7 Oaks MPUD PDD 21-7507 SR 56 continuance
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jul 8, 2021
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted, because it is an image-only scan, so nothing in it is searchable here. It still reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jul 8, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 5m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 96% of 27 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
On the following item, which is PC3, I'm just going to read a correction into record, and I did send the corrected agenda memo to the Planning Commission. Inadvertently, we have written the incorrect owner name on this, and that's PDD 21-7507, 7 Oaks MPUD Master Plan Unit Development, parcel S19, D D 15. fifty State Road 56 or SR fifty six LLC and others. And this comes to you with a
recommendation to continue it to a date uncertain.
All right. So we have a motion to continue.
The applicant is virtually present and I believe he would like to speak on this item.
Okay. Um so we have a motion to uh continue PC three and the applicant's present. We'd like to come forward. State your name and address please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Joel to an associates, Palm Harbor, Florida. I represent the applicant. We're here to address the requested continuance only because it's to a date uncertain. We need a date certain, please. We were given this date originally by staff. Today was not our date, it was a date we were given by staff. We had agreement on the conditions and what we believed
or were assured would be a recommendation of approval. We were informed only a week or
Oh.
Yes.
Good point.
I do. Thank you. As I said, we we had understood we'd be coming today with a recommendation for approval and had agreed conditions with the staff reviewer. We were informed very recently that that recommendation was going to be reversed. So staff was the one that asked for continuance. We were ready to go. They requested time to prepare. We agreed to a continuance on the condition that it would be
to a date certain because my client has firm contract deadlines to have this resolved one way or the other. We had agreed with the staff reviewer that we would defer two months. until September 9th. Which puts you back here in Dade City where this needs to be heard. So we respectfully request. that we that you approve the continuance to that date certain of September 9 so that we can stay within our contract limits whether it's approved or denied.
We simply need a resolution and we'll be prepared and that should be plenty of time. for staff. If you look at their agenda memo Uh they actually state the only reason that's been provided to us for their concern. So it's not like they don't have their reason. Their analysis is actually in your agenda memo. So there's no reason that that can't be presented, certainly within two months.
Okay, so you you're asking for September nine. Does the staff have any problem on September nine? Do you know of Denise?
I have not heard an objection to September ninth from the uh my team members.
So I just want to be I guess clear. So usually when staff recommends it continues to a date uncertain, it's because they want it renoticed. So is the suggestion that it go to September ninth with it being renoticed or without it being renoticed, because I'm not clear.
The applicant will do whatever is required. My concern is it be heard on September ninth, and if staff determines that means it needs to be renoticed. I d I don't I don't know if it would be. I don't know why it would be.
Well,
When was this was originally noticed for today?
Yes, absolutely. And this was the date we were given. We posted, we sent the notices, and the county advertised for today. So it's an advertised notice to
Well my only concern is if it if it appears on the agenda as a continuance to a date uncertain, if the public was trying to follow when that would go continue could continue to they'd have no way of knowing that it was September ninth. So I think it probably does need to be renoticed.
And we'll be happy to renotice. Uh I mean if there's any concern about that and an abundance of caution, I prefer to re-notice because I don't want that to be an objection later. Uh so I I understand the point. I mean in a perfect world the agenda memo would have recommended the date certain. It didn't. So I see what you're saying. As far as the public knew today, it was just going to be continued indefinitely.
So I don't have any objection to September 9th as long as it's going to be renoticed.
All right, so do I hear a motion to that effect? So moved.
I'll second it.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Like signed? Motion carries.
Thank you.