CAPTIONING
JANUARY 29, 2002
BOCC LAND USE
MORNING SESSION


**NOTIFICATION:
**This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the
**following meeting.  It should be used for informational
**purposes only.  This document has not been edited;
**therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words
**that did not translate.


>>PAT FRANK:  THE MEETING OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS NOW IN SESSION.
THIS IS OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED LAND USE MEETING.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT, OUR CHAPLAIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US IN A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND AN INVOCATION FOR THE DAY, PLEASE?
[ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ]
>>TOM SCOTT:  MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE WITH US THIS MORNING REVEREND BOB GARDNER, THE ASSOCIATE PASTOR OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF TAMPA, WHO IS GOING TO COME AND GIVE OUR INVOCATION THIS MORNING.
WELCOME.
>> LET US PRAY TOGETHER.
OUR GOD AND HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU TODAY AS YOUR SERVANTS.
MAY YOUR PRESENCE BE EVIDENT HERE IN THIS PLACE.
YOU HAVE BLESSED US, LORD, AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS A COMMUNITY MORE ABUNDANTLY THAN WE COULD POSSIBLY MERIT.
THANK YOU, LORD, FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT NATION, THIS STATE, AND OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
MAY OUR WORDS AND OUR DEEDS DEMONSTRATE TRUE APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE TO YOU.
WE THANK YOU THAT YOU HAVE ESPECIALLY GIFTED SOME FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR COMMUNITY.
MAY THEY HAVE A REFERENT APPRECIATION OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF LEADERSHIP.
WE BESEECH YOU TO GRANT TO THEM SPECIAL INSIGHT AND WISDOM AND TO THOSE WHO COME BEFORE THEM TODAY, MAY THE DELIBERATIONS AND DECISIONS MADE HERE TODAY BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR PURPOSES.
WE PRAY THAT THAT WHICH PREVAILS TODAY WILL ACCOMPLISH THE GREATER GOOD FOR THE CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
INTO YOUR HANDS WE PLACE THIS MEETING, KNOWING THAT YOU ARE THE TRUSTWORTHY AND FAITHFUL GOD WHOSE GUIDANCE AND BLESSING REIGNS OVER ALL.
FOR WE PRAY IN THE NAME OF OUR SAVIOR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.
AMEN.
>>TOM SCOTT:  THANK YOU, PASTOR.
>>PAT FRANK:  MS. HARVEY, WOULD YOU TELL US WHAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY AND ANY CHANGES.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M PAULA HARVEY WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
WE DO HAVE ONE CONTINUANCE.
THIS IS LISTED AT THE TOP OF PAGE 1 ON YOUR AGENDA.
IT'S REGARDING A REPORT ON A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION AND PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU CONTINUE THIS REPORT TO YOUR LAND USE MEETING OF MARCH THE 26th.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF SCHEDULING APPOINTMENTS WITH THE PARTIES AT EPC.
SO THAT'S OUR ONLY CHANGE THIS MORNING.
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT CHANGE?
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE THE CHANGES.
>>TOM SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>> CHAIRMAN FRANK, I DIDN'T CATCH WHO MADE THE MOTION.
>>PAT FRANK:  IT WAS COMMISSIONER NORMAN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCOTT.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  REGARDING THE TIMES ON THE AGENDA, AT 9:00 THIS MORNING WE'LL TAKE UP ITEMS UNDER THOSE ITEMS FOR WHICH ORAL ARGUMENT WAS NOT FILED AND THE ITEMS THAT HAD ITEMS FILED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
AT 1:30 THIS AFTERNOON, WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR VACATION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY, OUR VACATIONS FOR NOTIFICATIONS OF ZONINGS AND RELATED ITEMS THAT ARE ALSO MODIFICATIONS OF ZONINGS.
WE DID HAVE ONE OFF-THE-AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER FRANK'S OFFICE FOR A DISCUSSION REGARDING PALEONTOLOGICAL REVIEW IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AND WE'LL TAKE THAT UP, COMMISSIONERS, AT -- AS YOU DESIGNATE, BUT I BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE TIME THIS MORNING TO DISCUSS THAT ITEM.
IF YOU'RE READY TO PROCEED, WE CAN CONSIDER THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS ITEMS 2-A THROUGH 2-W.
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE CONSENT.
>>CHRIS HART:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE IS A MOTION TO MOVE FOR CONSENT; HOWEVER, COMMISSIONER PLATT.
>>JAN PLATT:  I WANT TO PULL 4, 2-O, 2-Q, 2-S, AND 2-U.
O, Q, S, AND U.
>>PAT FRANK:  ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT ANYONE WISHES TO PULL?
IS THERE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER?
AND THERE SECOND?
>>CHRIS HART:  YES.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  ITEM 2-O ON THE AGENDA, REZONING PETITION 01-1517, IS AN APPLICATION TO ALLOW FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL AND WAREHOUSE USES.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON U.S. 301 ABOUT A THIRD OF A MILE NORTHEAST OF HARNEY ROAD AND I-75.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER PLATT.
>>JAN PLATT:  ON PAGE 2 OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER'S REPORT, IT SAYS THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE TAMPA SERVICE AREA.
THEN ON PAGE 8, UTILITY SERVICE ISSUES, THE STAFF'S REPORT SAYS UTILITIES WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE.
THEN ON PAGE AC-4, WHICH IS THE WATER UTILITIES REVIEW COMMENTS SHEET, IT SAYS, THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMPA WATER AREA.
THEN ON PAGE AC-11, IT SAYS, IN A LETTER FROM TEMPLE TERRACE, THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE WATER AND SEWER AREA.
THE REASON I PULLED THIS, IN FOUR DIFFERENT INSTANCES, SOMETIMES IT'S IN THE CITY OF TAMPA SERVICE AREA, THEN SOMETIMES IT'S IN TEMPLE TERRACE SERVICE AREA, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE ZONING HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION, HE SAYS IT'S IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, AND I JUST WONDERED, WHAT IS IT?
>>PAT FRANK:  DOES TEMPLE TERRACE HAVE AN AGREEMENT FOR A SERVICE AREA WITH TAMPA?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONERS, I'VE GOT CONFLICTING INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE JUST READ.
WE'LL -- WE'LL HAVE TO VERIFY THAT FOR YOU, IF YOU CAN GIVE US TIME TO DO IT.
>>PAT FRANK:  IF WE CAN JUST POSTPONE THIS.
>>TOM SCOTT:  I DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, NOT THAT FAR OUT.
I THINK IT'S THE CITY -- FROM PREVIOUS ZONING, WE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, IN PAST ZONINGS.
SO I THINK --
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, IF IT IS IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, DO THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT FOR TAMPA WATER SERVICE?
>>JAN PLATT:  I DON'T KNOW.
IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED BECAUSE IF WE APPROVE THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, IF IT'S IN TEMPLE TERRACE, IT'S ERRONEOUS.
I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  I WILL SAY THAT IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE HEARING MASTER'S REPORT ABOUT THE CITY OF TAMPA WATER SERVICE AREA, HIS REPORTING THAT ISSUE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACTUAL INFORMATION, AND THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO VERIFY AS TO ACTUALLY WHICH JURISDICTION'S GOING TO SERVICE THIS PROJECT, AND WE'LL DO THAT FOR YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  LET'S PUT THIS AT THE END OF THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN PULLED, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THE NEXT ITEM THAT WAS PULLED IS ITEM 2-Q.
THIS IS MAJOR MODIFICATION 1521.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY EXISTING ZONING LOCATED SOUTH OF BIG BEND ROAD EAST OF U.S. 301.
THEY ARE PROPOSING AN INCREASE IN DENSITY, A REDUCTION OF LOT SIZE, AND ALSO REQUESTING ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO THE PROJECT.
>>JAN PLATT:  ON PAGE 2 OF THE -- AND THIS IS, AGAIN, IN THE ZONING HEARING MASTER'S REPORT, AT THE VERY TOP OF THE PAGE, IT SAYS, WELLS EXIST ON THE SITE, AND THE PETITIONER HAS OFFERED THOSE TO THE COUNTY.
THEY WILL BE USED TO TAP INTO THE WELL AND USE FOR RECLAIMED WATER.
IT WILL GIVE THE COUNTY ABOUT 200,000 GALLONS PER DAY OF WATER TO BE USED FOR RECLAIMED WATER.
I DON'T REMEMBER IN ANY RECENT TIMES WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THE SITUATION WHERE WE USE WELL WATER FOR RECLAIMED WATER.
THAT'S NOT RECLAIMED WATER.
THAT'S WELL WATER.
AND I MENTIONED THIS ISSUE TO STAFF OF SWFWMD YESTERDAY, AND THEY WERE SORT OF SURPRISED AT THIS.
WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS?
ARE WE NOW BEGINNING TO SAY THAT WELL WATER IS RECLAIMED WATER?
THAT'S ONE ISSUE.
AND THEN ON PAGE 3, IN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, HE SAID THAT ALTHOUGH NOT THE PREFERRED LOT SIZE, 4,400, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH RECENT DEVELOPMENT TRENDS IN THE AREA.
DO WE HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING ABOUT WHAT IS THE PREFERRED LOT SIZE?
I DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING THAT BEFORE.
IS THAT JUST THAT ZONING HEARING MASTER'S NOTION OF WHAT'S A PREFERRED LOT SIZE?
DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M GETTING AT WITH BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  I DO.
I BELIEVE THE PREFERRED LOT SIZE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DEFINED IN TERMS OF OUR REVIEW.
HE MAY HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN MAKING THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE OF HIS ANALYSIS OF WHAT HE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A MORE APPROPRIATE LOT SIZE, BUT THAT BEING SAID, IT'S NOT A TERM THAT WOULD BE NECESSARILY DEFINED BY OUR OFFICE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT WITHIN THIS PROJECT, THERE ACTUALLY IS A MIXTURE OF LOT SIZES WITH THE DIFFERENT TRACTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, SO I -- I'M REALLY NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN HIS NOTATION OF PREFERENCE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT.
BUT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.
IN TERMS OF THE RECLAIMED WATER ISSUE, I'M NOT AWARE THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE COUNTY THAT'S CHANGED AT ALL.
IF YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE AGENCY COMMENTS ON AC-12, THIS IS A NOTIFICATION REGARDING THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE, AND THEY HAVE NOTED IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT'S REPORT THAT THEY'RE UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR REGULAR RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE IN THIS AREA.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD PROPOSE TO GET A PERMIT TO USE POTABLE WATER AS AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT STATEMENT CAME FROM.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  APPARENTLY IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING PERMITTED BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT UNLESS THEY HAD A CHANGE IN POLICY OR A DIRECTION FROM YOU TO -- TO DO THAT.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
WELL, I'M PREPARED TO MOVE THIS ONE, BUT I'D ALSO -- AND MAYBE IT OUGHT TO BE A SEPARATE MOTION -- HAVE STAFF CLARIFY OUR -- ARE WE ADVOCATING THE USE OF WELLS FOR RECLAIMED WATER?
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE ARE, BUT I WOULD LIKE THAT IN BLACK AND WHITE SO EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PLAYING FIELD.
I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS WITH THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
>>PAT FRANK:  SECOND?
>>CHRIS HART:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
>>JAN PLATT:  AND THEN COULD I MAKE THE SECOND MOTION, MADAM CHAIRMAN?
>>PAT FRANK:  GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>>JAN PLATT:  I MOVE THAT WE HAVE STAFF CLARIFY THE UTILIZATION OF WELLS FOR RECLAIMED WATER.
>>CHRIS HART:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM 2-S, REZONING PETITION 02-0040, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING WEST OF LAMBRIGHT, EAST OF HIMES AVENUE.
>>JAN PLATT:  WELL, I LOOKED AT THIS ONE, AND I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY EVERYBODY GETS SO UPSET IN THE COUNTY.
ON PAGE 2, TRANSPORTATION, ACCORDING TO TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, HIMES IS A COUNTY-MAINTAINED TWO-LANE COLLECTOR ROAD CURRENTLY OPERATING AT AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE.
AND THEN IT SAYS, HIMES HAS ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION.
WELL, THAT'S SORT OF AN OXYMORON.
HOW CAN YOU HAVE AN UNACCEPTABLE SERVICE, AND YET WE'VE GOT ENOUGH -- AND YET WE'VE GOT ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION?
AND IT SAID PRIOR TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE PETITIONER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS.
THEN IF YOU TURN OVER ON PAGE 5 OF STAFF STUFF, IT SAYS HIMES IS CURRENTLY A COUNTY-MAINTAINED ROAD OPERATING AT AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND EVEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION -- WELL, NO -- THE TRAFFIC REPORTS ON PAGE AC-2, HIMES AT THIS LOCATION OPERATES AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE "F".
WHILE THIS ROAD CURRENTLY OPERATES AT AN INADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICE, THE DEVELOPER WOULD STILL NEED TO MEET ALL CONCURRENCY STANDARDS PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT.
WELL, IF EVERYTHING IS SO BAD, HOW IN THE WORLD COULD THEY EVER MEET ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE IT BETTER BY PUTTING UP A BUILDING WITH MORE PEOPLE COMING TO IT?
IT JUST -- AND IF OUR CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT LAX, THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT THEM.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONER, TOM THOMSON, THE DIRECTOR OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SECTION, REVIEWED THIS REQUEST WITH HIS STAFF, AND HE IS GOING TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION AS TO THOSE TERMS THAT WE USED IN OUR REPORT.
>>PAT FRANK:  I'M GLAD THAT COMMISSIONER PLATT ASKED THIS BECAUSE I ASKED STAFF THE SAME QUESTION, AND WE'VE GOT SEVERAL -- SEVERAL ITEMS THAT ARE LINKED INTO THIS SAME -- SEVERAL OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TODAY HAVE SIMILAR PROBLEMS.
>> COMMISSIONERS, TOM THOMSON, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
THE ANSWER ON THIS SPECIFIC ONE, AND PERHAPS SOME OF THE OTHER ONES THAT COMMISSIONER FRANK MAY BRING UP LATER, IS THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT A TRANSPORTATION FACILITY, AND YOU KNOW THE LETTER GRADES "A" THROUGH "F," GENERALLY REPRESENT THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD AS WE MEASURE IT.
SO WHEN WE SAY THE ROAD IS "F" AND FAILING, THAT REPRESENTS HOW IT OPERATES.
WHEN WE ANALYZE THE ROADWAY FOR CONCURRENCY, THE BOARD IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAVE SET LEVELS OF SERVICE THAT MAY BE HIGHER THAN -- OR LOWER THAN -- THE NOMINAL LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT WE USE TO LOOK AT.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER OF ROADWAY SEGMENTS IN OUR SYSTEM THAT WE USE THE VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO, WHICH 1.0 IS GENERALLY "F."
IF YOU'RE MORE THAN 1.0.
BUT WE MAY HAVE SET THE STANDARD AT 1.2 OR 1.3 OR EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT OR LOWER THAN THAT.
AND SO WHEN WE ANALYZE FOR WHETHER A DEVELOPMENT CAN GO FORWARD FOR A CONCURRENCY PURPOSES, ALTHOUGH THE ROAD IS CONGESTED AND FAILED, IT'S STILL -- THE DEVELOPMENT MAY STILL MEET THE TEST UNDER OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE.
NOW, IN THE LAST UPDATE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WORKING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE CHANGED ALL BUT A FEW ROADWAY SEGMENTS TO A STANDARD LEVEL OF SERVICE "D" STANDARD FOR MOST OF THE ROADS, IN SOME OTHER CASES OTHER STANDARDS APPLY.
AND IF YOU RECALL, WHEN -- COMMISSIONER PLATT CERTAINLY WILL, AND SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS -- WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED IN 1989, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF BACKLOG ROADS, AND SO AT THAT TIME, THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS WERE SET SO THAT DEVELOPMENT COULD STILL PROCEED WHILE WE ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF TRYING TO FUND OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO ROADS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE HERE.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS REPORT IS HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THE ROADWAY IS CONGESTED, BUT STILL TECHNICALLY, THE DEVELOPMENT COULD MEET CONCURRENCY, BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL THEY BRING IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, ANALYSIS AT THE TIME THEY SUBMIT FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMITS.
>>JAN PLATT:  DO WE EVER SAY NO TO A DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE ROADS ARE JUST SO BAD?
I TELL YOU, FRANKLY, I'VE STOPPED GOING ON HIMES BECAUSE IT IS BACK TO BACK.
I MEAN, IT'S LIKE ONE-LANE TRAFFIC GOING NOWHERE.
AND THEN FOR US TO ALLOW SOMETHING ELSE TO GO ON IT, AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE PICKING ON HIMES.
THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER ROADS LIKE THAT TOO.
BUT, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE MAKING A JOKE OUT OF CONCURRENCY.
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF US ARE TALKING ABOUT LINKING SCHOOLS WITH -- WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT, LINKING WATER WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT, BUT THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE AN OUT.
I MEAN, THIS IS A CLASSIC.
YOU MAY ULTIMATELY WIN THE BATTLE IN TALLAHASSEE, BUT THEN IF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO WATER IT DOWN SO, WHY HAVE THE RULE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT?
IT MAKES A JOKE OF THE WHOLE ISSUE.
>> WELL, THE -- IT APPEARS THAT, PERHAPS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TRUE; HOWEVER, WE USUALLY DON'T GET TO THIS POINT AND SAY NO BECAUSE OF CONCURRENCY BECAUSE IT COSTS DEVELOPERS A LOT OF MONEY TO GET TO THIS POINT TO BE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND ASK FOR APPROVAL AND APPLICATION FEES.
THEY HAVE PROFESSIONALS THAT FIGURE OUT LONG BEFORE THIS POINT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MEET CONCURRENCY, SO WE DON'T END UP SAYING NO, I THINK IN THE SENSE THAT YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTION.
VERY -- USUALLY NOT AT ALL BECAUSE THEY BACKED AWAY FROM THEIR APPLICATION.
AND IF IT WORKS UNDER OUR RULES, THEN IT WORKS, AND WE DETERMINE THAT AT THE TIME THEY SUBMIT THE BUILDING PERMIT USUALLY, UNLESS IT'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>>PAT FRANK:  I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER PLATT, IF YOU -- I THINK WE REMEMBER THAT WE HAD A LONG LIST OF ROADS THAT WERE GIVEN TO US, AND WE WERE CHANGING THE VELOCITY TO CAPACITY ON THOSE ROADS, AND WHEN WE DID THAT, I THINK THAT PERHAPS WE DIDN'T REFLECT ON IT ENOUGH.
I'VE GOT TO BE FRANK ABOUT IT.
I THINK THE ENEMY IS US.
AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE NOW ALLOWED MORE VOLUME TO BE ON THE ROADS IN ORDER TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR, AND IT ISN'T JUST LIMITED TO THAT BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE A 5% WAIVER THERE THAT CAN BE PUT ON THOSE ROADS THAT DOESN'T -- THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY IDENTIFICATION OF WHAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS MAY BE.
SO CUMULATIVELY, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A MASSIVE PROBLEM, AND I -- I REALLY THINK WE OUGHT TO REVISIT THAT.
>> WELL, COMMISSIONER, LET ME COMMENT ON THAT.
THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE IN DECEMBER OF 2000, THAT WENT INTO EFFECT IN DECEMBER OF 2001 TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT SOMETIME WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK, ARE JUST BEGINNING TO BE IMPLEMENTED, AND WHAT YOU DID WHEN WE MADE THOSE CHANGES WAS WE REDUCED THAT LIST OF VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO STANDARDS THAT WERE GREATER THAN 1 DOWN TO 15 ROAD SEGMENTS VERSUS PROBABLY 50 OR PLUS.
I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER.
BUT TO A LETTER GRADE.
SO WE MADE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE.
IN ADDITION, WE ADDED A PROCESS FOR DEFINING THE AREA OF INFLUENCE FOR A CONCURRENCY THAT MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO MEET CONCURRENCY.
SO THOSE CHANGES ARE JUST GOING INTO EFFECT NOW, SO FROM THE POINT THAT WE START ANALYZING THEM FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, YOU'LL SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE -- THE DIFFICULTY FOR DEVELOPMENTS UNDER OUR CONGESTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO GET PAST THE CONCURRENCY STAGE.
SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT MAYBE YOU LET THAT NEW PROCESS GO INTO EFFECT.
THE OTHER 15 ROAD SEGMENTS AUTOMATICALLY GO TO A LETTER GRADE AT THE END OF 2003, SO YOU ALREADY BUILT THAT INTO -- INTO THE -- BOTH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>>PAT FRANK:  IT'S -- IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RELY UPON THE STAFF TO GIVE US INFORMATION, AND THESE ARE VERY TECHNICAL DECISIONS, WHEN YOU SEE A LIST, AND YOU SEE A CAPACITY VELOCITY RATIO, YOU DON'T KNOW THE IMPLICATION OF THAT TOTALLY UNTIL YOU BEGIN TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT OCCURS ON THESE AREAS, AND MAYBE WE REDUCED IT, BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE REDUCED IT FURTHER.
MAYBE WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE IN ALLOWING 15 ROADS THAT ARE MAJOR ROADS.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW -- AND YOU KNOW, I RAISE THE ISSUE ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION REDEFINEMENT OF WHAT WAS GOING TO BE AN IMPACT ON OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHETHER WE WERE BEING LESS LENIENT OR MORE RESTRICTIVE, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO WALK CAREFULLY IN THIS AREA TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS REALLY GOING TO BE THE EFFECT.
SO IF THERE'S SOME WAY FOR US TO MONITOR WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND ALSO TO REVISIT -- TO LOOK AT THOSE 15 ROADS IN LIGHT OF WHAT DEVELOPMENT COMES BEFORE US NOW, SO WE'RE AWARE WHEN WE DO THAT WHAT OUR ACTION WAS.
I KNOW THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING FOR THOSE 15 ROADS, BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE LEFT THOSE AT 1.
>> WELL, THAT WAS -- IF YOU RECALL -- A DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD AND THE STAFF HAD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, WHO ARGUED THEY NEEDED MORE NOTICE BEFORE THOSE LEVELS OF SERVICE WERE CHANGED TO THE LETTER GRADE, AND THE COMPROMISE WAS THAT WE LEFT A FEW ROADWAYS WITH THE -- THEIR OLD LEVEL OF SERVICE, IF YOU WILL, UNTIL THE END OF 2003, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE THEM ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE CHANGE WAS GOING TO BE AND WHEN IT WOULD OCCUR.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND HOW MANY DEVELOPMENTS ARE COMING IN UNDER THAT SCOPE?
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO FIND OUT.
>> WELL, I'D HAVE TO GO LOOK AT THAT AND IDENTIFY THOSE SEGMENTS AND TIE THEM TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICATION APPROVALS.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  GETTING BACK ON THIS ITEM, YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THIS HAS BEEN JUDGED ON THE PRESENT STANDARD AND THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARD THAT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED TO US?
AS FAR AS THIS -- THIS APPLICATION AND THE STANDARDS WE HAVE ADOPTED IN OUR CODES?
>> AT THIS POINT, IT APPEARS YES, IT WOULD; HOWEVER, THE DETERMINATION OF THAT IS WHEN THEY COME IN FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  OKAY.
MOVE THE APPLICATION.
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.
RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 5-1, COMMISSIONER PLATT VOTING NO.
>>JAN PLATT:  MADAM CHAIRMAN, COULD WE PICK UP ON THIS AND ASK STAFF TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION ON WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT ARE IN EXISTENCE AND ARE THERE ANY OPTIONS TODAY TO CHANGE THOSE REQUIREMENTS?
>>STACEY EASTERLING:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE IS A MOTION TO HAVE STAFF REVIEW THIS AND BRING SOME INFORMATION TO US ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD REVISIT THIS ISSUE.
>>JAN PLATT:  WITHIN 60 DAYS AT A LAND USE MEETING.
>>PAT FRANK:  WITHIN 60 DAYS.
RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>STACEY EASTERLING:  TALKING ABOUT THE BIGGER ISSUE THOUGH.
>>JAN PLATT:  YEAH, THE BIGGER ISSUE.
>>STACEY EASTERLING:  I'M SORRY, RECORDING SECRETARY.
I JUMPED IN.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  COMMISSIONER SCOTT.
MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  ITEM 2-6, REZONING 02-44, THIS APPLICATION BY TOM MILLER IS TO REZONE PROPERTY TO RSC-9.
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZONING HEARING MASTER.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY, THIS ONE, THE LOT SIZE -- WELL, NUMBER ONE, IT'S EUCLIDIAN.
AND IT'S REALLY A PART OF ANOTHER ONE.
IT'S -- WHICH I THINK IS SORT OF INTERESTING, AND YOU'VE REALLY SPLIT IT UP ON THIS AGENDA SO THAT UNLESS YOU KNEW, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW.
2-Q, IT'S PART OF THE SAME DEVELOPMENT, IS IT NOT?
TOM MILLER.
IT'S PART OF THE SAME ONE?
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JAN PLATT:  IT WOULD SEEM TO ME YOU WOULD HAVE PUT THEM BOTH CLOSE TOGETHER.
THIS IS BAIT AND SWITCH.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WELL, ACTUALLY NOT.
I MEAN, THEY HAD TO MODIFY AN EXISTING ZONING, AND THEN THEY'RE ADDING PROPERTY TO IT THAT REQUIRES SOME DESIGNATION ON IT.
>>JAN PLATT:  IT'S ALL THE SAME DEVELOPMENT KIND OF THING, RIGHT?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YES.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
SO I HAVE THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT I HAD ON THE FIRST ONE, AND THAT DEALT WITH -- BECAUSE THIS ONE DEALS WITH THE WELLS BEING USED FOR RECLAIMED WATER, AND THE LOT SIZES.
BECAUSE --
>>PAULA HARVEY:  AND WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU ON -- ON THE WELL ISSUE.
YOU REQUESTED US TO COME BACK AND FIND OUT WHAT THE POLICY IS OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE ISSUE OF USE OF WELLS ON THIS PROPERTY.
>>JAN PLATT:  RIGHT.
AND THEN -- AND THEN THIS IS ONE WHERE IN THE OTHER ISSUE, THE ZONING HEARING MASTER QUESTIONED THE LOT SIZES, ABOUT WHAT HE THOUGHT THE PREFERENCE WAS.
WAS THIS A DIFFERENT HEARING MASTER ON THIS ONE?
NO, IT'S THE SAME.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  NO, IT'S THE SAME HEARING MASTER.
>>JAN PLATT:  AND EUCLIDIAN.
IN THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, SHOULD THIS BE EUCLIDIAN?
BECAUSE THAT OTHER ONE WAS NOT A EUCLIDIAN.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THIS IS A VERY SMALL PROPERTY.
THERE'S ONLY A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF LOTS THEY'D BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT.
WITH THAT SIZE AND THE EUCLIDIAN ZONING IS ACTUALLY GOING TO SET THE MINIMUM STANDARD FOR THE LOT SIZE.
THEY'LL FOLLOW THE SAME SORT OF REQUIREMENTS ON 2-Q -- LET ME GO BACK AND LOOK.
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE PROVIDED WITHIN THOSE DIFFERENT VILLAGES ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WOULD FIND IN THE RSC-9 ZONING DISTRICT, SO I MEAN, IT'S VERY COMPATIBLE, WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE DOING.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION, IT SAYS THE REQUEST IS TO DO A EUCLIDIAN ZONING FOR 50-FOOT LOTS.
HOW DO YOU GET 50-FOOT LOTS IN EUCLIDIAN?
I THOUGHT YOU COULD JUST DO PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU JOLLY WELL FELT LIKE YOU WANTED TO DO.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  NO, NOT IN THE RSC-9.
THE STANDARDS ARE SET OUT IN THE CODE.
>>JIM PORTER:  ALL EUCLIDIAN MEANS IS ALL THE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS YOU WOULD NORMALLY PUT ON WITH THE SITE PLAN CONDITIONS ARE ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO ALL THOSE STANDARDS THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE TO CRAFT A CONDITION FOR ARE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE.
THAT'S ALL EUCLIDIAN MEANS.
>>JAN PLATT:  IT'S CHANGED ITS MEANING OVER THE YEARS.
I MOVE APPROVAL.
>>PAT FRANK:  I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT ONE TOO BECAUSE IT SAID THAT YOU -- IT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED USING THE RSC-9 STANDARDS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WANT TO BE COMPATIBLE, SINCE IT'S ONE UNIT, ONE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS EUCLIDIAN POCKET, BUT WHAT DOES THAT DO IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AFTER YOU ONCE GET OUT OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS THE EARLIER APPROVED?
ARE WE -- ARE WE EXPANDING THE WHOLE AREA?
BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THE DESIGNATION ON THE MAP HERE.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WELL, THE EARLIER DEVELOPMENT HAS APPROVALS FOR 4400- AND 5500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS AS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
THIS PARTICULAR POCKET HAS A MINIMUM STANDARD OF 5,000-SQUARE-FOOT LOT SIZE.
SO, I MEAN, IT'S ALL -- THEY'RE ALL ABOUT THE SAME.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHAT IS THE SURROUNDING, THE ADJACENT LAND TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARCEL?
WHAT DOES IT HAVE?
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WELL, WE HAVE A COUPLE -- WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS, ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN THE OTHER APPLICATION.
THE OTHER PROPERTIES ARE AR, WHICH IS ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES.
>>PAT FRANK:  IT SAYS APPROVE FOR PUBLIC PURCHASE THROUGH ELAP PROGRAM, BOTH OF THEM, EAST AND SOUTH.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  SO YOU HAVE THAT BUFFER AREA TO WHAT WOULD BE LARGER LOTS IN THAT AREA.
IMMEDIATELY NORTH, IF YOU LOOK ON THE ZONING MAP ON PAGE 4 OF THIS ITEM, IF YOU LOOK FURTHER NORTH, RIGHT AT BIG BEND ROAD, WHAT YOU DO SEE ARE THE SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE APPROVED UNDER THOSE PDs.
THIS PD AND THIS -- THE PD THAT WE REFER TO IN THE EARLIER ITEM, AND THEN THIS POCKET IS JUST IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THAT.
SO IT'S JUST CARRYING THE SAME DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
>>PAT FRANK:  YEAH, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M TRYING -- IT SEEMS SO ODD TO -- THIS IS ADJACENT TO ELAPP PROPERTY.
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THIS PROPERTY IN TERMS OF BEING INCLUDED IN THE ELAPP ELIGIBILITY?
IS IT --
>>PAULA HARVEY:  I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, COMMISSIONER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PROPERTY EVEN QUALIFIES.
>>PAT FRANK:  I SEE SOMEBODY COMING UP.
MAYBE THEY CAN GIVE US SOME INFORMATION.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WE'LL NEED TO OPEN FOR ORAL ARGUMENT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
>>PAT FRANK:  CAN WE JUST GET SOME ANSWERS?
OPEN FOR ORAL ARGUMENT MOTION.
RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD.
I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.
THIS IS JUST A SMALL PARCEL THAT WAS NOT ZONED AS PART OF THE PD THAT YOU DID IN -- MAJOR MODIFICATION IN ITEM "Q."
THE THREE ACRES IN QUESTION ARE ALL UPLAND.
THEY ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT.
THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE ELAPP PURCHASE.
THEY ARE ACTUALLY FARMED LAND RIGHT NOW.
THE LANDS -- EXCUSE ME -- TO THE EAST THAT YOU REFERRED TO HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR POSSIBLE PURCHASE BY ELAPP, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PURCHASED BY ELAPP.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND THE UPLAND HABITAT?
>> THERE IS NO UPLAND HABITAT ON THIS PROPERTY AT ALL.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  COMMISSIONER STORMS, CAN YOU REGISTER YOUR VOTE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT?
I'M SORRY WE WEREN'T ABLE TO --
>>PAT FRANK:  SO THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  TRAINING A NEW PERSON OVER THERE?
SHE GOT TO SPEAK UP.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  COMMISSIONER FRANK.
>>PAT FRANK:  I DID TOO.
I DID.
I'M JUST PUNY THIS MORNING.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, COMMISSIONERS, IS ITEM 3-A.
THIS IS ON PAGE 6 OF THE AGENDA.
THIS IS PERSONAL APPEARANCE 02-260.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER.
THE REQUEST IS MADE BY HAROLD JOHNSON.
WE PROVIDED INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING THEIR EXPENSES AND INCOME.
WE ARE IDENTIFYING TO YOU THAT THIS CANNOT BE SUPPORTED AS A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF BECAUSE OF THE CRITERIA SET REGARDING FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
AS NOTED IN THE APPLICATION, THE $1500 FEE OR APPROXIMATE $1500 FEE FOR A NONCONFORMING USE EXPANSION REQUEST, WE BELIEVE SHOULD BE PAID BASED ON THE CURRENT INCOME LEVEL AND WHAT THE CUTOFF IS FOR THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR HOUSEHOLD.
SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A FEE WAIVER IN THIS CASE.
>>JAN PLATT:  MOVE TO CONCUR.
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE IS A MOTION TO CONCUR.
MR.  --
>>RONDA STORMS:  HE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
>>PAT FRANK:  MR. JOHNSON, IS THAT CORRECT?
YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> YES, MA'AM.
MY NAME'S HAROLD JOHNSON, 3830 TANNER ROAD, DOVER, FLORIDA.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEE WAIVER, I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED, IS DENIED.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD'S CONSIDERING.
>> OKAY.
WELL, THE REASON THAT I'D LIKE TO GET THE FEE WAIVER LIFTED IS BECAUSE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, MY INCOME DROPPED FROM ABOUT $45,000 DOWN TO $1100 A MONTH.
AND I HAVE A LOT OF SICKNESS IN MY HOME WITH MY WIFE, AND I'M TRYING TO GET TWO ACRES OF LAND REZONED TO WHERE I CAN SELL THAT TO HELP OUT WITH MY INCOME.
SO THAT WAS THE BIGGEST REASON THAT I'D LIKE TO GET THIS FEE WAIVERED.
NOT ONLY THAT, I FEEL LIKE KIND OF I SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE HERE BECAUSE IN '78, THE 5th AND THE 8th OF '78, I GOT A ZONING VIOLATION FROM THE INSPECTOR, AND HE GAVE ME -- I WAS OPERATING A BUSINESS IN THE AR ZONE -- I THINK IS WHAT IT WAS, AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL -- AND HE GAVE ME A CITATION, TOLD ME I HAD TO HAVE THAT CORRECTED WITHIN 7 DAYS, WHICH I DID, BEFORE THE OLD COUNTY COMMISSION, NONE OF YOU-ALL.
AND -- BUT THE -- THE OLDER COUNTY COMMISSION THAT WAS HERE BEFORE YOU-ALL, BEFORE YOU PEOPLE WERE, THEY SAY THEY GOT THE RECORDS LOST, AND THERE'S NO MINUTES.
>>RONDA STORMS:  SHE WAS HERE, JAN WAS HERE, NOT ME.
>> SHE WAS HERE, I THINK.
I THINK SO.
I THINK SO.
ANYWAY, SO HE GAVE ME 7 DAYS TO HAVE THAT CORRECTED, AND I WENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND PLEADED MY CASE, AND THEY GRANDFATHERED THE BUSINESS IN.
AND NOW WHERE THIS ALL CAME OUT ABOUT IS WHEN I LISTED THE REAL ESTATE TO SELL THE PROPERTY, I FOUND OUT IT HAD NOT BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, BUT I HAVE THE APPLICATION WHERE THE -- THE INSPECTOR GAVE TO ME BACK IN '78, THE COUNTY INSPECTOR.
>>PAT FRANK:  SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WAS A WAIVER GIVEN FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE -- TO HAVE BUSINESS LOCATED ON IT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ZONED AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>>PAT FRANK:  DO WE HAVE ANY RECORD OF THAT IN ANY WAY?
>> WE COULDN'T FIND ANY RECORD, NO, MA'AM.
>>PAT FRANK:  HAS THIS POINT BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH THE STAFF?
HAVE YOU BROUGHT THIS UP WITH THE STAFF?
>> YES, MA'AM, IT'S ALL BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH THE STAFF, AND THEY SPENT A WHOLE DAY LOOKING FOR THE RECORDS, AND THEY COULDN'T FIND THEM.
I SPENT THREE OR FOUR HOURS LOOKING FOR THEM.
I COULDN'T FIND THEM, BUT I DO HAVE THE CITATION THAT THE INSPECTOR GAVE ME BACK IN THE 5th AND THE 8th OF '78.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS -- THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT COMMISSIONER STORMS HAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE BECAUSE TRACKING SOME OF THESE RECORDS IS NOT THE EASIEST THING BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEEN PUT ON AUTOMATED INFORMATION SERVICES.
AND --
>>JAN PLATT:  THIS ISN'T THE SAME THING.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER, THIS IS A RESEARCH IN THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING ACTIONS OF THE BOARD.
THAT'S WHERE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE RECORDS COULD NOT BE FOUND.
THAT'S CORRECT.
WE'RE NOT AWARE THAT THERE WAS ANY ACTION LIKE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED TO YOU BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO GRANDFATHER THE PROPERTY IN.
SO WE HAVE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT IT'S A NONCONFORMING USE, AND IN ORDER FOR HIM TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HE MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, HE DOES HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT'S SET OUT IN THE CODE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE EXPANSION OF THE USE.
THAT IS THE APPLICATION THAT IS GOING TO COST THE APPROXIMATE $1500 FEE.
BUT HE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND AND MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HE'S TALKED ABOUT.
>> EXCUSE ME.
THE IMPROVEMENT THAT SHE WAS MENTIONING ABOUT MAKING, ALL IT IS IS JUST SELLING TWO ACRES OF LAND.
THERE'S NO HOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT I'M DOING BACK THERE.
THAT'S ALL I WAS INTERESTED IN.
I THOUGHT I WAS ALL CLEAR TO DO THAT UNTIL I BEGIN TO CHECK AROUND WITH THE PEOPLE UP HERE AND FOUND OUT THAT IT WASN'T GRANDFATHERED IN, OR THEY SAID IT WASN'T, AND APPARENTLY THEY LOST THE RECORDS OF IT BEING GRANDFATHERED IN.
YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE, WHY SHOULD I HAVE GOT A CITATION AND GIVEN 7 DAYS TO CORRECT IT, WHICH I CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CORRECTED THE SITUATION, AND THEY SAID I WAS GRANDFATHERED IN.
THAT WAS BACK IN '78.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND YOU HAVE BEEN OPERATING A BUSINESS SINCE THEN?
>> AND I'VE BEEN OPERATING A BUSINESS EVER SINCE.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND YOU'VE NEVER GOTTEN A CITATION SINCE THEN?
>> NEVER GOTTEN ANOTHER CITATION.
NEVER HAD NO MORE VISITATIONS FROM THE COUNTY, A LETTER FROM THE COUNTY, NOTHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHY I SAY I WAS HOPING I WOULD QUALIFY AND WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY THIS WAIVER -- THIS FEE.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER STORMS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  MS. HARVEY, WHAT RESULT FROM -- WHAT DID YOU FIND AS A RESULT OF THAT CITATION?
DID YOU FIND ANY RECORD OF THE RESULT?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE NOT IN REVIEW OF HIS REQUEST FOR WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.
SO OTHER THAN US TRYING TO VERIFY THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY AS TO WHETHER IT WAS NONCONFORMING OR NOT AND NOT BEING ABLE TO VERIFY THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK THAT THE ACTIONS THAT HE DESCRIBED OCCURRED, ALL WE'VE DONE IS COME FORWARD AND IDENTIFIED WHAT PROCESS HE NEEDS TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED, AND HE -- BASED ON THAT, HE'S ASKED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR FEE WAIVER.
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FEE WAIVER IS THE ONLY THING THAT -- THAT WE'RE IN REVIEW OF RIGHT NOW.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I UNDERSTAND, BUT HE'S SAYING THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THAT WAS THIS GRANDFATHERING IN, AND SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE WENT BACK AND WE LOOKED THROUGH THE CLERK'S RECORDS TO FIND -- TO FIND WHAT HE SAID, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND THE RESOLUTION TO THAT, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, SO MAYBE YOU DIDN'T FIND THE GRANDFATHERING IN.
HE SAID THAT'S HOW THAT CITATION WAS RESOLVED IS THAT HE WAS GRANDFATHERED IN.
>> RIGHT.
>>RONDA STORMS:  YOU'RE SAYING YOU FOUND NO RECORD OF ANYTHING, WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE IF HE'S BEEN OPERATING SINCE 1978, THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO BE -- REST MORE WITH HIM THAN IT DOES WITH OUR SIDE SAYING, YOU KNOW, NO, THE GRANDFATHERING IN NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T FIND RECORD OF ANYBODY -- OF ANY OTHER ADVERSE RESOLUTION.
WE DIDN'T TELL YOU TO STOP IT AND SHUT DOWN YOUR BUSINESS AND GO AWAY, AND HE'S STILL DOING IT.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT -- THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE WEIGHT OF IT -- CREDIBILITY HERE RESTS WITH HIM IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
>>JAN PLATT:  MADAM CHAIRMAN, POINT OF ORDER.
WE'RE GETTING INTO THE MERITS OF HIS APPLICATION.
>>RONDA STORMS:  NO, NO, NO, EXCUSE ME, MADAM CHAIR.
I HAVE THE FLOOR.
>>JAN PLATT:  MADAM CHAIR, HE IS HERE FOR FEE WAIVER, PERIOD.
WE ARE GETTING INTO THE MERITS OF HIS APPLICATION OF WHAT HE WANTS THE FEE WAIVER FOR.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, APPARENTLY HE'S BEEN ADVISED TO COME AND FILE AGAIN, AND HE, AS A RESULT OF THAT, IS SAYING HE DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, BUT HE'S TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY'VE ADVISED HIM TO COME AND ASK FOR REZONING, AND HE DOESN'T THINK HE NEEDS THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY GRANTED TO HIM, SO THAT IT IS ALL THE SAME ISSUE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  WHY SHOULD HE HAVE TO PAY A FEE IF HE'S ALREADY GRANDFATHERED IN?
THAT'S HIS POINT, AND THAT'S NOT A POINT OF ORDER.
>> THAT WAS MY POINT.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONERS, LET ME DESCRIBE A PROCEDURAL ISSUE TO YOU ABOUT THE DETERMINATION STAFF WOULD MAKE REGARDING THE STATUS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PROPERTY, THIS OR ANYONE ELSE.
IF IN OUR RESEARCH WE MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THEY'RE NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE, MEANING THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THE PERMITS ARE IN PLACE OR THE COUNTY TOOK ACTION, THE APPLICANT IS ADVISED OF THAT.
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAL THAT DETERMINATION WITH THEIR OWN FACTUAL EVIDENCE, AND THAT CASE GOES TO THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER FOR A HEARING, AT WHICH POINT THE HEARING OFFICER WOULD WEIGH THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE IS LEGAL OR NOT LEGAL.
NOW, I'M NOT AWARE THAT THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH.
IF HE IS SUGGESTING THAT WHAT WE FOUND IN TERMS OF OUR OWN STAFF REVIEW JUST WITHIN THE OFFICE IS NOT APPROPRIATE, HE NEEDS TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON HIS APPEAL PROCESS TO THE HEARING OFFICER.
THAT'S THE POINT WHERE THERE WOULD BE A HEARING ON ALL THE FACTUAL ISSUES OF THAT DETERMINATION.
>>PAT FRANK:  BUT HE HAS TO PAY A FEE TO GET TO THAT POINT.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THERE WOULD BE A FEE HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE APPEAL.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND THE QUESTION -- THE QUESTION IS, IF THERE'S NEVER BEEN A CITATION ON THE PROPERTY, AND HE'S BEEN RUNNING THAT BUSINESS THERE --
>> FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
>>TOM SCOTT:  MADAM CHAIRMAN, LET ME SEE IF I CAN HELP US SOMEWHAT.
BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE FILE, STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE DENY HIS REQUEST BECAUSE HIS ANNUAL INCOME LAST YEAR WAS $56,000.
OKAY?
HE IS SAYING SINCE THEN, HIS INCOME HAS DROPPED DOWN TO $1100 A MONTH.
>> LET ME EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU.
>>TOM SCOTT:  SIR, SIR, OKAY.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING SO STAFF CAN LOOK AT -- AND HE CAN VERIFY THAT PARTICULAR INCOME, THEN BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
>>RONDA STORMS:  SECOND.
>>JAN PLATT:  THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER HE CAN AFFORD TO PAY THE FEE, PERIOD.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, WE'LL POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING, BUT I REALLY -- IT IS ONE ISSUE.
RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>JAN PLATT:  YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE LAW ABOUT HOW THE PROCESS WORKS OF WHAT HE IS APPLYING TO GET TO.
THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT IN THIS MEETING TODAY ARE WHAT WOULD BE SAID BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER.
YOU-ALL ARE TRYING TO HEAR THE CASE.
>>PAT FRANK:  NO, COMMISSIONER.
HE WAS ADVISED TO -- TO -- TO APPLY FOR A HEARING MASTER TO MAKE A DETERMINATION, AND THEN IN THAT SITUATION, HE'S ASKING FOR A FEE WAIVER.
THE QUESTION IS, WAS IT -- WAS IT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO BEGIN WITH.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MY QUESTION IS.
>>JAN PLATT:  EVERYONE WHO GOES BEFORE THAT PROCESS HAS THAT SAME QUESTION.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  [ INAUDIBLE ]
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>PAT FRANK:  SO THIS WILL BE POSTPONED FOR TWO WEEKS.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  MR. JOHNSON, TILL FEBRUARY THE 12th.
>> I GOT TO BE BACK JANUARY THE 12th?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  FEBRUARY THE 12th AT 9:00.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>STACEY EASTERLING:  IT'S A TIME CERTAIN FOR 9:00 A.M.?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YES.
IT'S ONE OF THE EARLY ITEMS WE TAKE UP ON OUR AGENDA.
>>TOM SCOTT:  HE NEEDS TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO STAFF OF HIS INCOME AND ALL THAT.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
WE'LL BE IN TOUCH WITH HIM.
MOVING ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS, ITEM 4-A IS REZONING PETITION 01-1343.
KEITH BRICKLEMYER IS REPRESENTING AN APPLICANT ON 130 ACRES THAT'S LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VALRICO ROAD SOUTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD.
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
COMMISSIONERS, LET ME SAY AT THIS POINT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS TO LOOK AT IN THIS APPLICATION.
FIRST OF ALL, IN TERMS OF THE ZONING CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS PROVIDED THAT BEGIN ON PAGE 6 OF YOUR BACKUP, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 88 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON THIS PROPERTY.
THERE IS A DESCRIPTION THEN FOLLOWING THAT MAXIMUM LIMITATION ON NUMBER 1 THAT OUTLINES HOW THE LOTS WOULD BE DEVELOPED ON THE PARCEL.
FOUR LOTS ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, TWO LOTS IN THE LARGER AREA DESIGNATED AS THE ASC-1 ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE PERMITTED, AND THEN THE BALANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE WITH 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS.
WE DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN, BUT WE WILL NEED TO TAKE NOTE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THIS MORNING OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION, WHO DID LOOK AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS NOT EXACTLY RECOMMENDING THE SAME THING THAT WE ARE.
THE 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LIMITATION, BASICALLY HE IS SAYING, IS NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.
HE'S NOTED THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL BUFFERING THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, AND THEREFORE, THE LOTS THEMSELVES COULD ACTUALLY BE LESS THAN THAT, CONSIDERING THE BUFFERING THAT'S BEING PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
SO THERE IS A DISTINCTION TO BE MADE WITH WHAT THE HEARING MASTER HAS RECOMMENDED, AND I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU.
WE DID HAVE ORAL ARGUMENT FILED ON THIS.
>>PAT FRANK:  BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ITEM, COMMISSIONER NORMAN PROPERLY REMINDED ME THAT WE WERE GOING TO TAKE UP THAT OTHER ITEM DEALING WITH THE SERVICE AREA OF TEMPLE TERRACE AND TAMPA AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, SO I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION YET.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WE'VE GOT TO CONTACT THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
WE ARE IN CONTACT WITH THEM.
WE'RE TRYING TO VERIFY THAT.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY, SO WE'LL JUST CONTINUE THAT UNTIL THE STAFF THINKS IT'S THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  I APOLOGIZE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO HAVE THE INFORMATION.
WOULD YOU WANT TO PRESENT IT?
BRIAN GRADY, WHO IS HEAD OF OUR ZONING TEAM IN OUR DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER DEPARTMENT AND CAN CLARIFY FOR YOU WHAT THE SERVICE AREA IS FOR ITEM 2-O.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS ITEM IS 2-O.
>>BRIAN GRADY:  GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
I TALKED TO THE REVIEWING STAFF WITH THE WATER DEPARTMENT REGARDING THEIR COMMENTS, AND REALLY WHAT IT IS IS THAT -- IT'S JUST A DISCREPANCY IN THEIR MAPS REGARDING THEIR SERVICE AREA.
BASICALLY WHAT -- THEIR COMMENT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT FOR THE WATER DEPARTMENT, FROM WASTE SERVICES, IT'S NOT WITHIN THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA.
IT IS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA FROM THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATION.
IT'S JUST THAT THEIR MAP IS -- SORRY I'M A LITTLE OUT OF BREATH.
I WAS RUNNING DOWNSTAIRS.
BUT FROM THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATION, IT IS IN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA.
IT IS WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMPA SERVICE AREA.
THEIR COMMENTS WERE BASICALLY SAYING THAT IT'S NOT WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA THAT THE COUNTY PROVIDES, AND I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS JUST WORK ON THE COMMENTS SHEET TO BETTER CLARIFY THAT IN THE COMMENTS SHEET WHEN THEY MEAN WHEN THEY'RE MARKING WHAT'S NOT INSIDE THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE TALKING IN THEIR MAPS ABOUT THE SERVICE AREA, NOT THE COMP PLAN DESIGNATION.
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE WAS ALSO A LETTER IN THERE THAT SAID IT WAS WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE SERVICE AREA.
>>BRIAN GRADY:  BASED ON THE COMMENTS, IT'S WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMPA AREA, NOT TEMPLE TERRACE.
>>JAN PLATT:  BUT THEN WE HAVE A LETTER FROM TEMPLE TERRACE SAYING IT'S WITHIN THEIR SERVICE AREA.
DID YOU SEE THAT LETTER?
>>BRIAN GRADY:  I DIDN'T SEE THAT LETTER.
>>JAN PLATT:  I THINK YOU NEED TO CONTINUE IT UNTIL YOU GET IT STRAIGHTENED OUT STILL.
WE'VE GOT A LETTER FROM TEMPLE TERRACE SAYING IT'S THEIRS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS ABOUT.
GET IT STRAIGHTENED OUT.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WE'LL WORK ON IT SOME MORE, COMMISSIONERS.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL, IT'S NOT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SERVICE AREA.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED WATER BY EITHER CITY OF TAMPA OR TEMPLE TERRACE, ONE OR THE OTHER.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YES.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WHY -- AND I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND, IF THEY'RE GOING TO GET WATER, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GROUNDWATER, IT'S GOING TO BE A -- EITHER THE CITY OF TAMPA OR THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, WHY DOES IT MATTER?
I MEAN, THEY CAN CLEAR THE RECORD UP, AND WE CAN SAY CONTINGENT UPON THEM CLEARING THE RECORD UP TO MAKE SURE THEY NOTIFY THE CITY OF TAMPA OR TEMPLE TERRACE.
WE CAN CLEAR THE RECORD UP, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD HOLD THE APPLICATION UP WHEN IT'S JUST A TECHNICAL -- IT'S A PAPER PROBLEM.
>>JAN PLATT:  YOU KNOW THOUGH, JIM, HAVING BEEN HERE ALL THESE YEARS, LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT, FIVE, TEN YEARS FROM NOW, CAN COME BACK TO BITE YOU.
TO ME THE RECORD SHOULD BE CLEAR AND ACCURATE, AND IT'S NOT CLEAR AND ACCURATE RIGHT NOW, AND IN THE ZONING HEARING MASTER IT SAYS THE CITY OF TAMPA'S WATER AREA, AND IT'S IN BLACK AND WHITE FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA --
>>JIM NORMAN:  I AGREE.
I WOULD MOVE THE APPLICATION FOR NOTIFICATION AND CLARIFYING ON THE RECORD WHICH SERVICE AREA IT IS AND NOTIFYING EITHER THE CITY OF TAMPA OR TEMPLE TERRACE TO CLEAR THE RECORD AND MAKE IT A VERY UNDERSTANDABLE BETWEEN THE TWO MUNICIPALITIES THAT WHO HAS THE SERVICE AREA ON THIS APPLICATION.
THAT'S MY MOTION.
>>RONDA STORMS:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>LORRAINE DUFFY:  I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR YOU.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-1, COMMISSIONER PLATT VOTING NO.
>>LORRAINE DUFFY:  COMMISSIONERS, I THINK PART OF THE CONFUSION IS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, WE IDENTIFY THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA, AND WE HAVE DIFFERENT TIERS INSIDE YOUR SERVICE AREA.
THOSE AREAS THAT ARE PROVIDED MUNICIPAL SERVICES OUTSIDE YOUR SERVICE AREA ARE LISTED AS THE CITY OF TAMPA SERVICE AREA BECAUSE IN GENERAL, IT'S THE CITY OF TAMPA.
TEMPLE TERRACE HAS A VERY SMALL LITTLE BOUNDARY, AND IN FACT, THEY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA FOR THEIR WASTEWATER SERVICE, SO RATHER THAN HAVE A TINY, TINY LITTLE BLIP ON THE COMP PLAN MAP THAT SHOWS TEMPLE TERRACE THAT YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T EVEN SEE, IT'S -- IT ALL SAYS THE CITY OF TAMPA.
SO THE REVIEW SHEETS THAT THEY SEND OUT PROBABLY SAY, ARE THEY IN THE CITY OF TAMPA SERVICE AREA OR IN THE COUNTY SERVICE AREA?
AND THAT'S HOW THE COMP PLAN DISTINGUISHES THEM.
THEY MAY, IN FACT, GET THE SERVICE FROM TEMPLE TERRACE.
MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST CALL IT MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREA FOR CLARITY ON THE COMP PLAN, BUT THAT'S, I'M SURE, WHAT THE ROOT OF THIS PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THE COMP PLAN CALLS IT TAMPA.
>>RONDA STORMS:  DO WE NEED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THAT, LORRAINE?
>>LORRAINE DUFFY:  OH, PLEASE, NO.
PLEASE, NO.
NEXT TIME WE CHANGE THE COMP PLAN, WE'LL CHANGE IT TO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE TO OPEN FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FOR MR. BRICKLEMYER, AND THAT WILL GET US WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.
RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>JIM PORTER:  MADAM CHAIR, IN ADDITION TO MR. BRICKLEMYER, THE APPLICANT, THREE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION FILED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.
LINDA PIERSON, RUSSELL ALEXANDER, AND ANNE AVDON.
>>PAT FRANK:  GO AHEAD, MR. BRICKLEMYER.
GO AHEAD.
>> GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS.
MY NAME'S KEITH BRICKLEMYER.
I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR WESTFIELD HOMES IN THIS APPLICATION.
WITH ME IS TOM DIEHL WITH HEIDT AND ASSOCIATES, WHO IS GOING TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR PLAN AND THE SURROUNDING AREA AS I MAKE MY PRESENTATION.
YOU HAVE VISITED THIS SITE ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.
THE LAST TIME WAS WITH REGARD TO A REZONING PETITION FOR 240 LOTS.
THIS IS 130-ACRE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VALUE KEY ROW ROAD AND MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD.
YOU DENIED THE 240-LOT PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT WAS TOO INTENSE FOR THE AREA.
THE CURRENT APPLICANT, WESTFIELD HOMES, HAS CONSIDERED THE RECORD IN THAT PRIOR CASE AND HAS ADDRESSED THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AND THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED IN THAT PROCESS, BUT THEY HAVE STILL PROVIDED AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE PROJECT, AND THAT'S SORT OF THE CRUX OF THIS ISSUE.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF LOTS TO MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER TO THIS SITE?
THE CONSTRAINTS ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. DIEHL TO POINT OUT TO YOU, ARE SIGNIFICANT.
THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AREA OF THE 130 ACRES THAT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, AND THEREFORE, NOT DEVELOPABLE.
THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED NOT ONLY BY THE TWO ROADWAYS, BUT ON THE NORTH, THERE IS AN ELEVATED RAILROAD TRACK, OBVIOUSLY A SIGNIFICANT IMPEDIMENT TO THE TYPE OF HOUSING THAT CAN OCCUR ON THIS SITE.
THERE IS ALSO A 300-FOOT-WIDE POWER LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH BASICALLY BISECTS THE SITE AND OPERATES AS A WESTERN BOUNDARY TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING THE MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PROPERTY ALSO IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AS I MENTIONED, AND THEREFORE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO USE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, AND THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO MAKE THE EXPENDITURE TO EXTEND PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER LINES TO THIS SITE.
WESTFIELD'S RESPONSE TO THESE CONSTRAINTS INTO THE PRIOR RECORD IS A SITE PLAN THAT INCLUDES TWO ESTATE LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT, WHICH ARE LARGER THAN WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING REQUIRES.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS AS-1.
THESE LOTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER THAN THAT AND WILL, IN FACT, BE RETAINED BY THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR A TOTAL OF 86 LOTS, AND TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY WITHIN WHICH THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MLK AND VALRICO, WE HAVE PROVIDED A TRANSITION THAT LEAVES ONLY SIX LOTS ON THE ROTE FRONTAGE ON VALRICO ROAD.
TWO OF THOSE LOTS, AS I INDICATED, ARE LARGE ESTATE LOTS.
FOUR OF THOSE LOTS ARE IN THE ORDER OF A HALF ACRE TO 3/4 OF AN ACRE.
SO THAT THE PASSERS-BY IN THE AREA RIDING DOWN VALRICO ROAD WILL SEE A RURAL-TYPE DEVELOPMENT.
THE THEME OF THIS PROJECT, AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH NEIGHBORS AND THE STAFF, THE APPLICANT HAS DECIDED ON AN OCALA HORSE FARM KIND OF THEME, AND THAT'S THE TYPE OF FENCING THAT WILL OCCUR.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE PROPOSED A LANDSCAPE BUFFER OF 50 FEET ALONG VALRICO ROAD THAT WILL INCLUDE RETENTION OF THE EXISTING LARGE TREES, WHICH ARE VERY NICE AND WE WANT TO SAVE, AND SUPPLEMENTED BY A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD THAT INCLUDES PINES, OAKS, AND ORNAMENTAL TREES AT THE ENTRANCE AREA.
THE EVIDENCE THAT WE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD AT THE ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING INCLUDED A NUMBER OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND REGULATIONS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE BRIEFLY WITH YOU IN THE BRIEF TIME THAT I HAVE.
SECTION AA OF THE COMP PLAN PROVIDES THAT THERE ARE THREE PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
THOSE THREE COMPONENTS ARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLAY, AN URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND A DEFINED RURAL AREA.
AND THAT'S THE CONFLICT WE HAVE IN THIS SITUATION.
WE HAVE A TENSION BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHERE THE RURAL AREA MEETS THE URBAN AREA.
OUR POSITION IS YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE RULES THAT GOVERN EACH OF THOSE AREAS AND COME TO A RESOLUTION THAT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER IN THE RURAL AREA TO MAINTAIN HIS RURAL FORM, BUT ALSO ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO CREATE AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO YOU.
IN THE URBAN AREA, OF COURSE, THE COUNTY ENCOURAGES GROWTH.
IN THE RURAL AREA, THE STRATEGY IS THAT THE RURAL AREA IS PLANNED TO REMAIN IN LONG-TERM AGRICULTURAL MINING OR LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?
THE PURPOSE IS, AS STATED IN THE PLAN, IS TO CONTROL URBAN SPRAWL AND TO CREATE A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN LONG-RANGE URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITY FORMS.
AND AGAIN, THESE PURPOSES MUST BE HONORED WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PLACES WHERE THOSE TWO BOUNDARIES ARE JUXTAPOSED TO ONE ANOTHER.
OBJECTIVE AA-1 IN THE COMP PLAN PROVIDES THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHALL PROACTIVELY DIRECT NEW GROWTH INTO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WITH THE GOAL THAT AT LEAST 80% OF ALL POPULATION GROWTH WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA DURING THE PLANNING HORIZON OF THIS PLAN.
POLICY AA-1.3 PROVIDES -- OR ACTUALLY REQUIRES -- THAT IN THE RESIDENTIAL-FOUR LAND USE CATEGORY, THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENTS MUST BE AT LEAST THREE DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE.
THREE DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE, AT LEAST, UNLESS THERE'S SOME COMPELLING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE PROBLEM.
OUR DENSITY IS .83, AND THE REASON IS WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A BUFFER FROM THE RAILROAD TRACK, LARGE LOTS ALONG THE VALRICO FRONTAGE, AND WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AREA THAT CAN'T BE DEVELOPED.
SO WE HAVE A VERY LOW DENSITY AND LARGE LOTS ON THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT, WHICH DICTATES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE ANY DENSITY AT ALL, SMALLER LOTS ON THE INTERIOR.
WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED THE CONCEPT OF CLUSTERING IN OUR PLAN, OBJECTIVE A-7 OF THE COMP PLAN PROVIDES NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD DEMONSTRATE CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT TO ACHIEVE OPEN SPACE THAT REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR IN A MANNER THAT PROTECTS NATURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING WETLANDS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AQUIFER RECHARGE, ET CETERA.
WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED THAT OBJECTIVE AS WELL.
SO THE ISSUE IS HOW DO WE TAKE THESE GOALS AND POLICIES, APPLY THEM TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND TRANSITION FROM THE URBAN BOUNDARY TO THE RURAL AREA?
IT BECOMES A QUESTION, I THINK, OF COMPATIBILITY, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING WORD SUSCEPTIBLE TO MANY INTERPRETATIONS, BUT THE -- THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INCLUDES A DEFINITION OF "COMPATIBILITY."
COMPATIBILITY IS DEFINED AS THE APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP OF ONE USE TO ANOTHER USE, ONE ZONING DISTRICT TO ANOTHER ZONING DISTRICT, OR ONE USE TO A ZONING DISTRICT.
THE RELATIONSHIP SHALL BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF DENSITY, INTENSITY, HEIGHT, BULK, NOISE, LIGHT, ACCESS, AND THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND OTHER FACTORS OF A LIKE CHARACTER.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ELABORATED ON THAT IN THEIR STAFF REPORT AND STATED AS FOLLOWS:  THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTENDS FOR COMPATIBILITY OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT NOT TO BE A LIMITING FACTOR.
AND COMPATIBILITY ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH MORE STRINGENT REVIEW OF THE SITE PLANS AND APPLICATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SUCH AS BUFFERING RATHER THAN SIMPLY MAKING NEW DEVELOPMENTS BE EXACTLY LIKE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES.
THAT'S EXACTLY THE SITUATION WE HAVE IN THIS CASE, AND OUR PLAN ACCOMPLISHES THAT OBJECTIVE OF USING SITE PLANNING TECHNIQUES TO CREATE COMPATIBILITY.
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVIDES A TABLE THAT ADDRESSES HOW DO YOU MAKE INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES COMPATIBLE WITH ONE ANOTHER.
IN SECTION 6.6.05, IT DEALS WITH BUFFERS AND SCREENS.
THE REQUIRED BUFFER AND SCREEN FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ZERO.
THE REQUIRED BUFFER FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO INDUSTRIAL OR MANUFACTURING IS 30 FEET.
WE'RE PROVIDING A 50-FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, DEVELOPMENTS OF A LIKE USE, NOT DIFFERENT USES.
SO WE FAR EXCEEDED THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE SOMETHING COMPATIBLE.
AGAIN, WE HAVE SIX LOTS ON 4/10 OF A MILE OF FRONTAGE.
WE INCLUDED IN THE EVIDENCE THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE HEARING MASTER AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER PROJECT IN A SIMILAR SITUATION DOWN ON WHEELER ROAD.
IT WAS ALSO A WESTFIELD PROJECT.
IT'S CALLED LAKESHORE RANCH.
AND ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THAT PROJECT, ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THIS SAME LAKE, WE HAD LARGE LOTS, AN ACRE OR MORE ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE LAKESHORE RANCH PROPERTY.
WE WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE LOTS THAT MET RSC-4, 10,000 SQUARE FEET, WHERE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE COMMON PROPERTY BOUNDARIES WITH LARGE LOTS.
IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE A 50-FOOT BUFFER, A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THEN WE HAVE LOTS OF .9 ACRE, .9 ACRE, 1.1 ACRE, 1.1 ACRE.
WE'RE PROVIDING A HALF- TO QUARTER-ACRE LOTS AFTER THOSE OTHER INTERVENING USES.
IN SUMMARY, WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT TRANSITIONS, ABOUT BUFFERING AND SCREENING, ABOUT MAKING USES THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED INCOMPATIBLE, ALTHOUGH RESIDENTIAL IS CERTAINLY NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENTIAL, COMPATIBLE WITH ONE ANOTHER IN A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION WHERE THE TWO BOUNDARIES, URBAN AND RURAL, COME TOGETHER.
THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ASKS US TO ELIMINATE THE 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS AND ASKS US TO PROVIDE -- TO GET OUR LOT COUNT BY MAKING THE LOTS ALONG THE ROAD FRONTAGE SMALLER.
WE THINK THAT'S AN INAPPROPRIATE RESOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.
WE OUGHT TO CREATE A RURAL ENVIRONMENT AS YOU MOVE DOWN VALRICO ROAD BY HAVING LARGE LOTS AND OCALA HORSE FARM THEME AND THE EXTRA LANDSCAPING THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED.
INTERNAL TO THE PROJECT, WHETHER THE LOTS ARE 4500 SQUARE FEET OR 5,000 SQUARE FEET OR 6500 SQUARE FEET, NOBODY IS GOING TO KNOW BECAUSE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THEM.
THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF PROVIDING THOSE 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS.
THE -- WE'VE SUBMITTED CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION IN OUR APPLICATION.
86 LOTS -- 88 LOTS TOTAL, 86 PLUS TWO ESTATE LOTS, IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THIS COMMUNITY, AND WHAT WE'LL BE SEEING IS A RURAL ENVIRONMENT FROM VALRICO ROAD AS A RESULT OF THE BUFFERS AND SCREENS THAT WE PROPOSE.
WE ARE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF AND THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY HAVE SUGGESTED TO YOU, AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
>>PAT FRANK:  ALL RIGHT, STAFF.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONERS, AS MR. BRICKLEMYER ADDRESSED YOU INITIALLY, HE DID IDENTIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN BEFORE YOU BEFORE FOR CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING THAT WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD.
IT DID GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT -- THE RESULT OF THAT MEDIATION WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BUT THERE IS A VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE FORMER APPLICATION AND THIS ONE, AND IT IS THE NUMBER OF LOTS.
WHERE IN EXCESS OF 200 LOTS WERE BEING REQUESTED WITH THE PRIOR PROPOSAL, THIS ONE CONTEMPLATES NO MORE THAN A TOTAL OF 88, TWO OF WHICH ARE VERY LARGE ESTATE LOTS ON THE PROPERTY.
WE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE APPLICANT THAT WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS WAS WHAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BY THE CITIZENS IN THE AREA AS THE VIEW, IF YOU WILL, IMMEDIATELY ALONG VALRICO ROAD.
AND WHAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION.
OUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TRIED TO CREATE A TRANSITION AREA BY PROVIDING FOR THE VERY LARGE LOTS ALONG VALRICO ROAD, SUBSTANTIAL SCREENING MECHANISM, PRIMARILY WITH NATURAL FEATURES SUCH AS TREES, AND THAT BEING SAID, THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE IS WHERE THE SMALLER LOTS WOULD OCCUR BUT WOULD NOT BE IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF VALRICO ROAD IN THE RURAL AREA.
YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WHENEVER WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE A BREAK, AND THEY'RE NORMALLY ROADWAYS OR SOME OTHER SIGNIFICANT FEATURE THAT WILL ACTUALLY SPLIT THE URBAN AREA FROM THE RURAL AREA.
IN THIS CASE, THE BURDEN IS ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE ON THE DEVELOPER WITHIN THE URBAN AREA TO PROVIDE FOR THAT TRANSITION.
WE UNDERSTAND, AND WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE URBAN AREA, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR WATER -- PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER.
SO WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THAT SERVICE, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF LOTS TO COVER THE COST TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN INDICATOR OF A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS, AND IT IS A DIRECT REFLECTION OF PRIOR DISCUSSIONS BY THE BOARD AND THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.
THAT BEING SAID, WE DID FIND THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE WAY THEY HAD PROPOSED IT IN THIS SITE DESIGN TO BE COMPATIBLE WE ARE AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.
>>PAT FRANK:  PLANNING COMMISSION.
>>LORRAINE DUFFY:  COMMISSIONERS, THIS SITE'S IN OUR RESIDENTIAL-FOUR LAND USE CATEGORY.
IT'S INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 130 ACRES IN SIZE, AND IF YOU DO A QUICK CALCULATION, YOU MIGHT THINK UP TO 500 DWELLING UNITS MIGHT BE PERMISSIBLE HERE, BUT BECAUSE A GOOD PORTION OF THE SITE IS WETLANDS, THE DENSITY -- THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS IS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED DOWN TO 260 UNDER THE FOUR UNIT PER ACRE.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR 88 LOTS.
IT'S BELOW WHAT WE TYPICALLY WOULD RECOMMEND FOR INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
TYPICALLY THE PLAN ACTUALLY SAYS WE WOULD WANT AT LEAST THREE UNITS PER ACRE INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, BUT IT DOES ALLOW FOR SOME VARIATION FOR THAT FOR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND GENERALLY WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THOSE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE EDGE.
IN THE NORTHWEST, WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW IN THE LUTZ AND THE KEYSTONE COMMUNITY.
IT HASN'T REALLY HIT IN THONOTOSASSA YET BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A WHOLE LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE.
BUT IN THOSE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S MEETING THE RURAL SERVICE AREA IS WHEN WE LOOK TO SOME DENSITIES LESS THAN THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
I THINK THE CALCULATION HERE IS IT'S .86, .83, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS GENERALLY -- THAT'S PRETTY LOW.
WE WORKED QUITE A BIT WITH THE APPLICANTS TO COME UP WITH A DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO, WHAT WE FELT WOULD OFFER THAT TRANSITION INTO THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.
I DID READ THE HEARING MASTER'S REPORT ABOUT THE LOT SIZES INSIDE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS HIS RECOMMENDATION TO YOU THAT THE LOTS IN THE INTERIOR BE SMALLER.
I WOULD SAY THAT WE DID PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE LOTS ON THE EXTERIOR WERE LARGER.
WE REALLY WOULD NOT ADVISE YOU TO GET SMALLER LOTS ON THE EXTERIOR ON THE EDGE OF THIS PROPERTY.
I THINK THAT'S HOW THE HEARING MASTER WAS DIRECTING YOU, BUT WE FELT LIKE THE EXPERIENCE ON VALRICO ROAD AS ONE OF OPEN LANDS AND BECAUSE THE EAST SIDE OF THAT ROAD IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE IN CHARACTER BECAUSE IT'S IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, THAT YOUR BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR TRANSITION IS ON THE IMMEDIATE EDGE, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THEM WITH THE LARGER SETBACK, WITH THE LANDSCAPING, THE CERTAIN TYPE OF FENCING, NOT STUCCO WALLS, SO THAT WE CAN RETAIN SOMEWHAT OF A RURAL CHARACTER, BUT WE STILL HAVE AN URBAN TYPE OF ATMOSPHERE ONCE YOU GET INSIDE, WHICH IS FINE WITH US.
YOU HAVE TO USE WATER AND SEWER, SO YOU DO NEED A CERTAIN THRESHOLD OF UNITS TO MAKE THAT WORK.
BASED UPON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US, WE DID FIND THIS REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>>PAT FRANK:  DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OF THE STAFF?
>>JAN PLATT:  YES, I DID, AND I WANTED TO ASK YOU WHEN IS THE BEST TIME TO ASK STAFF ABOUT -- IF YOU WANT TO WAIT TILL THE VERY END OF ALL THIS.
THERE'S A CONDITION THAT I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION FROM HER, AND THAT'S --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>PAT FRANK:  GO AHEAD NOW, AS LONG AS YOU WANT TO ASK -- IS IT COUNTY STAFF?
>>JAN PLATT:  YES.
>>PAT FRANK:  OH, I SEE.
I THOUGHT IF YOU WERE DIRECTING IT TO MS. HARVEY AT THIS POINT.
>>JAN PLATT:  PAULA AND HER RECOMMENDATIONS.
>>PAT FRANK:  LET'S WAIT TILL AFTER WE GET THE ZONING HEARING MASTER.
>>JIM PORTER:  THE ZONING HEARING MASTER RECOGNIZE THAT HAD THIS PROPERTY WAS WITHIN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA AND DID HAVE A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RES-4; HOWEVER, HE FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET HIS INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE PETITION WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN.
THE HEARING MASTER, IN FACT, FOUND THE PETITION AS PRESENTED WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN; HOWEVER, HE WENT ON TO LIST A NUMBER OF CONCLUSIONS THAT DEMONSTRATED OR INDICATED WHY HE FELT THAT WAY.
IT HAD TO DO WITH THE 4500-SQUARE-FOOT INTERIOR LOTS.
AS MS. DUFFY AND MS. HARVEY ALLUDED TO, HE FELT THAT THE SITE PLAN SHOULD BE REDESIGNED TO REMOVE THE 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY, BUT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO KEEP THE SAME NUMBER OF LOTS, WHICH IS 88.
THAT WOULD NECESSITATE HAVING SMALLER LOTS ALONG THE BORDER.
HE FOUND THAT IF -- BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE WETLANDS, THE ELEVATED RAILROAD TRACKS, THE TECO EASEMENT, THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS LIMITED ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THAT STILL DIDN'T JUSTIFY HAVING 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS.
HIS ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS THIS, AND I'LL READ IT BECAUSE IT'S SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SOMETHING FOR AND STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING.
APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
THE SITE PLAN IS REDESIGNED TO MAINTAIN THE SAME NUMBER OF LOTS, 86 -- THAT REALLY SHOULD BE 88 BECAUSE OF THE TWO ESTATE LOTS, SO THAT'S AN ERROR.
MAINTAIN THE NECESSARY BUFFERS, BERMS, PICKET FENCES, ET CETERA, BUT THE 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS ARE REMOVED, THE RESULTS OF WHICH WILL BE THE LOSS OF THE LARGER LOTS ALONG VALRICO ROAD, BUT OVERALL, THE AVERAGE LOT SIZES WILL BE MORE COMPATIBLE AND SERVE AS A BETTER OVERALL TRANSITIONAL AREA.
THAT'S HIS ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION TO YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  NOW, COMMISSIONER PLATT, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO ASK OF STAFF?
>>JAN PLATT:  YES, I DID, AND IT DEALS WITH THIS BUFFER BECAUSE I FOUND IT IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, CONDITIONS.
PAULA'S CONDITIONS.
IT TALKS ABOUT -- LET'S SEE THE PAGE.
AND THEN THE ZONING HEARING MASTER REITERATES IT IN HIS CONCLUSIONS.
IT'S ON PAGE 6 OF THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, WHERE IT SAYS A BUFFER AREA WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 50 FEET SHALL BE PROVIDED, ET CETERA.
WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA -- AND THE REASON I'M PINPOINTING THIS IS IN RECENT MONTHS, THIS BOARD HAS BEEN CONFRONTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN WITH LACK OF CLARITY.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YES.
>>JAN PLATT:  AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LACK OF CLARITY WITH THIS CONDITION, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY MADE THE COMMENT -- HE SAID OCALA HORSE FARM-LIKE FENCE.
OCALA HORSE LIKE -- THEY DON'T HAVE PICKET FENCES.
AND THIS ALL TALKS ABOUT PICKET FENCES, AND I DON'T WANT TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT DOWN THE LINE ANOTHER BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BECAUSE IT SAYS WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA, THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL PINE TREE GROUPINGS OF STAGGERED HEIGHTS, MEANDERING BERMS OF TWO TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, OAK CLUSTERS 16 TO 10 FEET IN HEIGHT, MEANDERING PICKET FENCE THREE TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, AND MEANDERING OVER THE PROPOSED BERMS, NATIVE PLANT MASSINGS MEANDERING OVER THE BERMS, AND ORNAMENTAL TREE GROUPINGS.
NOW, I GET -- THE WAY I'M READING THAT, IT'S PRETTY VAGUE.
I CAN SEE ALL THAT STUFF OUT THERE IN THAT 50-FOOT BUFFER, BUT WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE REALLY RECOMMENDING?
IS THERE GOING TO BE A FENCE THAT WHOLE LENGTH?
IS THERE GOING TO BE THESE BERMS THE WHOLE LENGTH?
BECAUSE, AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT THIS BOARD HAS BEEN CONFRONTED WITH IN THE RECENT MONTHS, I JUST -- IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM VERY CLEAR TO ME.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WELL, ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER, IN TERMS OF DESCRIBING THE PLANTING MATERIALS AND THE TREE THAT IS THEY HAVE TO PUT IN AND THE SIZE OF THE TREES, IT IS VERY CLEAR TO OUR NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF IN READING THAT CONDITION EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE TO PLANT.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  IN TERMS OF THE MEANDERING BERMS, THAT'S NOT NEW TERMINOLOGY.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT INCORPORATE THAT, AND IT'S INTENDED TO ALLOW -- BASICALLY INTENDED TO REQUIRE A BERM, BUT IT'S REFERRED TO AS MEANDERING BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME EXISTING TREES OUT THERE, AND IF WE DEMANDED A STRAIGHT LINE BERM IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WE RUN THE RISK OF LOSING SOME OF THE EXISTING TREES, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
I AGREE WITH YOU, OUR CONDITION IS DESCRIBING A PICKET FENCE.
IF THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A DIFFERENT FENCE, WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY AT OUR HEARING TODAY EXACTLY THE STYLE OF FENCE THAT IS EXPECTED TO BE BUILT THERE, AND WE NEED TO NAME IT PROPERLY.
>>JAN PLATT:  IS THE FENCE GOING TO BE THE LENGTH OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL?
THAT'S NOT CLEAR EITHER.
A MEANDERING PICKET FENCE.
IS THAT GOING TO BE THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THAT PROPERTY?
OR IS THERE JUST GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THOSE MEANDERING BERMS?
IT JUST SOUNDS --
>>PAULA HARVEY:  I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN.
THAT IS NOT AS CLEAR AS IT COULD BE, AND WE WOULD NEED TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL.
>>JIM PORTER:  WE JUST NEED TO PIN DOWN, AS YOU PROPERLY POINT OUT, WHAT OCALA THEME MEANS.
STAFF NEEDS TO BE COMFORTABLE THAT WHATEVER YOU DECIDE TO DO, IF YOU APPROVE THIS WITH THAT CONDITION, THAT IT IS SPELLED OUT CORRECTLY SO IT CAN BE ENFORCED.
>>PAT FRANK:  THE PETITIONER WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS AT THE TIME.
OKAY.
WE NOW HAVE PROPONENTS.
THERE ARE NONE OF RECORD, ARE THERE?
YES, COMMISSIONER STORMS WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE GET GOING.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I JUST WANT TO HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS CLEAR.
IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET ON VALRICO ROAD, EXACTLY WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET ON VALRICO ROAD?
>>PAT FRANK:  WHAT'S THE SIZE?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THE LOTS YOU'RE SAYING?
THEY'RE AGRICULTURAL-SIZE LOTS.
THE ZONING THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET --
>>RONDA STORMS:  ONE-ACRE MOBILE HOME LOTS.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  ALLOWS FOR ONE ACRE, CONVENTIONAL MOBILE HOMES.
THAT WOULD BE THE ALLOWABILITY.
MANY OF THOSE LOTS ARE MUCH LARGER THAN ONE ACRE, BUT THE AS-1 ZONING GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY AT SOME POINT TO ACTUALLY SUBDIVIDE THEIR PROPERTIES IF THEY CHOSE TO DO THAT.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I JUST -- JUST RAISING THE QUESTION, AS TO WHAT IS IMMEDIATELY AT THE CORNER OF VALRICO ROAD AND MLK, WHAT'S IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE ROAD IS CURRENTLY EXISTING RIGHT NOW, ONE-ACRE MOBILE HOME LOTS.
THERE'S ONE LITTLE WHITE HOUSE THERE THAT WAS PREEXISTING THAT THEY BUILT A MOBILE HOME LOT, COMMUNITY, WHATEVER IT IS, RIGHT THERE ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THEN IS -- I'M REMEMBERING THE PLAN.
THERE'S TWO INGRESSES AND EGRESSES?
ONE EMPTYING ON TO VALRICO ROAD?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YES.
>>RONDA STORMS:  AND THE OTHER ONE?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THE OTHER ONES ARE ACTUALLY DRIVEWAYS TO THE TWO ESTATE LOTS THAT ARE THE MORE SOUTHERN END OF THIS PROPERTY.
EACH OF THOSE ESTATE LOTS WOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY.
>>RONDA STORMS:  SO THERE'S ONLY ONE INGRESS AND EGRESS ONTO VALRICO ROAD?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  FOR 86 OF THE LOTS, YES, THAT WOULD BE THEIR ACCESS AT ONE POINT.
>>RONDA STORMS:  THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT HAS HOW MANY?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THREE TOTAL.
TWO INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS -- A DRIVEWAY FOR EACH OF THE TWO ESTATE LOTS, AND THEN THE ROADWAY CONNECTION FOR THE INTERNAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 86 LOTS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THAT'S ACCORDING TO THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED THAT'S IN YOUR BACKUP.
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S --
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YES, THAT'S WHAT'S PLANNED.
>>RONDA STORMS:  AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- WELL, NEVER MIND.
THANK YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  WE HAVE NO PROPONENTS OF RECORD, DO WE?
>>JIM PORTER:  THAT'S CORRECT.
>>PAT FRANK:  THE OPPONENTS, THOSE OPPOSED OF RECORD, PIERSON, ALEXANDER, AND AVDON.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE RECORD, I'M LINDA PIERSON, A PLANNER WITH ENGLEHARDT HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES.
THE ADDRESS IS 5444 BAY CENTER DRIVE, TAMPA.
I REPRESENT MR. GREGORY HOLDER, WHO IS AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE IN OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSED PLAN FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.
I NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT MR. HOLDER IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE.
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE DENSITY THAT IS PROPOSED, AND AS MR. BRICKLEMYER HAS SAID --
>>STACEY EASTERLING:  MS. PIERSON, BEFORE YOU GET STARTED -- WHEN YOU GET ON A ROLL, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE INTERRUPTED.
I AM LOOKING AT CHUCK HOLDER.
>> I AM SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I GIVE HIM THE JUDGESHIP ALL THE TIME.
IT'S A LITTLE NICKNAME FOR HIM.
IT'S CHUCK HOLDER.
I'M SORRY.
HE --
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> MR. GREGORY HOLDER MIGHT BE ALSO SURPRISED THIS MORNING.
COMPATIBILITY, AS I WAS SAYING, IS THE VERY BIG ISSUE ON THIS PROPERTY, AND THAT IS OF LOT SIZE.
ONE OF THE GRAPHICS THAT YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IS THE PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 4 THAT HE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE ZHM HEARING, AND I'D LIKE TO PUT THAT ON ELMO, IF I COULD, JUST SO YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT AS WE TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE.
WE WERE TRYING TO ZOOM THIS OUT SO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE AN IDEA OF THE AREA THAT IS BEING PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
COMMISSIONER STORMS, YOU WERE INQUIRING ABOUT THE ACCESS POINT.
THIS IS THE ACCESS POINT HERE.
THIS IS THE LARGE LOTS ALONG VALRICO ROAD HERE THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED.
BUT YOU WILL SEE THAT WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE QUITE A NUMBER OF THE 86 SOME-ODD, 45-FOOT LOTS THAT ARE ALL BEING DEVELOPED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE -- THE DEVELOPMENT OF 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE LOT SIZE AT THIS LOCATION.
ON THE NIGHT OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER HEARING, WE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD A -- A NUMBER OF SUBDIVISION PLATS WITH ACCESS THAT OCCURS ALONG VALRICO ROAD.
PARTICULARLY AROUND THE SYDNEY ROAD AREA AND SOUTH OF SYDNEY, INCLUDING HERITAGE CREST AND VALRICO OAKS AND GREENWOOD SUBDIVISION, AND ALSO GREENWOOD UNIT TWO.
THOSE SUBDIVISIONS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 70 TO 120 FEET IN LOT WIDTH, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LOT SIZE FOR THE INTERIOR OF THIS PROJECT AS WELL.
DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ON THIS SITE, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES OF WETLANDS, AND THEN THEY ARE PROPOSING DEVELOPMENT OF THE 86 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES OF THE UPLAND AT THE NORTHEASTERN PORTION.
THERE'S SOME ISOLATED UPLANDS THAT ARE NOT BEING PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT, AS I RECALL IN LOOKING AND REVIEWING THE FILE, APPROXIMATELY TWO LOCATIONS OF ONE BEING FIVE AND ONE BEING SIX ACRES IN SIZE THAT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO DEVELOPMENT.
MR. HOLDER HAS REQUESTED THE BOARD TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM OF 80-FOOT-WIDE LOTS ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE 80-FOOT LOT SIZE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECENT ZONING SUBDIVISIONS THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED IN THIS AREA IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
WE ALSO ARE ASKING YOU TO RETAIN THE LARGE LOT SIZES ALONG VALRICO ROAD.
THIS WAS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER.
WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPER.
THEY'VE BEEN VERY CORDIAL, AND WE'VE APPRECIATED THAT.
THE LARGE LOTS THAT PROVIDE THE TRANSITION ALONG VALRICO ROAD HAVE -- WERE NEGOTIATED -- A NEGOTIATED POINT WITH THEM, AND WE DO ASK THAT YOU WOULD RETAIN THAT AND NOT AGREE WITH THE ZHM RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THOSE -- REMOVAL OF THOSE LARGE LOTS.
WE ALSO PREFER THAT THE 50-FOOT BUFFER ALONG VALRICO ROAD BE DESIGNATED AND RESERVED AS SUCH IN THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AS PROPOSED.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUFFER AS PROPOSED, AND WE DO LIKE THAT.
WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPER AS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK, AND THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO THE CONDITION THAT THAT LOT AREA, THE 50-FOOT BUFFER, BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE LOT AREA OF THE LARGE LOTS, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO -- FOR YOU TO ADD A CONDITION, AND THEY HAVE AGREED IN TALKING WITH MR. CARPE AT WESTFIELD, THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS FROM INCORPORATING THAT BUFFER AREA INTO THEIR REAR YARDS, FOR INSTANCE, ADDING FENCING OR CLOTHES LINES OR DECKING OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WITHIN THAT 50-FOOT BUFFER.
SUCH A ZONING CONDITION, IF IT'S PART OF THE ZONING APPROVAL, WOULD PROVIDE THE IMMEDIATE LANDOWNERS THE ABILITY TO -- AND FOR THE COUNTY ALSO -- TO ENFORCE THAT CONDITION IN THE COUNTY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND PROVIDE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY, MY CLIENTS AND OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE AREA, TO REPORT A VIOLATION IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR.
COMMISSIONER PLATT'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE FENCE, WE WANTED TO REFERENCE THAT THIS MORNING.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A PICKET FENCE.
I BELIEVE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT EITHER A BOARD RAIL OR A SPLIT RAIL FENCE, BUT I'LL LET THEM CLARIFY THAT ON THE RECORD.
WE PREFER THAT THE FENCING MATERIALS BE SOMETHING OF A DURABLE MATERIAL SO THAT THERE IS NOT THE -- THE DETERIORATION THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR WITH A WOODEN FENCE, SOMETHING LIKE ALUMINUM, WROUGHT IRON, BRICK, STUCCO, OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF DURABLE MATERIAL.
MR. HOLDER IS IN THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE BUSINESS.
HE PREFERS THAT THIS FENCE ALSO NOT BE 100% OPAQUE BECAUSE IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR, AND WE DO WANT TO BLEND WITH THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE AREA.
BASED ON THE RECORD OF THE ZHM RECOMMENDATION, MR. HOLDER IS REQUESTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO BASE YOUR DECISION TODAY ON THE FACTS THAT HAVE -- WE'VE PRESENTED AND THAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICANT.
AND THAT YOU SUPPORT THE ZHM RECOMMENDATION TO DELETE THE 4500 OR 45-FOOT-WIDE LOTS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA.
THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT LAKESHORE RANCH, WHICH IS TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY.
I WILL SAY THAT LAKESHORE RANCH IS A VERY LOVELY WESTFIELD HOME DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN URBAN SERVICE AREA, BUT THE ENTRANCE TO THAT IS APPROXIMATELY A MILE OR MILE AND A HALF AWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY, AND ITS ENTRANCE IS ON WHEELER ROAD, NOT VALRICO ROAD.
WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU REQUIRE THE LARGER LOTS ALONG VALRICO AS THE TRANSITION.
WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE INTERIOR LOT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT AT 80 FEET OR 8,000-SQUARE-FEET RESPECTIVELY, AND WE REQUEST THAT YOU RESERVE THAT 50-FOOT BUFFER ALONG VALRICO ROAD, INCLUDING IT IN THE LAND AREA FOR THE ABUTTING LOTS, BUT ADDING THAT NEW CONDITION THAT PROHIBITS THOSE -- THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER FROM BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE BACK YARD OF THOSE LOTS SO THAT IT DOES REMAIN BEAUTIFUL IN THAT AREA.
WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1-B TO MAINTAIN THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE RETAINED, THE TWO ESTATE LOTS.
I THINK THE CONNER FAMILY, TWO OF THEIR MEMBERS WANT TO REMAIN THERE ON THAT PROPERTY.
WE BELIEVE THAT IF YOU DID SUCH A THING, THAT YOU WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AA-1.2, AA-1.3, B-1.2, B-1.3, AND B-1.8 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS ALL IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
I'M NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH ALL OF THAT.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH IT ONCE.
IT'S IN THE RECORD.
BUT THOSE ARE ALL ISSUES DEALING WITH LOT SIZE AND COMPATIBILITY AND LAND USES.
WE REALIZE IT'S IN THE U.S.A. BOUNDARY.
IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH IT, THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY HAS TO DEAL WITH THAT.
PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE; PERHAPS IT SHOULDN'T BE.
I DON'T KNOW.
YOU'VE DRAWN A LINE IN THE SAND WHEN THESE THINGS MEET LIKE THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS, AND -- BUT IT'S YOUR DISCRETION.
WE'RE ASKING YOU TODAY TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AND PERMIT THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SELL AND DEVELOP THE PROPERTY, TO GRANT APPROVAL FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION WHICH WE BELIEVE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER LOVELY SUBDIVISIONS VALRICO OAKS AND HERITAGE CREST ALONG VALRICO ROAD THAT SHARE ACCESS ON VALRICO AS WELL, AND IT WOULD ALSO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT THAT PROVIDES A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE URBAN AND THE RURAL AREAS AND THAT BLENDS WITH THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THE LARGE LOTS.
THEY RANGE IN SIZE FROM 1 TO 40 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF VALRICO ROAD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
I THINK THERE ARE OTHERS THAT HAVE FILED ORAL ARGUMENT AS WELL.
I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE.
>>PAT FRANK:  YES, AND I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY.
>> OKAY.
>>JIM PORTER:  MADAM CHAIR, WE MIGHT WANT TO JUST REMIND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THERE ARE -- THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, AND IF WE COULD ASK THE CLERK TO LET US KNOW HOW MUCH TIME IS LEFT.
>>PAT FRANK:  HOW MANY TIME IS LEFT NOW?
IT'S 15 MINUTES FOR THE ENTIRE OPPONENT SECTION.
>> THEY HAVE ABOUT FIVE AND A HALF MINUTES LEFT.
>> I'M RUSSELL ALEXANDER, AND I RESIDE AT 2847 VALRICO ROAD.
IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING WITH THE HEARING MASTER, I BROUGHT THE ISSUE AS FAR AS THE TRANSPORTATION, WHICH HE STATED IN HIS MINUTES THAT TRANSPORTATION WAS ADEQUATE ON VALRICO ROAD AND MARTIN LUTHER KING.
IF IT IS ADEQUATE, I DID SUBMIT TO THE CLERK, A PD&E STUDY CONDUCTED IN 2001 FOR PROPOSED WIDENING OF MLK.
THERE IS NO FUNDING AVAILABLE, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING PROPOSED FOR THE WIDENING OF VALRICO ROAD.
86 HOMES WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO VEHICLES PER HOME, THAT HIGHWAY WILL NOT ACCOMMODATE THOSE PEOPLE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>>PAT FRANK:  THANK YOU.
AND THE FINAL?
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS ANNE AVDAN.
I RESIDE AT 2955 NORTH VALRICO ROAD, WHICH IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY A BLOCK NORTH OF THE PROJECT.
AFTER ABOUT TWO YEARS OF OPPOSING THIS ZONING REQUEST, I CONTINUE TO HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS, AND AS A RESIDENT, I'VE REALLY MADE SINCERE ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.
AND AT THE DECEMBER 12th ZONING HEARING MASTER MEETING, THE -- IT WAS MADE VERY PLAIN BY THE PETITIONER.
TO QUOTE MR. BRICKLEMYER, IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT TO OWN AND USE HIS PROPERTY.
REVIEW OF ANY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION DENYING THAT RIGHT IS SUBJECT TO CLOSE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.
THAT'S THE BACKDROP.
UNQUOTE.
I REALLY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT STATEMENT, SO I -- I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR POSITION RIGHT NOW AND HAVING TO MAKE SUCH A TOUGH DECISION.
WE'VE ALSO REPEATEDLY HEARD ALONG THE LINE HOW THIS SITE PLAN MAY -- MUST BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE OR VIABLE TODAY FOR THE DEVELOPER.
I URGE YOU TO WEIGH NOT ONLY THE DEVELOPER'S NEED TO MAXIMIZE HIS PROFIT AFTER UTILITY INSTALLATION EXPENSES, ET CETERA, BUT THE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY.
THE PETITIONER HAS FOCUSED ON COMPATIBILITY, WHICH WE -- I DO NOT FEEL THAT 86 HOMES PLUS TWO CARS PROBABLY PER HOME ON 40 ACRES, AND THAT'S HOW MUCH UPLANDS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS SITE PLAN, MINUS THE STREETWAYS AND RETENTION PONDS, REALLY IS COMPATIBLE, AND YOU COULD LIKELY SEE THIS AS YOU CROSS OVER THE RAILROAD TRACK, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BERM WHO IS NOT GOING TO GROW UP FOR TWO TO THREE YEARS.
THAT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO BE MASKED.
SO WE'RE GOING TO BE SEEING THAT FOR SOME TIME.
I ALSO WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT THE SITE PLAN WAS REDUCED FROM 240 TO 102 TO 86, NOT TO OFFER A MORE APPEALING-LOOKING SUBDIVISION, BUT TO COMPLY WITH EPC CONDITIONS AND ALSO THAT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, THE LAST STUDY THAT THEY HAD.
SO THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE HAD THOSE REDUCTIONS, SO I DIDN'T WANT IT TO COME ACROSS LIKE WE'RE REALLY DOING A GREAT JOB DEVELOPING THIS NICE OCALA RANCH HERE.
MR. BAKER, THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, REALLY DID PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT REPORT.
I FELT LIKE HE LISTENED TO OUR CONCERNS AND RESPONDED TO US.
AND -- BUT I REALLY DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE CONDITIONS, AND THAT'S BEEN STATED BY MS. HARVEY AND OTHERS.
BUT IT'S -- IT'S THE AMOUNT OF CONDITIONS AND THE -- THE FACT THAT THEY'RE REALLY NOT THAT SPECIFIC.
AND I REALLY DON'T THINK WE SHOULD JUST FOCUS PRIMARILY ON COMPATIBILITY.
IF WE LOOK AT POLICY AA-1.3, IT STATES ABOUT THE SERVICE -- URBAN SERVICE AREA PERMITTING FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, BUT WHEN YOU'RE APPROVING LESS THAN THREE, WHERE DEVELOPMENT AND DENSITY IS HIGHER THAN THREE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OR -- AND THIS IS WHAT'S BEEN OVERLOOKED -- WHERE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAY BE DISTURBED.
YES, WE'VE TRIED TO LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES, BUT I REALLY FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS MORE CLOSELY.
SO WHAT I DID IS I PERSONALLY REVIEWED THE EPC FILE WITH DON HART LAST WEEK --
>>JIM PORTER:  MA'AM, AT THIS POINT, I JUST NEED TO ADVISE YOU THAT YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO TALK TODAY ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE IN FRONT OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, SO THAT --
>> I BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP.
IT'S IN MY STATEMENT.
>>JIM PORTER:  IF I COULD JUST SAY, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU JUST MET WITH HIM LAST WEEK, SO THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT, WHAT YOUR MEETING WAS ABOUT LAST WEEK, JUST THINGS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT AT THE ZONING HEARING MASTER BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS IT TAINTS THE RECORD, AND IT AFFECTS THE DECISION.
>> OKAY.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
WELL, IN MY RESEARCH OF THE LAST TWO YEARS, IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION ABOUT THE UPLAND BEING 40 ACRES.
I WAS REALLY INITIALLY UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS 50 ACRES.
BUT IT'S ACTUALLY 40 ACRES, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET KIND OF A FEEL FOR THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT 86 HOUSES ON THAT 40 ACRES, AND THEN WE HAVE THE TWO ESTATES IN THE BACK, AND I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT TOO.
I KNOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPING THAT IN THE FUTURE, BUT I REALLY WONDER IF THIS IS PHASE ONE OF TWO, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER ATTACHMENT LIKE WE HAD WITH 2-Q AND 2-U TODAY WHERE WE'VE GOT 400 AND SOME ACRES, AND THEN WE'VE GOT 3 ACRES.
I DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY.
I HAVE A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THIS, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY ANOTHER ISSUE.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU.
I KNOW I'M OUT OF TIME, BUT I DID WANT TO REALLY URGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY BOTH THE ZONING HEARING MASTER AND THE EPC BECAUSE I HAVE A CONCERN THAT THEY'LL -- THEY'RE SO -- THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM AND SO COMPLICATED, WHO IS GOING TO REALLY ENFORCE THEM?
WHO IS GOING TO OVERSEE THIS?
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN.
THANK YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  THANK YOU, AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR TESTIMONY.
MS. PIERSON, BEFORE THE APPLICANT REBUTS, I'D JUST LIKE TO GET A CLARIFICATION.
YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE LARGER LOTS BE RETAINED ALONG VALRICO ROAD AND THAT THE SMALLER LOTS, THE 45-ACRE LOTS, ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.
WHAT'S THE SUM TOTAL OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WOULD BE PERMITTABLE UNDER YOUR REQUEST?
>> WELL, IN ALL ACTUALITY, COMMISSIONER -- AND THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION -- YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT 40-FOOT LOTS OR 45 LOTS, AND THEY CAN GET 86, SOME OF THOSE ARE GOING TO SHAKE OUT -- THOSE SIX ARE GOING TO SHAKE OUT, THE LARGE LOTS THAT ARE ON VALRICO ROAD, SO YOU'RE DOWN TO 80.
AND I'M THINKING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 40 OR 45 WITH AN 80-FOOT WIDTH.
>>PAT FRANK:  THANK YOU.
OKAY, THE APPLICANT FOR REBUTTAL.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN.
I THINK MS. AVDAN'S COMMENTS MIGHT LEAD YOU TO GET CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT SHE HAS BEEN WORKING ON AND WHAT SHE'S NOT BEEN WORKING ON.
SHE SAID SHE SPENT TWO YEARS OPPOSING THIS REZONING.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME REZONING PETITION, NOT THE SAME APPLICANT THAT THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE LAST TIME THIS PROPERTY WAS BEFORE YOU.
THIS APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN IN THE PROCESS TWO YEARS.
HER INDICATION THAT THE SITE PLAN HAS CHANGED FROM 240 TO 102 TO 88, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR 102 UNITS.
WE PLOTTED THOSE -- THE UNITS ON THE SITE PLAN WITH WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE REASONABLE LOT SIZES, COULD NOT ACHIEVE 102 UNITS, AND MODIFIED OUR APPLICATION ACCORDINGLY.
WE HAVE NOT PLAYED THE GAME OF COMING IN WITH 160 LOTS AND THEN GETTING DOWN TO THE BOARD HEARING AND SAY, OKAY, WE'LL CUT IT IN HALF AND WE'LL BE OKAY.
WE SAID, WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE -- AND THIS IS WHAT I ADVISED WESTFIELD TO DO WHEN THEY FILED THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN DENIED ZONING ONCE BEFORE.
I SAID WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE IT WORK?
LET'S START AT THAT NUMBER, STAY AT THAT NUMBER.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.
THE SUGGESTION OF 80 LOTS, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE YIELD TO LESS THAN 40 LOTS -- FEWER THAN 40 LOTS IF YOU HAD AN 80-FOOT-WIDE LOT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.
EVEN IF THE LAND WERE VIRTUALLY FREE, YOU COULD NOT DEVELOP THAT NUMBER OF LOTS ON THIS PROPERTY AND PROVIDE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER AND MAKE ANY MONEY.
PEOPLE ARE NOT IN THE HOME-BUILDING BUSINESS FOR FUN.
IT'S NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WITH THOSE LARGE LOT SIZES.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE WHERE WE ARE.
WE PROVIDED THE TRANSITION ALONG THE ROAD FRONTAGE.
MS. AVDAN SAYS CONSIDER THE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THIS PLAN THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF THIS REZONING?
THERE AREN'T ANY.
OUR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT IN HIS REPORT, YOUR TRAFFIC STAFF SAID THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
THE VISUAL IMPACTS ARE ELIMINATED BY VIRTUE OF THE BUFFER AND THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED.
YOU CAN'T SEE THE SMALLER INTERIOR LOTS.
WE CANNOT BUILD LARGER LOTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE MARKET, AND THEY DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY.
WE HAVE A RAILROAD TRACK TO CONTEND WITH.
WE HAVE A 300-FOOT-WIDE POWER EASEMENT TO CONTEND WITH.
WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS TO CONTEND WITH, AND WE'RE NO NOT PROPOSING ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR LAYOUT.
IF WE WERE TO, WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH EPC TO GET THOSE APPROVED.
MS. PIERSON'S COMMENT ABOUT HER CLIENT BEING AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, HE'S NOT AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
HE'S ACROSS VALRICO ROAD, SO WE HAVE A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A 50-FOOT BUFFER, AND LARGE LOTS BETWEEN HIM AND THE SMALLER LOTS THAT HE FINDS OBJECTIONABLE.
NOBODY HAS ARTICULATED A REASON FOR WHY 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS ARE A PROBLEM.
NOT ONE PERSON HAS ARTICULATED A REASON.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THOSE 4500-SQUARE-FOOT LOTS?
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THEM AND THERE IS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE 8 LOTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS THAT ARE OBJECTIONABLE?
I SUBMIT TO YOU EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE LARGER HOMES THAT ARE MORE EXPENSIVE AND THAT WOULD INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
THAT'S A DESIRABLE GOAL.
IT DOESN'T FIT ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE WE GOT A RAILROAD TRACK AND A POWER LINE EASEMENT.
THE SUGGESTED CONDITION WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF THE BUFFER AREA, AND I GUESS THERE ARE TWO ISSUES WE NEED TO CLARIFY.
COMMISSIONER PLATT RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE PICKET FENCE.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING A PICKET FENCE.
WE'RE PROPOSING AN OCALA HORSE FARM-STYLE BOARD RAIL FENCE, WHICH IS NOT AN OPAQUE FENCE.
IT'S A BOARD WITH AN OPEN SPACE WITH A BOARD WITH A -- OKAY.
THAT'S THE STYLE FENCE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
>>RONDA STORMS:  MR. BRICKLEMYER.
>> IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE WOOD -- YES, MA'AM.
>>RONDA STORMS:  IN OCALA RIGHT OFF OF I-75, THEY HAVE A HORSE FARM THERE WITH BRICK AND WROUGHT IRON.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER AN OCALA HORSE STYLE FENCE LIKE THAT?
>> NO, MA'AM.
ON WELL AND SEPTIC, MAYBE.
BUT NO, MA'AM.
PROBABLY THE PVC OR ALUMINUM IS THE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL.
WOOD IS A HIGH-MAINTENANCE ITEM.
THE FENCE IS INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS THE PORTION OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROJECT OTHER THAN THE ESTATE LOTS, THAT 1260-FOOT FRONTAGE.
>>JAN PLATT:  THE REASON I BROUGHT IT UP WAS THE AMBIGUITY.
>> YES, MA'AM, I UNDERSTAND.
THE OTHER ISSUE IN THAT REGARD IS THERE IS A MUTUAL OBJECTIVE, MS. PIERSON AND HER CLIENT AND STAFF AND WESTFIELD, NOT TO HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE 50-FOOT BUFFER, SO A CONDITION THAT PRECLUDES THE LOT OWNER FROM DOING ANYTHING IN THAT 50-FOOT BUFFER IS GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN OUR COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE PROJECT, BUT ALSO CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT BEING IN A ZONING CONDITION.
THE ONE ISSUE, THOUGH, THAT'S RAISED BY THE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS -- CONDITION 1-A INCREASED OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 19,500 SQUARE FEET.
THAT 19,500 SQUARE FEET INCLUDES THE 50-FOOT BUFFER.
IF CONDITION 3.2 IS TO SURVIVE -- AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THIS, BUT IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN HOW MANY SQUARE FEET ARE THEORETICALLY INCLUDED IN THE LOT, 3.2 SAYS THAT THE BUFFER SHALL NOT BE PLATTED AS PART OF THE LOT.
THAT'S FINE.
IT CAN BE A 50-FOOT BUFFER, IT CANNOT BE PLATTED AS PART OF THE LOT, BUT THAT LAND OBVIOUSLY COMES OUT OF WHAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED TO EVERYBODY IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THOSE LOTS ALONG THE ROAD FRONTAGE, AND SO IT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO 13,000 IN CONDITION 1.A.
THE 3.2 STAYS THE SAME.
AND WE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT REQUIRED NO CONSTRUCTION IN THE BUFFER AREA OTHER THAN THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED AND THE PROJECT OCALA-STYLE HORSE FARM FENCE.
>>PAT FRANK:  THANK YOU.
I LET YOU GO OVER A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE.
WHERE ARE WE?
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS AT THIS POINT?
COMMISSIONER PLATT.
>>JAN PLATT:  WELL, LET ME RAISE ANOTHER AMBIGUITY.
IN THE BACKUP, IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IT TALKS ABOUT 130 -- ON PAGE 11, IT SAYS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTAIN 120 SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL HOMES, AND YET THIS WHOLE THING TALKS ABOUT 86.
WHICH IS IT?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONER, THE PROPOSAL ACTUALLY CAME IN FOR 102.
THE CONDITIONS, AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, MODIFIED THAT AND RECORDED OF RECORD ON PAGE 6 OF YOUR BACKUP TO A TOTAL OF 88.
AND THE BRACK-DOWN OF THE 88 IS DESCRIBED IN POINTS "A," "B," AND "C."
>>JAN PLATT:  SO IT'S NOT 86?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  IT'S 86 ON THAT LITTLE LAND AREA UP ON THE NORTHERN PORTION, AND THEN THERE ARE TWO ESTATE LOTS THAT ARE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT TOTAL IS 88, AND THEN THE BREAKDOWN -- AND THE BREAKDOWN DESCRIBES THAT.
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE IF WE MOVE THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION, HE TALKS AGAIN ABOUT 86.
DID THAT GET CORRECTED?
>>JIM PORTER:  I POINTED THAT OUT, AND I SAID THAT IS AN ERROR BECAUSE THERE ARE 88 LOTS.
>>JAN PLATT:  AND ARE YOU CHANGING FROM THE PICKET TO THE OTHER KIND OF FENCE?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WHAT I WROTE DOWN, COMMISSIONERS, WHAT MR. BRICKLEMYER DESCRIBED, IS IT IS TO BE AN OCALA HORSE FARM-STYLE FENCE THAT WOULD UTILIZE PVC OR OTHER WEATHER-RESISTANT MATERIALS.
>>JAN PLATT:  COULD OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY GIVE US A BETTER DESCRIPTION SO THAT THERE'S --
>>JIM PORTER:  NO, I CAN'T.
>>JAN PLATT:  COMMISSIONER STORMS POINTED OUT SOME OF THEM ARE BRICK.
ALSO IN KENTUCKY, SOME OF THEM ARE STONE.
>>JIM PORTER:  RIGHT.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE -- IF THE BOARD ULTIMATELY CHOOSES TO APPROVE THIS WITH THAT CONDITION, I THINK WE HAVE TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME HAVING A MEETING OF THE MINDS SO THAT YOU-ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING, AND STAFF UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING, AND THE NEIGHBORS AND THE APPLICANT CAN UNDERSTAND.
I CAN'T GIVE YOU A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AN OCALA-TYPE HORSE FENCE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING YOU UNDERSTAND AND YOU'RE GETTING WHAT YOU'RE THINKING YOU'RE GETTING.
>>JAN PLATT:  BECAUSE IF WE LEAVE THIS ISSUE OPEN, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS.
>>JIM PORTER:  YES, YES.
>>PAT FRANK:  I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE IDENTIFIED AS EITHER PVC OR ALUMINUM BOARD, WHICH ARE OTHERWISE HORIZONTAL, EITHER ONE ABOVE ANOTHER AT STANCHIONS A REASONABLE DIFFERENCE, OR CROSSBARS BECAUSE THAT IS A TRADITIONAL HORSE FARM FENCE.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  LET ME SAY THIS.
THIS MAY SOUND SILLY.
I COULDN'T WRITE FAST ENOUGH WHILE YOU WERE TALKING.
IF THE BOARD AGREES WITH THE LANGUAGE, I'LL TAKE IT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE YOU JUST DESCRIBED THE FENCE, COMMISSIONER FRANK.
>>PAT FRANK:  HORIZONTAL BARS SPACED APART WITH STANCHIONS AT A REASONABLE DISTANCE IN BETWEEN AND/OR CROSSBARS BETWEEN STANCHIONS.
COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I'LL MOVE THE APPLICATION WITH 86 INTERIOR LOTS, TWO ESTATE, NO CONSTRUCTION IN THE BUFFER AND THE 50-FOOT BUFFER AREA, SCREENING AS DESCRIBED BY PAULA OUTLINED THE OAKS AND THE DIFFERENT BUFFER ELEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THERE, THE FENCE, A THREE- TO FOUR-FOOT HIGH SLATTED, PVC, THE LENGTH OF THE -- THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE BUFFER AREA, INCORPORATING THE LANGUAGE OF WHAT COMMISSIONER FRANK HAS STATED, AND THAT'S MY MOTION.
>>JIM PORTER:  WOULD THAT ALSO JUST INCLUDE, COMMISSIONER NORMAN, WHAT MR. BRICKLEMYER POINTED OUT AS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN CONDITION 1-A NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT?
>>JIM NORMAN:  YES, THANK YOU.
>>TOM SCOTT:  MADAM CHAIR, JUST A QUESTION.
DOES THE MOTION INCLUDE THE -- THE OUTER LOTS -- OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  86 INTERIOR, TWO ESTATE OUTER LOTS.
>>TOM SCOTT:  I'LL SECOND.
>>JAN PLATT:  BEFORE WE VOTE ON THAT DESCRIPTION OF THE FENCE SO IT'S ON THE RECORD, DOES THE APPLICANT AGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE SAID WHAT HE DID?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>>JAN PLATT:  DO THE CITIZENS -- WOULD SOMEONE LIKE FROM THE CITIZENS GROUP TO SPEAK TO THAT DESCRIPTION SO THAT THIS IS PART OF THE RECORD AND WE DON'T RUN INTO PROBLEMS A YEAR FROM NOW?
>> THAT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE FENCE WILL LOOK LIKE.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PAINTED PURPLE.
MAYBE WE SHOULD MENTION THAT IT SHOULD BE WHITE.
>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE WHITE.
MR. CARPE SAYS FUCHSIA, BUT I DISAGREE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>JIM NORMAN:  WHITE.
IN MY MOTION, IT WILL BE WHITE.
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
COMMISSIONER STORMS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I JUST WANTED TO READ FOR THE RECORD THE SCHOOL BOARD COMMENT.
THE SCHOOL BOARD COMMENT IS THAT COLSON ELEMENTARY IS 177 OVER CAPACITY.
BURNETT IS -- 177 UNDER CAPACITY.
BURNETT IS 126 OVER CAPACITY.
ARMWOOD HIGH SCHOOL IS 14 UNDER CAPACITY.
AND BURNETT, THEY'RE EXPECTING TO BUILD A MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND IT'S SCHEDULED TO OPEN IN AUGUST OF '03, SO THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THE OVER CAPACITY IN BURNETT, AND THE NOTE SAYS THAT ARMWOOD HIGH SCHOOL IS SCHEDULED TO RECEIVE A 15 CLASSROOM ADDITION AND THREE BUSINESS LABS, SO THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT CAPACITY.
WE'RE NOT ENTITLED TO CONSIDER CAPACITY AS PART OF IT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE SCHOOL BOARD'S COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVE EVERY LAND USE MEETING, AND SO AS PART OF MY MEETING WITH THE CITIZENS OVER A YEAR ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT, I'M CALLING ATTENTION TO WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD ROUTINELY PROVIDES US WITH AT EVERY LAND USE MEETING.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTES.
>> FOR APPROVAL.
>>PAT FRANK:  WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-1, COMMISSIONER STORMS VOTING NO.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONERS, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS MORNING, ITEM 4-B.
THIS IS REZONING PETITION 01-1448.
THE APPLICATION BY BOBBY ROAN AND G & R INVESTMENTS IS FOR A REZONING TO A STANDARD RSC-4 ZONING DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY CONVENTIONAL HOMES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF McMULLEN ROAD A QUARTER MILE EAST OF DEE CIRCLE.
BOARD MEMBERS, YOU WILL RECALL THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS BEFORE YOU AT YOUR LAST LAND USE MEETING.
THERE WERE CITIZENS WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT SOME SPECIFICS THAT HAD BEEN OFFERED TO THEM BY THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT, AND AS I AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE EXPLAINED, THOSE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS WERE NOT SOMETHING THAT WERE -- OR COULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS REZONING REQUEST, AS LONG AS THE REQUEST MAINTAINED ITS CONVENTIONAL ZONING OF RSC-4.
YOU ASKED THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT, AT THAT TIME, A REAL CLARIFICATION REGARDING THEIR COMMITMENT TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, AND I BELIEVE YOU WANTED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NEIGHBORS AT LEAST HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS SAYING THAT THEY WOULD DO, AND THE CONCLUSION OF OUR DISCUSSION WAS A MOTION TO REMAND IT TO THE ZONING HEARING MASTER FOR CONSIDERATION OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, AND THAT MOTION WAS TABLED.
WE ARE AT THAT POINT TODAY.
>>JIM PORTER:  SO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO REMAND THAT SHOULD BE VOTED ON UNLESS THERE'S A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE APPLICATION.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE PROCEDURALLY.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHAT IS THE STATUS IN TERMS OF ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE RESIDENTS?
>>JIM PORTER:  WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM.
IT'S ALREADY OPEN FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER.
CARLOS SOLIS, BRANDON.
I WAS BEFORE YOU TWO WEEKS AGO WITH THIS MOTION.
THE RESIDENTS -- AND ACTUALLY, AN ATTORNEY WITH HOLLAND & KNIGHT, THEY HAVE PREPARED AN AGREEMENT THAT BOTH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE APPLICANT HAS SIGNED SO THAT IT DOES GO WITH THE PROPERTY.
ALL OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE AGREED TO THAT AGREEMENT.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, NONE OF THEM HAVE COME UP HERE IN OPPOSITION TODAY.
THEY'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE, SO THEY'VE STAYED AWAY FROM THE HEARING.
MR. WILLIAM LORENZIN, WHICH IS THE LEADER OF THE CIVIC ORGANIZATION FOR RIVERVIEW, HE HAS COME UP HERE.
MY UNDERSTANDING, HE'S SPEAKING AS A PROPONENT, BUT HE'S JUST GOT SOME STATEMENTS TO MAKE AS TO THE COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR THE RIVERVIEW AREA AS A WHOLE.
BUT WE HAVE COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT.
THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE HAVE DONE.
THEY PREPARED AN AGREEMENT, REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT BY HOLLAND & KNIGHT, TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT SO IT DOES GO WITH THE PROPERTY.
THAT WAS COMMISSIONER EASTERLING'S, ONE OF HER CONCERNS, AND IT DOES GO WITH THE PROPERTY.
WE ARE REQUESTING THAT IT BE APPROVED.
ONCE AGAIN, ZONING HEARING MASTER HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF IT, AS HAS STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND JUST TO ADD ONE QUESTION THAT SOMEBODY SAYS ABOUT THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND SO FORTH, THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE IS AN RV PARK THAT'S GOT AN EXISTING DENSITY OF 5.5 UNITS TO THE ACRE.
THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS A 75 LOTS THAT WE'RE RESTRICTING IT AS A DENSITY OF 1.8 UNITS TO THE ACRE, AND WE ARE REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>>PAT FRANK:  CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY FOR ME WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS THAT YOU STRUCK?
>> YES, MA'AM.
I'LL READ IT FOR YOU RIGHT HERE.
>>PAT FRANK:  IF IT'S POSSIBLE, PUT IT ON THE ELMO SO WE CAN ALL READ IT, OR IF YOU HAVE COPIES, GIVE THEM TO US.
>>JIM PORTER:  STAFF DOES NOT HAVE A COPY, NOR HAVE WE HAD ANY PART IN DRAFTING IT, NOR CAN WE ENFORCE IT IF THE AGREEMENT IS VIOLATED.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT.
IF THE CITIZENS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD AN ATTORNEY LOOK AT THAT AND THEY FEEL THEY CAN ENFORCE IT AND THEY REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION, THAT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY CAN HAVE ANY PART IN TRYING TO ENFORCE IF IT'S VIOLATED.
>>PAT FRANK:  BUT SINCE WE'RE ASKED TO VOTE EITHER UP OR DOWN ON THIS, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS WE'RE APPROVING.
>> OKAY.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO JUST READ IT, PUT IT ON THE ELMO AND READ IT VERBATIM AS I GO ALONG?
>>PAT FRANK:  HOW LONG IS IT?
WE CAN READ IT FASTER.
>> THE AGREEMENT ITSELF IS TWO PAGES.
IT'S GOT NINE POINTS TO IT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  BUT WE'RE NOT APPROVING THAT.
>>PAT FRANK:  WE ARE APPROVING THE REQUEST, BUT --
>> THE FIRST PART OF THE AGREEMENT IS SAYING WHO THE PARTIES ARE, THE OWNER AND DEVELOPER.
I THINK THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE SIGNED IN THE AGREEMENT.
THOSE ARE THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE NINE POINTS ARE THE DEVELOPER WILL LIMIT THE PROPERTY TO A MAXIMUM OF 75 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS.
ALL LOTS ABUTTING THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET WIDE AND 140 FEET DEEP.
THE DEVELOPER WILL BUILD AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE A SIX-FOOT SOLID HEAVY-STOCK WOOD FENCE TO SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE FENCE WILL BE BUILT ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF DEVELOPMENT UP TO THE WETLAND LINE AND WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT WILL BE FORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA CHAPTER 720.
THE FENCE WILL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE DEVELOPER, AND THE DEVELOPER WILL ENSURE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ASSUMES THE OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN THE FENCE IN GOOD CONDITION AT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION'S EXPENSE.
THE DEVELOPER WILL CREATE A 20-FOOT WIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
THE EASEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED IN PUBLIC RECORDS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPER SELLING ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT WILL ALSO BE SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
THE RESIDENTS AGREE NOT TO OPPOSE THE REZONING CHANGE IF THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FROM AR TO RSC-4.
THE DEVELOPER WILL CAUSE THIS AGREEMENT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AND ATTACH THE RESTRICTIONS COVENANTS RECORDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPERTY.
THE DEVELOPER WILL PROVIDE A COPY OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANTS AND PLAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENTS TO THE RESIDENCE UPON RECORDATION.
THIS WILL BE RECORDED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE DEVELOPER'S EXPENSE.
IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR A PARTY TO FILE SUIT IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PARTY PREVAILING IN SUCH SUIT WILL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANY ATTORNEYS' FEES.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS REZONED BUT THE SALE DOES NOT CLOSE, THE SELLER WILL ENSURE THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS RECORDED AND THAT THE SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY CONTAINS THE TERMS REQUIRING THE PURCHASER TO ASSUME THE SAME OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEVELOPER AS A CONDITION OF THE DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.
AND THE LAST ONE IS IF THIS REZONING IS NOT APPROVED TODAY, THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS NULL AND VOID.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
>> AND IT IS SIGNED, LIKE I SAID, BY THOSE -- THE DEVELOPER AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, SO IT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
>>PAT FRANK:  I -- I HAVE ONE QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE -- THE BACKUP INFORMATION ON IT, AND THAT IS, IN -- ON PAGE 3, ON FINDINGS OF FACT UNDER 4, IT SAYS DEVELOPMENT UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE LIMITED TO SOME 35 TO 45 DWELLINGS DUE TO THE EXISTENCE OF EXTENSIVE WETLANDS UPON THE SITE.
THAT -- THAT IS AN UNUSUAL STATEMENT BECAUSE USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THERE IS -- THE STATEMENT IS MADE THAT THERE ARE WETLANDS, AND THAT WILL BE A DETERMINATION FOR EPC ONCE THE SITE PLAN IS PUT -- PUT BEFORE THEM.
I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY DIFFERENT, AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE EXTENSIVE WETLANDS AND THEY'RE LIMITED TO SOME 35 OR 45 HOMES THERE, CAN THEY STILL HAVE OFF-SITE MITIGATION AND HAVE MORE HOMES?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WELL, COMMISSIONER, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY OFF-SITE MITIGATION PROCESS PURSUED BY THE APPLICANT, IT WILL BE DONE THROUGH EPC.
THEY'LL HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH THEIR SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AND EPC WILL HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON IT.
I MEAN, WE WOULDN'T -- WE WOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION DURING A ZONING REVIEW, EITHER FOR A STANDARD ZONING OR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, TO APPROVE AN OFF-SITE MITIGATION, AND I DON'T -- I MEAN, WE -- WE DID HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM EPC, AND THEY'VE ALREADY LEFT.
>>PAT FRANK:  I WANT TO KNOW HOW EXTENSIVE THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE IF THERE WERE OFF-SITE MITIGATION.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WELL, I MEAN, IN TOTAL IF THEY WERE GOING TO USE ALL OF IT UP AT APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES AT 4 UNITS PER ACRE, IN REALITY, IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE ABOUT THREE BECAUSE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THEY HAVE TO MAKE.
SO POTENTIALLY THEY COULD PROBABLY HAVE OVER A HUNDRED HOMES ON THERE IF THEY WERE ABLE TO MITIGATE ALL OF THEIR WETLAND IMPACTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS THEIR PROPOSAL AT ALL.
>>PAT FRANK:  I UNDERSTAND.
>> I CAN CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT.
WHEN WE HAD THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, WE WERE THINKING THAT POSSIBLY MAYBE 2/3 OF THE PROPERTY OR A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WETLAND.
WE HAVE HAD A WETLAND SURVEY DONE, AND LESS THAN HALF OF THE PROPERTY IS WETLAND.
THERE'S ABOUT 19 ACRES OF IT IS WETLAND AND ALMOST 22, 21.5 ACRES IS UPLAND, BUT AT THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT EXACT INFORMATION.
>>PAT FRANK:  YES, MR. LORENZIN.
>> HI.
GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS WILLIAM LORENZIN.
I LIVE AT 12601 SHADOW RUN BOULEVARD IN RIVERVIEW.
THE RIVERVIEW CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS DROPPING THE OPPOSITION TO THIS PLAN.
ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GO IN -- YOU KNOW, IN VIOLATION OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' WISHES IN THIS CASE.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO ASSUME THE RISK IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE COUNTY OBVIOUSLY CANNOT ENFORCE ANY AGREEMENT THAT IS MADE BETWEEN THEM, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, ASSUME THAT BURDEN.
I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF POINTS THOUGH.
YOU KNOW, AND THE ONE THING THAT GIVES ME HOPE IN THIS PROCESS RIGHT NOW IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ACTUALLY INITIATING A COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS IN RIVERVIEW AS OF TODAY.
AND THE ISSUE HAS ALWAYS BEEN, SURROUNDING THIS DEVELOPMENT, AN ISSUE OF PRECEDENCE.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT WE HAD ANY CONCERN ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, BUT RATHER THAT THERE -- AND AS I'VE SAID BEFORE IN FRONT OF YOU-ALL, YOU KNOW, HIGHER DENSITY MAKES SENSE IN ORDER TO DELIVER SERVICES AND PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND IT MAKES SENSE ALONG MAIN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS.
HOWEVER, TO HAVE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, YOU NEED TO HAVE BALANCE IN A PARTICULAR AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE IN RIVERVIEW CURRENTLY CALLS FOR UP TO RSC-6 THROUGHOUT ALL OF RIVERVIEW, WHICH IS NOT BALANCED.
ESSENTIALLY WE NEED TO ADVOCATE FOR PROVIDING FOR HIGH DENSITY IN CERTAIN AREAS, BUT LOWER DENSITY IN OTHER AREAS.
THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS AN AREA WHERE LOWER DENSITY MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
GIVE YOU A COUPLE EXAMPLES.
SWFWMD HAS BEEN SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROTECTING THE ALAFIA WATERSHED ALL ALONG THE ALAFIA RIVER.
IF WE ALLOW FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE USED AS PRECEDENCE FOR CONTINUED HIGHER DENSITY ALL THE WAY TO THE RIVER, IT SEEMS THAT IT SORT OF NEGATES THE PUBLIC DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN SPENT IN -- IN THE ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE WATERSHED.
IN ESSENCE, ALSO, THERE'S -- THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE OF -- AND I INVITE ALL OF YOU TO COME OUT AND LOOK AT THIS AREA.
THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE OF LOOKING AT PROPERTY RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY, AND McMULLEN LOOP IS A ROAD THAT HAS RESIDENCES ALL ALONG IT.
McMULLEN LOOP TURNS INTO PARK.
IF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS USED AS PRECEDENCE FOR FURTHER HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT, ESSENTIALLY THOSE NEW DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOING TO BE HEMMED IN, AND EMINENT DOMAIN IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE USED ALONG McMULLEN LOOP AND PARK ROAD TO TAKE THE PROPERTY OF OTHER RESIDENTS IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE TRANSPORTATION IN THAT AREA.
SO, WHAT I'M REALLY ASKING HERE TODAY IS THAT YOU CONSIDER THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE IN THIS AREA AND THAT IF YOU WANT TO GO BY THE REQUEST OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GREAT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO OPPOSE THAT IN IT PARTICULAR CASE, BUT LET'S NOT USE THIS AS PRECEDENT, AND WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN RIVERVIEW, IN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, TO LOOK AT BALANCING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO PRESERVE SOME OF THE HISTORIC NATURE OF RIVERVIEW, TO CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF RIVERVIEW, TO PROVIDE FOR HIGH DENSITY AND MIXED USE IN AREAS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE, BUT THEN TO ALSO ALLOW PEOPLE THE CHOICE OF HAVING DIFFERENT LIFESTYLES WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ALLOW FOR LESS DENSE DEVELOPMENT TO NOT ONLY GIVE PEOPLE A CHOICE OF THE TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT THEY WANT TO LIVE IN, BUT ALSO TO PROTECT SOME OF THE HISTORICAL AREAS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY.
SO ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO GO WITH WHAT COMMUNITY'S ASKING FOR.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO GO ALONG WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE FUTURE IN SUSTAINING A LIVABLE COMMUNITY IS REALLY AT RISK HERE, AND THE QUESTION IS HOW THE COMMUNITY PLAN DEVELOPS.
AND I TOLD -- I JUST ASK YOU TO CONSIDER ONE THING, YOU KNOW.
IN 1965, MY PARENTS PULLED OFF OF THE INTERSTATE ONTO A RURAL COUNTRY ROAD CALLED FOWLER AVENUE AND WERE UNABLE TO FIND A RESTAURANT.
NOW THAT AREA IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN AREA THAT NEEDS REVITALIZATION.
THIS CAN HAPPEN IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT THAT'S SEEN AS OVERWROUGHT HAS HAPPENED IN CALIFORNIA.
NOW PEOPLE ARE LEAVING CALIFORNIA.
SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR BALANCE AND CONSIDERATION, IN THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN CREATE HIGHER DENSITY THROUGHOUT THE URBAN SERVICE AREA DOES NOT MEAN IT WORKS IN ALL SITUATIONS.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER STORMS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  DID WE WANT TO GIVE -- I CAN JUST WAIT UNTIL AFTER REBUTTAL.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I THINK HE IS FOR IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS REBUTTAL INVOLVED.
>>RONDA STORMS:  IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS REBUTTAL.
I THINK HE IS A LITTLE CONFUSED HIMSELF.
>> I'LL JUST MAKE ONE CLOSING STATEMENT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BUFFERING AND ADJACENT LAND USES.
THE PROPERTY TO OUR SOUTH HAS A DENSITY OF ABOUT 2.5 UNITS TO THE ACRE.
THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO OUR EAST HAS A DENSITY OF 5.5 UNITS TO THE ACRE.
WE'RE AT 1.8 UNITS TO THE ACRE.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TRANSITION, I THINK THAT THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD TRANSITION IN MOVING TO THAT SMALL POCKET OF PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OF US, AND IT IS A SMALL POCKET THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THREE- TO FOUR-ACRE LOTS.
BUT LIKE I SAID, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TRANSITION, I THINK THAT DOES PROVIDE FROM 2.5, 5.5, TO 1.8 TO THAT DENSITY OF ABOUT 1 OR LESS THAN ONE UNIT TO THE ACRE TO THE NORTH.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER.
>>RONDA STORMS:  MADAM CHAIR, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE AND REMEMBER CHERYL BRADFORD, ALTHOUGH SHE HASN'T BEEN HERE FOR AWHILE, SHE LIVES RIGHT OFF OF McMULLEN LOOP -- OR DID BEFORE SHE MOVED.
SO THAT WILL ORIENT SOME OF US UP HERE.
ALSO, McMULLEN LOOP IS A COLLECTOR ROAD, AND WE'VE LOOKED AT STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING THE SPEED ON THAT -- ON THAT ROAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
I JUST WANT TO READ INTO THE RECORD WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD COMMENTS ARE.
RIVERVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, K THROUGH 5, IS 88 OVER CAPACITY.
ROGERS MIDDLE SCHOOL IS 325 OVER CAPACITY.
AND RIVERVIEW HIGH SCHOOL IS 520 OVER CAPACITY.
CONCURRENCY DOES NOT ALLOW US TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN MAKING THIS DECISION, BUT I JUST WANT TO CALL THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO SAY IS TO MR. LORENZIN.
MR. LORENZIN, WE'RE HAVING THE BOND HEARING -- THE PUBLIC HEARING -- AND I WOULD JUST REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU AND THE RIVERVIEW CIVIC ASSOCIATION, YOU AND I HAVE WORKED VERY HARD ON THE ISSUES OF TRANSPORTATION OUT THERE, BOYETTE ROAD, AND ALL OF THAT.
THAT COMES UP TOMORROW NIGHT.
I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU AND THE CITIZENS OUT THERE, WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD, CLOSE THE DEAL.
SHOW UP TOMORROW NIGHT ON THE HEARING EN MASSE.
THANK YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
IS THERE A MOTION?
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE THE APPLICATION.
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>>TOM SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTES.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 4-3, COMMISSIONER FRANK, PLATT, AND STORMS VOTING NO.
>>JIM NORMAN:  MR. LORENZIN, YOU DID A GOOD JOB.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  COMMISSIONERS, WE DO NOW STILL HAVE SOME TIME THAT WE CAN TAKE UP THE OFF-THE-AGENDA ITEM IF YOU'D LIKE, COMMISSIONER FRANK.
>>PAT FRANK:  ALL RIGHT.
LET ME -- LET ME SAY THE REASON THAT I BRING THIS UP.
THERE IS, IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, REFERENCE TO HISTORIC SITES AND TO THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC SITES AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES; HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED AT PALEONTOLOGICAL SITES.
AND AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE HONORING FRANK GARCIA AS A FAVORITE SON OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TOMORROW, AND HE IS ONE OF THE LOCAL HEROES IN OUR AREA WHO HAS BEEN DIGGING IN SOUTH COUNTY FOR MANY YEARS AND HAS UNCOVERED A VERY RICH DEPOSIT OF PREHISTORIC ANIMALS THAT BEFORE HE BEGAN HIS EXPLORATION WERE UNKNOWN TO HAVE EXISTED IN THIS PART OF THE CONTINENT.
A SIGNIFICANT FIND THAT THE SMITHSONIAN HAS GIVEN HIM GREAT ACCOLADES AND HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM AS AN ADVISOR.
WE HAVE MANY OF HIS FINDS WERE CONCENTRATED AROUND THE LEISE PIT AREA, AND YOU KNOW THERE IS A LITTLE MUSEUM DOWN IN RUSKIN WHERE SCHOOL CHILDREN GO DOWN THERE, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, MY GRANDCHILDREN WERE DOWN THERE THE OTHER DAY, AND THEY DID THEIR OWN LITTLE DIGS AND WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE FRANK GARCIA TELL THEM WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY HAD FOUND, AND THE ENTHUSIASM IS UNBELIEVABLY -- IT'S REALLY PROFOUND TO SEE THESE STUDENTS BEGIN TO GET EXCITED ABOUT DEAD BONES.
[ LAUGHTER ]
BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANT.
IT IS PART OF OUR HISTORY.
WE HAVE PRESENTLY SOME DEVELOPMENT GOING DOWN IN THAT AREA, MAINLY IN THE TERRABROOK AREA, AND MR. GARCIA WAS TRYING TO GET ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE HE SAW MANY HUNDREDS OF CUBIC FEET OF DIRT BEING TAKEN OUT WITH WHAT HE SAW WERE RICH DEPOSITS OF FOSSILS.
AND HE WANTED TO GET ON TO THE PROPERTY TO EXTRACT THOSE FOSSILS BEFORE THEY WERE DESTROYED, BUT HE DIDN'T MEET WITH MUCH OF A WELCOME ARM -- OPEN ARMS.
AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT TO HAVE PROJECTS HELD UP, BUT FRANK GARCIA HAS NEVER TRIED TO HOLD PROJECTS UP.
HE'S TRIED TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
I HOPE THAT THINGS HAVE WORKED OUT WELL THERE, BUT IT'S NOW BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT THE IDEA THAT PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES PALEONTOLOGICAL PERMITTING.
IT'S NOT A BIG HOOP TO GO THROUGH.
IT PROBABLY WOULD NOT OCCUR EXCEPT IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTY, BUT WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH COUNTY, AND IT IS PART OF OUR HISTORY, AND IF WE DO WANT TO PRESERVE IT, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT IF WE -- IF WE ADDRESS IT SO THAT IT'S UP FRONT AND THE DEVELOPER KNOWS THAT THEY'LL WORK WITH THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RECOGNIZED TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
IT'S NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PEOPLE TO GO IN, GET FOSSILS, AND SELL THEM.
THAT'S ENTIRELY THE OPPOSITE, BUT IT'S FOR THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC ELEMENTS.
AND SO I WAS HOPING THAT THE BOARD WOULD PERMIT US TO GO AHEAD AND ASK THE STAFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND SEE IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE IN A PRACTICAL MANNER AND BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION TO US.
>> SO MOVED.
>>JAN PLATT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THIS KIND OF MIRRORS A LITTLE BIT THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY AND THE DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH PURCHASING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
IF WE ARE -- AND I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK IF WE TRIED TO STEP IN ON SOME TYPE OF PERMITTING PROCESS LIKE THAT, ARE WE DEVALUING THE LAND WHEN WE DO THIS?
ARE WE -- IS THERE SOME SORT OF FORMULA THAT WE NEED TO ENGAGE IN THAT IF WE DELAY ANY TYPE CONSTRUCTION ON A PROPERTY FOR A PERIOD OF A YEAR, IS THERE ANY PURCHASING OF THOSE RIGHTS FOR, SAY, UP TO A YEAR THAT WE NEED TO -- IF -- I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG A DIG TAKES, OKAY, BUT YOU SEE WHERE I'M HEADING HERE?
>>PAT FRANK:  YES.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I MEAN, YOU GOT TO UNDERSTAND -- I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A GIVE AND TAKE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS HERE, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE -- THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN NEVER BE RECOVERED, BUT WE AS A GOVERNMENT, IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING IN OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS, MAYBE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO PURCHASE THOSE RIGHTS, AND I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROCEED, MAYBE -- I MEAN --
>>JIM PORTER:  WELL, I THINK -- IF THE MOTION PASSES, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN PART OF THE STAFF'S REPORT ABOUT IF YOU DID DECIDE TO PUT THIS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHAT WOULD BE THE RAMIFICATIONS FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND WHETHER YOU WOULD WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE COMMISSIONER NORMAN IS SUGGESTING.
I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ROLLED INTO THE REPORT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WE HAD THAT ASPECT WITH THE AG INDUSTRY AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND HOW TO DELAY THOSE, MAYBE WE DON'T DO IT FOREVER, BUT WE DO IT FOR -- SAY UP TO THREE YEARS THAT WE CAN PURCHASE THROUGH OUR -- OUR FUND THESE RIGHTS.
>>PAT FRANK:  IT'S -- YOU KNOW, I THINK ALL THAT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE STUDY THAT STAFF DOES, BUT I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT DELAYING ANY PROJECT, APPARENTLY HE IS VERY ACCOMMODATING, AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPECTFUL OF DEVELOPERS -- BECAUSE THEY WANT TO WORK WITH THEM.
THEY WANT TO HAVE ACCESS WITHOUT PROBLEMS.
BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION TO LOOK AT ALL OF THAT.
RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I'LL TELL YOU, THIS IS JUST KIND OF DIFFERENT LINES, BUT ONE TIME THEY WERE DREDGING THE JACKSONVILLE -- WAY OUT, AND THEY WERE DREDGING AND REFILLING THE BEACH, AND THEY WERE GETTING SHARK'S TEETH LIKE THIS BIG AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
PEOPLE WERE OUT SANDING, DREDGING ALL THE OCEAN FLOOR, WHICH IS REALLY COOL.
>>PAT FRANK:  ALL RIGHT.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  WE'RE THROUGH WITH OUR MORNING AGENDA.
>>PAT FRANK:  HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THIS MORNING, WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.
??



 

 




1