possible to build To put a tree in the Right away?
I a at this level I cannot, uh, because we you know, we need to look be looking at a specific plan and a specific location to be able to say whether something can or cannot go there. Um different shade trees can go in smaller spaces. You'll see in New York there's tree wells all over the place and not a drop of anything else and it doesn't destroy sidewalks or anything else. There's ways to plant them. So if an engineering firm or a developer is willing to do certain things to ensure certain things. They can go
with certain types of trees that maybe we wouldn't if somebody wasn't willing to to make those accommodations. So so we have to look at it on an individual case-by-case basis. So at this level, this is kind of just giving the basic framework. But when it gets down to actually looking at the landscape plan, we'll make specific comments.
Well the question becomes the amendment is that we're allowing it in the right-of-way. It's already covered in 9016E. It says you can plant them in the right-of-way. Well, it doesn't say trees, it says grass or other low-growing vegetation that is easily maintained.
And so long as that it's not placed in the roadside clear zone. And of course if these are public county rights of ways they're required to meet the minimum uniform standards. You have to sign the Mum statement. 'Cause it's connected to the county roadway network. So you have to honor the clear zones.
Well this is what Brad I wasn't asking you this is what I was asking Brad the question
Have have any developers put it in the right of way and met all the requirements that John is talking about? Has it That's really the question. I'm not asking you to say whether a particular development can or can't do it. I'm saying is it possible to meet all the requirements John's talking about and still and get it in the right way? Yeah.
So I think
I really cannot without I I mean we're we're completely speculating. There's too many variables for me to be able to say. But yes, you can design it so that, you know, uh within that area of right-of-way, if utilities uh, for example, are backloaded into a house instead of front-loaded into a house, then that area in the front, yes, you could absolutely do something. something. Uh we work with utilities on that, we work with a bunch of different people on that and coordinating that to make sure it's the right thing in the right place. As far as clear zones, uh yeah,
you know, clear zones have other things associated with them, speeds and and other types of of issues. So So we we certainly look at all of those things when we're looking at those plans and if we feel that something is not right for the location, we don't allow it.
I think the intent of this code section amendment is to ensure that There's at least one tree in the front.
Yes.
I think that's a good thing. Well the development committee was asking us for clarification on is that if they're able to meet all these requirements
miraculously able to get it in the right away. That they shouldn't have to put another one in the front.
And my message in all of this would be if we wanna have street trees, and I know we have a commissioner that wants a street tree, that's good, but we can't you're gonna find it very, very difficult to do When we're doing forty foot wide lots and fifty foot wide rights of ways. And Like I said, we've got fifty foot rights away shown. Geez, I think it might even be the same Ranch. Um in
that particular neighborhood and there's only seven and a half feet. Between the back of the curb and the sidewalk. We require ten in a landscape island.
Actually I think the way our our code is written, if it's less than ten, you have to provide certain accommodations like group barriers and different things like that. There's There's there's some language in there I believe to address your concern.
All right,
that's all.
But I don't think there was any intent to say that Everything you said doesn't apply. I think This is just saying if you can comply with all those things You don't have to duplicate a second tree in the front yard. I think that was the intent, right? Denise Brad, somebody?
That's the intent.
Okay.
Can you move me over 'cause I for some reason I can't okay, there we go. All right, next item is Gates, Fences, and Walls. This is per the direction of the Board of County Commissioners on March 8th of 2022. So the section now in the general portion of that section states that chains, chain link, aluminum, or similar fences and walls are prohibited. that are visible from collector or arterial roadways on the highway vision plan and functional class map. Um I do want
to clarify that there are some exemptions in that section, particularly 1003 point two that exempts gates, fences, and walls on property that's being um utilized primarily for agricultural pro for agricultural purposes. So that's So I know some of our um folks had some concerns with that with that
section. Okay, I promise I have no more comments after this section.
After this section? Okay.
I find that hard to believe. This isn't the last one.
This is the last one, okay. Wow. My notes end here.
Um
We're clearly trying to ban or prohibit a style Offense. I'm not sure that the language, David Bands of style. You're banning an element on the periodic table of the elements, aluminum? So if I come and I make the fence out of steel, copper, platinum, magnesium, that's okay?
No, I think it says or similar. fences.
Okay, but so what does
it mean?
What is it that we're trying to ban? W I I don't think we're trying to ban a material. We're trying to ban something that we don't like the look of.
ask the question a different way. What is an aluminum fence? Because I think we all know what a chain link fence is. What is what did staff mean by aluminum?
So it's made out of that material that's aluminum. So some folks they do the They're kinda like um
Like blinds.
They almost look like say say it again.
Like blinds that you stick through a fence.
Yeah, they kinda look like that and then there's also some of them that will do like uh wire, aluminum wire fences.
Canvas, they do Well I guess but I think I understand Mr. Moody's point. All right. He's starting to convince me he's right.
Oh boy. That's a scary somebody get that on America now. Delete that well you're Well I I think
And I do wanna say that I did hear the the board Um I listened to the board a fuck a couple of times and they did specifically say they did not want chain link fences. So that was a little bit more than a lot of things.
I think Mr Moody's point is that aluminum is just a material. It's not a style and so For example, You see our typical P V C fences that could be made out of aluminum. Okay. I realize it would be expensive and nobody would do it, but w are we saying that's prohibited because uh because it's made out of aluminum instead of P V C. I mean that I think
I
think staff probably meant that this was a fence Type. As opposed to a material So I guess the question is is there a better term to use than aluminum Something similar to like we do with chain link.
That I don't think we're trying to prohibit here. I get it. We don't want to have a a wire. Fence. And in fact I got somebody in my neighborhood put up a picket fence and it's made of metal and I think it looks like
it was chain link and barbed wire. that they were trying to prohibit
I
think
barbed wire was a separate discussion on another day because
it wasn't up
to the right-of-way.
We shouldn't allow it just just because it happens to be made out of aluminum. I think that's Mr. Moody's point. That's not a fence type, that's just a material. So I don't know what the board intent was, but I am agreeing that There probably wasn't a board intent to just eliminate a fence just because it would happen to have aluminum in it.
Yeah, like
stockade would be a style, you know. Right. That's what I'm getting at, is I think you want to
do that.
Those wooden stockade looking fences? Yeah,
I think whatever the fence type is that we were trying to prohibit here, it probably should be listed rather than aluminum. It
says and gates, and I'm trying to figure out in my mind. How the gate, regardless of material, is not going to be visible from a right of way. I got a road and then I got a driveway perpendicular to that road and a gate, whether it be ten feet or seventy five feet set back from the right of way line, it's visible. And you ha and Lots of gates are aluminum and they could be very ornate gates.
Well okay, but It always goes back to that's modifying the Or similar fences and gates that are it's modifying the original terms, which is chain link and aluminum.
Right.
I think the bigger problem is that it's It's we didn't d we didn't identify a fence type. We identified a material. So I think if you clarify the fence type and then it's at or similar fences and gates It it might work because it would have to be something similar to that fence type.
And then the last question on this topic.
No you already had the one.
No, no, no. No, I said after the section. It says That along a collector or arterial road. That these types of fences shall not be visible from the right of way. Is that apply to existing fences?
That's not the intent.
Can that be clarified? Because when I read that, that seemed to me that an overzealous code enforcement department could go out and say, Oh, Mr. Boaton R V storage that's been operating here for twenty years at the corner of Grand Green, I see this the code says you can't see your chain link fence for the right of way.
So what you don't have here is there's a general requirement When we adopt any l change to the land of Elma Could that talks about Right. And it it basically exempts anything that's already gotten a county approval of some kind.
Right.
She's not showing you that here, but that's the right-of-way.
They apply basically prospectively. Prospectively. They don't apply to to something that already exists.
So if if somebody's fencing in retention bonds, which we see that a lot with chain length, What what would they be doing that with now?
You mean for safety purposes?
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean I see all kinds of fifty two, State Road fifty two, fifty six, I
see retention bonds.
How
would you know if there was someone face down floating in the retention pond if you couldn't see through the fence? Well
chain link
you could, but Yeah,
chain link, but I'm saying that if we're not allowing chain link. What why
aren't there other types of material like the pick white uh vinyl picket or whatever that can be seen through the as long as you have the picket separated enough?
Principle if you had uh the body's kind of a it's not that far fetched. It could be a small child climbed up did something fall fall in the pond, but there could be somebody doing something illegal in there. you would want some visibility and if you were a deputy or in for law enforcement you'd want something to see the the area clearly, the So I yeah, you there is legitimate uh concerns about that one, especially with the uh Water.
I just did a pre app for uh Boat and R V storage place. And they explained this going forward and then there was actually debate as to whether or not the boat and R V storage could use chain link fence for security purposes. So I think there needs to be clarification.
Well there's other sections in the code so it talks about so th I mean I I didn't print out the entire one zero zero two, but I can show it to you. I'm thinking of the um of uh um uh another section I didn't print the entire one zero zero three on there but I could show you how there's other this is just the general requirements but then it talks about other requirements for commercial So like it talks about like the barbed wire has to be at six at six feet on
the fence and and things like that. But I think the the intent of what the board's intent was, and I remember watching this board meeting, is that they were showing photographs of what they considered very unattractive things that they they didn't consider would be prim of a premier county, seeing all these chain link fences and those type of fences throughout the county. Um and they tend to also rust and, you know y you see those type of things on on chain link fences.
Yeah, so this is from a s aesthetic standpoint.
That That that was my recollection of that board hearing that it wasn't premier to see that from a, you know, you're
Yeah, but you also heard s from t at least two individuals here that there needs to be something that that concerns the security issue and or from a law enforcement ha visibility of of certain P pieces of property, yeah. If you
That a c in other words, security and is a i is a concern too that needs to be considered. I can see the aesthetics of it. Everyone as you call it a premiere. County, but You also want to have a a safe county. So
That's the other issue. Sometimes the two don't always come close together but have to be weighed as considerations. And I think security's uh a more of a concern than the aesthetics from my perspective. Maybe others would have a different viewpoint, but anyway.
So it says the only thing that you could think of like a a a a pond that would be
Yeah, I mean it's sort of it's sort of like uh you know, you have to fence in your Swimming pool. So people won't fall in it, you know, and I could say I could see where that would be an issue if you have a p you had a pond, you know.
I g I guess the question is is there a fence type? That provides that security that would still be consistent with the board's
Well what's the rotation for the easier? I'm gonna use this example of boat and R V storage. It's a popular use w What would be the expectation of staff? for that secure that facility needs to be secure. So what I'm sure the Sheriff's Department in the back of the room would probably have a problem if we just used white vinyl fence and I'm bet the county commissioners would have a problem if I put vinyl voite vinyl fence all along the side of Little Road. And then you couldn't see into the property,
but yet it would meet the standard that's proposed here.
Well there are some uses where Staff on the board intentionally do want it screened. Or they don't want it. For example if you have
automobile storage and
you
have to watch what you wish for too. And if I have this thousand feet of monotonous white cheap vinyl fence and that stuff starts that doesn't last forever and it doesn't it looks great out of the box, but five years from now it doesn't look so good. And it's like I said, a thousand feet of this monotonous fence. In fact my own client asked if he could put banners on it and advertise other businesses. I thought he'd have a sign code problem but We're looking at what are those alternatives then that it can do.
So I I may be able to answer that. If you read the language of this, it speaks of of fencing that is visible from the roadway. We require buffering in those areas anyway. You would not be allowed to put a white vinyl fence the length of a roadway. There would need to be landscape buffering in front of it. If you're not going to be able to do that, landscaping
isn't going to block.
If you fence. Right, but it doesn't block the fence forever on a regular subdivision either. So but if if you wanted to use chain link to secure your boat and R V facility, you would be required to put some form of hedge line in front of it so that chain link is not visible from the roadway.
Okay, so they're You probably hit the nail on the head here and that was gonna be the follow-up question. is when you provide that landscape's Landscaping between the fence and the right of way, have you satisfied this requirement that the chain link fence is not visible from the roadway?
That's my understanding as to how we would interpret that. Can we add that?
Now that does not address your gate issue. I don't know how to necessarily address the gate issue because you can't plant landscaping in front of a gate. But that's kind of difficult.
Just take the gates out of it.
Then you're not secure.
No no no no the
need that the gate can't
be visible from the roadway.
Or that you can't use a chain link gate, that you could make a decorative gate, swing gate, lift gate that's aluminum fabrication with With pickets that are, you know, two inches wide that I can only put a golf ball through that, you know, the guy can't steal my boat motor through it. Although they're amazing on how they can figure out how to steal those boat motors.
Take it
one part at a time. Yeah.
Well,
I guess I'll ask Brad and Denise, do based on this discussion, do you think there's Changes that can be made to this language that
But it would address the concern, but still be bo consistent with the board's intent?
Well I mean and you know, definitely differ to Brad from the landscaping perspective, but I mean what level of opacity will would that landscaping have to have in order for it to completely
Yeah. Because I mean when you first plant the the landscaping typically it takes a
while t for it to grow. Like you have in the type B buffer definition a requirement that if you want to use a hedge in a continuous hedge in lieu of an opaque fence that there has to reach eighty percent opacity within twelve months or something like that. Can a similar language be added there so that there's safe harbor for someone who intends to use a chain link fence but yet use landscaping to screen it from view from the public right away. What I don't want is And
it's all good. Well Brad's here running the he's the development manager and you're the zoning director, but People come and people go and the next group may not quite interpret it the same way as you. Other than David, he's a fixture.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. This is Nictorio Speedos with the Planning and Development Department. Um You know, with regard to ponds, not every pond needs a fence, right? But some do. But I I guess the one question one question that might be asked is whether a fence type is appropriate to specific situations, right? So you have to secure a particularly, you know, sloped pond, for example. Right. Would a would a chain
link fence be appropriate in that scenario? I I think the board's intent was Uh to have a a a my words. Sort of a a good business presentation uh and good residential presentation from uh the arterial and collectors. Um and so You know, you could solve uh a deal of the presentation through landscaping.
Um, but uh I'm not sure that the landscaping would be the one hundred percent solution. to continue to allow the chain link along the arterial and the collector. The That doesn't mean that the property owners potentially couldn't use chain link on other edges of their property. Going into and away from the
opt to use a vinyl White vinyl fence. I got I have a project in review right now at the corner of Little in Bolton. Think about it's got I think five or six hundred feet of frontage on Little Road. You think about what If I put up a white vinyl fence at the back of the right-of-way on Little Road and put some landscaping
Some chain like Fence there.
Be one thing if I built a nice brick wall.
The issue with chain link is that you can see into the property and whatever is being stored behind that chain link fence often is Um Preferred to be unseen.
Well that's debatable though. If you're if you're if I have something very important that I want to maintain and it's a very expensive item. I certainly would hope law enforcement would check on it every now and then and I could check on it too. So I mean that's debatable there.
I mean I understand it you know, we're talking about a junkyard. But I've got people's hundred thousand dollar motorhomes out there. Yeah. And there. Seventy and eighty thousand dollar boats. I don't think that's junk. And I would want the deputies to be able to see see that.
Yeah, I mean there's definitely a security aspect of it. So somehow somehow you have to come up with a way to think that it
also is secure. And If I can offer one other thing too, that I'm not uh not all of the vision and collector roads, but
You know, this type of outdoor storage activity is actually Um regulated away from the frontages too. Right. So like RV boat storage for example could not happen up along State Road fifty four or Little Road or US nineteen.
There's only in some specified places. That's not universal across the county. There are places the Market area, the redevelopment area. It is loud. Except I have one in review right now.
Well we're not really talking about commercial property. We're talking about More about residential type property, right?
Well we're really talking about all properties in this case. This is this is the general provisions of the section.
Yeah, that's where the problem comes in because m a there's a lot of commercial properties that need security. And the only way you're gonna get it is with a I'm
thinking about the boat dealer there that's just to the north of Hudson Avenue as you go around the curve on Hudson Avenue. Clearly he wants his boats to be visible because he's a dealer. But he also has to provide security because I know that he's had a long history of problems with theft of boat motors and pieces and parts over there. What
does that guy do? Same thing.
Some car dealers
like that too.
Well so I don't know that we're gonna solve this issue today.
No, we don't want to do that. Okay, so so maybe to solve the problem When you make your motion to move this forward, you just Make a general motion that Some allowance be allowed for security Related fencing. And then let staff figure and the board figure out What that means, but I don't know that we're gonna
Solve I mean if that's your main issue is That this is not allowing for Security related fencing and and w where it's appropriate. Because I agree with you, it doesn't allow that. Then Maybe you just give staff that general direction that Two. Add some allowance for that and then let them figure that out how to
do that. And do we do we exclude gates? 'Cause again I'm just thinking of unintended consequences, how many Yeah. I mean my property has a gate. I mean I don't think I'm on an arterial collector, but what if I was? How many people are who have a gate and then let's say they have to replace their gate? Now are they gonna have to replace it with some really expensive ornate thing rather than just a regular farm game. David, would there be Well Ag is exempt?
Is your property ag? Because that would be exempt.
Well and then I guess it's a matter of perspective because I do we do have ag, but I also live there.
Right.
So so then the question is well It also
isn't gonna apply to an existing but I guess your point is that
if you if your gate gets torn down and you had to put one in. And now I've got to spend a bunch of money to get some ornate gate.
Okay, so that brings up a man like that.
And thank thank God it didn't happen, but we all thought we were about to be blown away by a hurricane. Here. Let's say that the hurricane did come and destroyed the chain link fence that surrounds the boat and R V storage on Congress Street just south of the ridge or the one that's on Grand Boulevard at Pine and Grand Had the hurricane wiped that fence out, would they then be subject to complying with what the proposal is here? Even though they
had a they have an old site plan and they just need to replace defense in kind, but it sounds like they might not be able to
is suggesting that we put a provision in here that they need to come up with Um some kind of an allowance for security fence.
There there may be a general statement that we could add here that except in situations determined by the county administrator or designee where it's necessary for security purposes. kind of add that type of language to this and then we can look at that. Um but I believe that my take from the board discussion was that they were looking at the the visual aspects of it. They they you know, even places that are securing their sites and they're along
a collector of arterial, they want to not appear as if They're just that site. So we can handle that with buffering and landscaping. and make it not visible with the exception of a gate situation. So I think we we probably need to
Would there be a
problem
if we
Well I don't want to get ahead of myself because there's Two more sections Denise still has yet to go over, but the question
But you already said you're not gonna talk about them.
No, I'm not gonna talk about them. I'm all good with those. Um the question is
What Staff have a problem if we voted to approve and then you bring the fence and gate back as a separate Ordinance.
Does it have to be in this ordinance so that we can get a second chance to see if we agree with what you're doing?
It doesn't have to be um If we get pulled out of this though It's gonna delay it for sure. I don't know if the board will be okay with that. Um
I think the board has asked for sta at least one board member has asked for a status on this on several occasions. Could you
let me just ask this question? Could you put the security type fence? and then put maybe, let's say for example, a white rail fence in front of it so it looks like it's So the Chain link doesn't show up. That kind of a that kind of a you you almost have a dual fence, but it's mainly just for appearances.
So our our buffering code uh where you can use a wall or a fence or a hedge for a six foot opaque buffer. Um in this case uh uh You you could use any number of things to create that opaque buffer. Are you gonna see bits and pieces of fence through there? Yes, but you're gonna create a break, you know, like Mr. Moody was saying, it's not a hundred feet of, you know,
pure fence that you're looking at. There you may see some bits and pieces of things, but it's gonna be an improvement. um over what's currently in code now. And I think that's what the board was looking for.
David, can you do in three minutes and craft someone?
Um But I think you could send it forward with a general direction to deal with the aluminum issue, deal with the security issue. and deal with the gate issue And just let staff figure it out between now and the time this goes to the board. I mean if those are your three concerns, what that's what I'm hearing you all say. Is it's not addressing the right-of-way. The need for security. It's not addressing the gate issue may be a problem. and that the aluminum issue is a problem. That's probably sufficient direction
for staff that they need Could work on those issues between now and the time it goes to the board. Without saying it has to re I mean I'm not saying you can't
But Staff may get some hardware from the board if you do that.
Yeah.
be rated by the Board for something the Planning Commission chose to do. I think that would be unfair, but what
we'd like the chance to come back and See what the revised updated proposal is.
Happy to do that.
Curve at you I talked about the
can I ask let me just follow up on that thought though
before you throw another curve.
So this is requires two public hearing, right? So in theory between the first and second public hearing we could probably bring it Black for the planning commission to show what you came up with.
Absolutely. Okay. Yes.
That would be fine. That that doesn't derail derail the process.
I'd be okay with that.
It was just under three minutes. Well
That in the blood.
Blood and blood so you want to the stop solution to blood relatives and the gate issue in terms of aluminum Yeah and Security. Whatever they come up with in a solution you want that brought back to you But That would be in the context of the normal public hearing process for this amendment, basically. Is that what you're saying? Okay. Yes. Don't make any motions yet because this is a public hearing and we have not asked for public comment.
The only other item that I would like to bring forward is to have some input from the Sheriff's Department in because I'm thinking of the road deputy that has to drive
And yeah, okay. And they're and they have to drive by the locations that we spoke about basically uh Yeah. R V storage areas, they have to drive through Not through them, but they drive by and they have to be able to at least look through the chain link fence. That's why I push for it. I I see it as a problem. That if you have Landscaping in front of it. You can't block their view because they have to be able to see in it or else they have to get out of the vehicle
f shine their flashlights or different things like that. That's what they normally do. And it's a it's a routine thing for for them.
Yeah. You know, trying to say we need to have some input from the Sheriff's Department on How far that they want to go with this particular amendment. So
I would like to hear from their comment to that too, yes.
Yeah. Because they're the ones that are gonna be doing the Hard work as you say. If somebody steals a motor from a boat, you know Uh I won't say anything. I I said enough.
All right. Okay, so for this section, deal with aluminum, deal with security, deal with a gate issue, and then also get comments from the sheriff's office.
Well I think the security and comments from the Sheriff's Office are directly related to each other. That's the same general concept.
Yeah. But typically I don't ask for comments from the Sheriff's Office, so
Well I noticed in Okay. One of the cases, there was comment from the Sheriff's Office. It had nothing to do the comment had nothing to do with the particular project I think was a comp plan amendment. But I saw the comment And I don't know if Mr. Knock's listening, but Anytime you want to send you or your representative here to tell us your thoughts, one of my immediate thoughts when I saw that was Well, do we have a higher incidence of
crime in multifamily as opposed to single family detached? I don't know the answer to that question, but if that would sway my opinion on voting on things if I knew that to be true. I don't know whether it is or not. I'd like to hear from 'em about that.
So I think the Sheriff's Department does get Land use and zoning request comment.
Yes. I'm
not sure. they're getting the LDC amendments, are they?
They don't.
Okay.
But Staff can certainly ask for their comments on that one, that particular one.
Absolutely.
Okay, let's continue.
All right, continue? Okay. So the next section is the nonconformities. Um this is uh when we drafted the nonconforming science section, we should have brought a statement from the restoration section into the nonconforming science section. So it's being removed from the restoration section to the nonconforming sign section. Just a um Unintended consequence. Next section is thirteen hundred concurrency and impact fee, section thirteen oh one concurrency. Um it removes transportation concurrency as that was eliminated on four seventeen of twenty thirteen.
It removes best mentions of traffic study throughout, and it just re just removes a a lot of the legacy language in the section. And then the last section is appendix 8 definitions. We actually define the term site hard copy site development placard. And that's it. So we're asking that you find I know we have public comment that you find the proposed ordinance amendments consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
I will work on the blood item and on the fence item. And this is going to the BCC for first reading on 1115 at 1.30 in Dade City and for adoption. On twelve six at one thirty in Newport Ritchie.
Okay.
So do we want to make a motion?
No, we have c we have someone here for a comment.
Oh okay.
Cynthia no longer works for the county. I know you may have thought she was a county employee ten years ago, but she's not anymore. That's what I was thinking.
I I didn't even see her. She was
hiding.
Good afternoon. My name is Cynthia Speidel and I'm with Stern's Weaver, located at 401 East Jackson Street in Tampa, and I have been sworn. Uh I'm an AI C P certified planner with uh 17 years of planning experience, including my 11-year tenure here at Pasco. And thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'll keep it brief. I just wanted to thank Denise and David, first of all, for um actively engaging the shareholder community and development community in this uh voluminous uh Mm-hmm. To the Land Development Code. Um, my comments are very specific to the proposed changes
to section 802 regarding tree removal and section 1003 gates, fences, and walls. My colleague Jake Kramer has been actively working on the proposed language in section 802 regarding tree removal with David Goldstein, but is unable to attend this hearing today. So on his behalf, I'm here to just state that he is continuing to review the language. And will be actively engaged with the Farm Bureau to ensure that the look back provisions proposed in the code do not interfere with the Right to Farm Act. We have not yet come to a resolution at this
time, but we're getting closer. And he will continue to explore solutions and potentially bring that forward at the next hearing. With respect to section 1003, the proposed language states that certain types of fences shall be permitted. Prohibited in yards visible from collector and orteel roadways. Our concerns was with the term visible, and we would like to continue discussions with the team in order to establish a more measurable term that is not subject to interpretation. And with that, I thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Thank you.
Okay, so now you probably can make a motion.
For the record, we have no one on WebEx to speak to this item. All right.
And I would move to approve. The ordinance. Subject to staff revisiting the section on fences, walls, and gates. to address styles of fences versus materials for fences, what constitutes adequate screening from the right of way. Security. And security.
And I also I think they also wanted them to evaluate whether the gate should be included in the Prohibition.
And that we Right. look at other communities ordinance is with regard to the definition of family, specifically the term the meaning of the term blood.
All right, so we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Okay, we have a motion or second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Signify by saying aye. All opposed? Like signed. Motion carries. Yeah, it was easy, John.
Thank God, David.
Most of those I expected. I did not expect the fight over what is blood, but uh but I'll
actually be honest with you, it's a gang out of east LA. Actually it was a gang out of
south central LA. I just figured it was I know it when I see it, but I uh Yeah I get your point. Okay.