2.17.26 Pasco Board of County Commissioners Meeting (Afternoon Session)

Mom and dad should have.

So, what do we have? We've got one

vested rights as you and the tree ordinance. Okay,

that's it.

53 and 54 ordinances and 59 too big of a That's for you. That's for you.

You published it as a continuous.

I got my swollen rice. That's hard.

Sorry. It's continued. So what number is the draw?

Sounds like Jack is on. I don't know whe Okay, they took the time to speak, right?

No, not if it's

I wanted to go 25 seconds.

If you want legislative deal,

you don't have to take your

at least what I'm seeing here is

Do you want to see the sign?

Ready? Good afternoon. Now call back to order the Pasco County Board of County Commission meeting for February 17th, 2026. Please silence all electronic devices. Mute your microphones. We're going to go out of a little bit out of order today. We're going to start with item P59. Um but we'll also need to have folks sworn in before we discuss this item. If you need to be sworn in, if you could please rise, raise your right hand.

If if you think you're going to speak, we can just do you in one one swoop.

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth. So help you God.

I do.

When you come up to the podium to speak for the record, please indicate whether you have been sworn, state your name and address, and spell out your last name for us. Thank you. All right. Item P59.

P59. Proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, January the 28th, 2026, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney for Pasco County. This is an application for vested rights determination filed on behalf of Joshua Ortiz and Daniel Souza. The address is 12674 Valamar Road. So, I got to go through some facts and for any vested rights application, the facts are important. So, you just have to bear with me as I go through these facts. So, Mr. Ortiz and Miss Souza entered into an agreement with Prestige Home Centers to place a home, a mobile home in Moonlake Estates. The purchase price of the home was $175,94 and they they contracted with Prestige to to build that mobile home on their lot. And Prestige through a through a consultant um applied for a building permit through the county through our seller process and they applied for that permit on August 15th of 2025. On August 28th of 2025, a county development code review specialist signed off on the mobile mobile home as being permitted in the zoning district on the lot. Unfortunately, that determination was a mistake because that lot is zoned R1 and mobile homes are not a permitted use in the R1 zoning district. Now, had that mobile home been a modular home, it would have been permitted in the R1 zoning district. But there's a key difference between modular homes and mobile homes. Modular homes are designed and built to Florida building code standards, and they're installed by a licensed contractor on a permanent foundation, and mo mobile homes are generally not. the county reviewer who who u made this determination was aware that it was a mobile home but mistakenly thought that this lot was zoned AR where mobile homes are allowed and I'll I'm going to show you the zoning map that kind of um explains so this particular lot is you can you can kind of see it on on on the map but It's it's kind of surrounded by a sea of um there's AR in the vicinity which is the green area and the the lot in question is surrounded by R1. So it's not there is so I think the reviewer thought that this lot was in the AR area the green area but the lot all the lots around it are in fact R1. So, one thing that the planning department did look at before the vested rights application was filed was can they reszone the lot because that might have been a remedy. Could we just reszone it to AR? But that would have been spot zoning clearly because all of the zoning the entire zoning around this lot is R1

question.

Yes.

Are you saying the green is AR?

I'm saying the green is AR

and the white is

car one. How do you miss those two? I mean, because that's very clearly green and that's I mean, they're such different colors. Are they someone not looking at the map?

I can't speak for the reviewer. Okay. I I I I suspect that the reviewer just didn't look at the map.

Well, and we've got that fixed now.

I believe that they've taken steps since since this has happened to correct that issue.

Okay. What do the pink dots mean?

Um, those I don't think those are relevant on them.

Yeah.

Okay.

So, based on that mistake, the county issued a building permit for the mobile home on September 29th of 2025. We then Prestige proceeded to begin installation of the mobile home on the lot in October of 2025. Shortly thereafter, the county received a complaint from one of the neighbors who resides in one of the sightuilt homes on Valomar Road. After conducting an investigation, the county revoked the building permit on November 21st of 2025 because mobile homes are not allowed in the R1 zoning district. This is a photograph of the partially installed mobile home on Valomar Road. Because the permit was revoked, Prestige was unable to complete the installation of the mobile home or schedule final inspections, and Mr. Ortiz has been unable to occupy the home. Prestige has been paid in full for the mobile home by the mortgage company, and Mr. Ortiz has begun making mortgage payments of approximately $1,661 per month since November of 2025. And because Mr. Ortiz could not move into the mobile home, he had to renew his lease at his existing residence, which happens to be across the street, um, at a cost of about $1,575 per month. And then he also has to pay a termination fee if he terminates that new lease before November 30th of 2026. In December of 2025, Mr. Ortiz with the assistance of the planning department sought vested rights through the county attorney's office pursuant to section 407.6 of the land development code. The planning department waved the application fee for Mr. Ortiz. the the application has some content deficiencies, but we wave those content deficiencies. As a general rule, vested rights requires three elements. It requires good faith reliance, an act or mission by the county, and a substantial change in position or the incurring of extensive obligations or expenses by the applicant. It generally only applies in exceptional circumstances. And it does not apply to transactions forbidden by law or contrary to public policy. In this case, it's fairly clear that there was a county actor or emission in the in the sense that we did in fact make a determination that the that this um mobile home was allowed in the zoning. It was erroneous, but we made that determination and we did clearly issue a burning per building permit. It's also fairly clear that Mr. Ortiz made a substantial change of position and incurred expenses based on that on that actor or emission in the sense that he's already begun making making mortgage payments. He had had to enter into a le a new lease. So he's clearly changed his position based on that act or remission by the county. The probably the two most debatable issues in this case are good faith reliance and public policy. The reason good faith reliance is debatable is because there's case law that says that if it's a mutual mistake of fact that that is not a basis for good faith

reliance. And I'm not going to stand here and educate you on all the way the competing case law on this issue, but there is some case law that suggests that if it's if both sides make a mistake that that's not a basis for good faith reliance and there's cases both ways on that issue. So it is a debatable issue. Um, the reason public contrary to public policy is a debatable issue is because this is a potential intrusion of a mobile home into a street that does have predominantly sightbuilt homes on it. I'm going to explain that in a second. So, there are some homes on this on this um street that are modular homes. So, this is I believe the home that I Mr. Ortiz lives in now. Um, this is building department has told me this is a modular home. So, it was permitted as a modular home.

David, excuse me. Before you go on, can you please tell us the definition of a modular and a mobile home? The two the difference, please.

Okay. So, a modular home is a manufactured home. So, it's generally manufactured offsite, but it is built to it is in is built by it's installed by a licensed contractor and it is built to Florida building code standards and it's built on a fixed foundation.

Um, fixed foundation

and a fixed foundation and it is assessed by the by the property appraisers and tax collector as a sightu home. Um, it doesn't depreciate like a mobile home. It doesn't um it's treated for all for for property tax purposes as a permanent improvement to the property just like it was just like a sightuilt home would be. It just happens to have been manufactured off site. A mobile home is different. A mobile home, the best way to think of it is it's it's built to HUD standards and it's treated like a vehicle. Okay? So it it's it can be moved off site. It's um it depreciates like a vehicle. It can does not have to be installed by a licensed contractor. Um does not have to be installed on a fixed foundation. And so um

and can be moved.

It can be moved

and depreciate.

It can depreciate.

It does depreciate.

It generally does depreciate.

Um so that's the difference. Well, now the exterior appearance may be similar though. So that's why it's not always easy to tell from the street. So like this particular home from the street might appear to look like a mobile home, but it's in fact was permitted and has a modular home. And so there's another home on the street. This one first glance to me that looks like a mobile home. I inquired with staff, they said, "No, that one was permitted as a modular home."

So how is that on a fixed found how is that on a slab foundation? That's what I don't understand.

That's a good question for I'm gonna have to I would have to defer to our building department on because I asked this question. They told me this one was permitted as a modular home.

But you didn't you say a modular home has to be on a

Yeah. Let's Let's not debate this particular house. Let's get

Yeah. So

I only brought this one up as an example of of what's on the street. Okay. I I'm not and I was been told by the building department it was permitted as a modular home.

Okay. But this home and the one before it, in my opinion, are the exception rather than the rule on the street.

Agreed.

Okay.

Um, most of the homes on the street look like this home

or this home

or this home. The majority of the homes on this street are what I'll say more typical sightuilt homes. Um, so that's that's the public policy potential public policy concern is that you are potentially allowing a mobile home in on a street that has predominantly sight bill homes. So what are all the board's alternatives in this situation? Let me start by saying that I think from a legal defense standpoint, I could defend any of these alternatives. So let me start there. Okay. Um, so I'm I'm not married to any one of these. So start start by saying that. Um, the first alternative that I provided was that you grant vested rights to Mr. Ortiz. Um, but you try to mitigate this potential intrusion issue by limiting the vested rights to Mr. Ortiz personally. And if Mr. Ortiz ever sells the home or the lot that the the mobile home would have to be removed. The advantage of that alternative is that it's not a permanent intrusion of the mobile home into the neighborhood. It's it's a temporary intrusion of the mobile home and eventually the lot would have to be revert back to its normal R1 zoning in the future. Um that's alternative one. under alternative one. But even under alternative one, I am recommending that if Mr. Ortiz is allowed to move into the mobile home that the building department be required to pay his rent from November to March because he had to rent because of this mistake. He had to rent another another home for a period of months because of our building department's mistake. So, I don't think it's fair that we not reimburse him for that rent from November to March. Um, under alternative two, that's a very different alternative. Alternative two, you would be denying Mr. Ortiz vested rights and you would be the building department would be paying to replace the mobile home with a modular home. So, a modular home, as we talked about, is permitted in the R1 zoning district. Now, I spoke to Prestige about what it would cost to replace a mobile home with a modular home. Um it's the the cost is about if you if he took they took the tradein of the mobile home as a tradein um that cost is about $143,000 difference. Um so under alternative two we would be paying to replace the mobile home with a modular home. That would take about four to six months to do. So it takes longer to do to we would be paying for Mr. to Ortiz's rent from November to August because it takes longer to do that process. Um, and so that cost um is about a total of $162,474. Alternative one, the cost was about $10,975. Alternative three is similar to alternative one. Um, you'd be granting Mr. Ortiz vested rights. It just wouldn't be subject to any conditions that limits to him limits it to him personally. In other words, you'd be giving him the right to the mobile home and the mobile home could just stay there as long as it would be a permanent

decision that a mobile home could always be on that lot under alternative three. Alternative four, you would deny vested rights and you would deny any monetary relief to Mr. Ortiz. Those are the four alternatives that I now um there's different variations on these that we can come up with. Um, I know that there was one idea floated that would be a variation of alternative 2 where we actually keep the mobile home. Um, we could do that because Prestige is only giving us a $50,000 $55,000 credit for the mobile home. We could do that, but I would need to have some county department that was be have the ability to take the mobile home off the lot quickly so that we could get the modular home in. Um, and I don't know if there's a county department that could do that or not. Um, if we were to go with that option, we'd have to pay an additional 55,000 under option two because we wouldn't get the credit for the existing mobile home because we'd be keeping the mobile home.

Do you do you mind I have a video of the street. Do you mind if it's now a good time to play it?

Sure.

Okay. I just wanted the board to see this is the um entire street and I have the zonings pulled up. It's um It's very mixed bag out there.

Is this Valomar?

Yes, it is. Are you done? Are you There's this There's what I showed you this morning. Um, are you done with your presentation, David?

I am. Um, other than Well, the only thing I'm going to say I'll wait I'll wait till she's done with the video and then I'll conclude. I'm getting dizzy.

I'm going to have to stop looking. Yes. Okay, thank you.

I I I've got a video, too.

Okay. So, anyway, um

so this is a public hearing. Um Mr. um Clark Hobby is here representing the applicant, so I think you should hear from him first. Um we are recommending alternative one or alternative two depending on the board's preference. Um, but like I said, I could defend any of these alternatives. So, it's really up to the board to make that determination.

Um, just to I have to leave at 155, so I will phone in camera.

Is that okay?

If you're online. Yeah,

online. Yeah.

Okay. So, with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Jav.

Mr. Jav. [clears throat]

Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Clark, Hobby, 109 North Rush Street, Tampa, Florida, have been sworn. I'll be very brief. Staff uh had a a thorough uh presentation here, and the facts really aren't at issue. Uh we don't have any real problems with the facts as they were presented in the the uh memo that went to the board. What this is really a case of is just fundamental fairness. Um, we call it equitable estoppel in the legal world, but Mr. Ortiz clearly did not know, he didn't make a mistake. He didn't know what the zoning was because he hired the company uh to do the work. Prestige, and it's very similar to what people would do when they're buying a new sightuilt house. when you buy a new site built house from PY or whoever you you rely on them to make sure in the county to make sure that the zoning's in place and all that kind of stuff. That's what happened here. And he went out and got a mortgage for a bunch of money and reliance on that. And it turned out what happened was Prestige didn't do a lot of due diligence. They had gotten other recent ones approved in Moon Lake, but they just submitted the building permit. And BCS does a wonderful job and they've had a heck of a year dealing with all the hurricane stuff that they did. But it's a huge number of things that they process and a mistake was made and all we're here today to do is to deal with the the fairness of it and how do we make it right for Mr. Ortiz. And I think you also, you know, the board's in the position of making sure that they don't make a bad call for the neighbors uh and and hurt the neighborhood per se. There are four options. staff isn't really recommending number four, which is just to deny the application outright, which wouldn't be fair to Mr. Ortiz. Number one, that's one of the ones that staff's recommending to me doesn't work because all it says his he's got a personal vested rights case. So, if he goes to sell the thing in five or 10 years, then it's not going to be that the the value of the the mobile home that he paid for likely will be gone. Um, and so that doesn't really make him whole. So then you're really down to two options. Do you grant him a vested rights determination that applies to the property so that mobile homes can always be on this site, which the board may or may not want to do. If it doesn't want to do that because we feel it's contrary to the to the overall redevelopment of Moon Lake and all that, which I'm sure you're going to hear from the neighbors, they would prefer that not to be the case, then what you really need to do is take them up on take staff up on number two. Let's get a modular home in there. the ones that I've seen on the website uh and with the newer landscaping requirements and all that are hard to distinguish in many cases from sitebuilt homes. Um and so I to me number two is probably the best answer here both for the commission and our our clients fine with it. And I'd also add one other thing. Uh you know we don't want to put Mr. Ortiz or his fiance who's a local nurse in a position where they're trying to be enriched by this in any way and

they assure me they intend to live here for a long time. So they're okay of adding a condition to number two saying that they won't sell the house for say 3 years or something like that. It's not about them getting rich. They want to get what they thought they were getting all along. And I I would at some point you all should look on the sales websites for these companies. They only refer to a home. You can't tell whether you're buying a modular home or a manufactured home. And the contract itself from them doesn't say either. So, as a as a homeowner and a potential home buyer is I view it as misleading. You can't tell what it is you're buying on some of these things. So, anyway, like I said, number two with a modification is probably the best answer. I think that would probably be what the neighbors would want to see because I don't think they want more mobile homes in their neighborhood.

So, I'm happy to answer any questions you have, but I really I think we ought to just let them chat and then I'll respond to anything that the neighbors might have

if that's okay with the board.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

We have two people signed up to speak.

Joan M. Theo and Dora. Well,

yes, sir. Just sign. You can go ahead and sign in or when they're done, you can come up.

I would like the mobile home removed.

I need your name and address for

Oh, Joan Field, 12907 Valamar Road.

Have you been sworn?

Have you been sworn in?

I don't know.

Did you raise your hand? And

when everybody stood up, did you take the oath?

You did.

That's it. Thank you. Go ahead.

Um, I have called the county every time a mobile home has been moved into this street.

I have twice had your building department come out there and tell me it's Moon Lake. It's mobile homes. I have fought it every single time. I have made phone calls. I've lived on that street for 40 years. I was the third house on that street. What are my my vested rights? I bought in that area because it was zoned homes only. I don't want the mobile homes. That one that they said is a is a manufactured home that's basically across the street. You don't even follow up with your building department. They're supposed to have driveways on it. That one's never had a driveway. It's a piece of crap. They keep putting in uh tenants that that just tear up the yard. Why hasn't the building department enforced the fact that a driveway is supposed to be poured at that lot? You have totally ignored Boon Lakers. I have come and protested. You have had your building department people come out there and have call the cops on me because I've told them this is not allowed to have mobile homes and you've totally ignored me. At least somebody finally is listening to us. But we moved on that street cuz it was homes only. I was home number three. I don't want a mobile home there and I want you to actually remove and revoke all the rights you gave of the other people. I don't care if you pay for it all.

I'm over it.

This has been a horrible thing cuz you I have come down here every single time to your building department. Every time anybody pulled a permit and and your your building inspector was so rude to me and tell me you're this is bone leg. It's whatever.

It's not whatever.

May I May I ask a question, Mr. Chair? No.

No.

Thank you. Next. My name is Dora Wells. I live on Valomar Road. I have been out there 40 plus years. My husband was the mailman for 80. Pardon me.

Have you been sworn?

I have, sir. Thank you.

Uh, my husband was the mail carrier out there for 37 years. He looked it up. Homes [snorts] only. And we're 48 feet above sea level. So, what this is telling me is that not only the county is not doing their job, the people who are moving in there are not doing their job. You need to look these things up. The one that they say is a module, the brown one, it's not. It is not on a foundation.

Thank you. Uh there's another gentleman name, address for the record. And if you've been sworn,

I have not been sworn.

Okay. If you'd like to raise your right hand, I'm going to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, so help you God.

Yes.

Your name and address for the record.

My name is Matthew Lavarge of at 12837 Valmar Road in the neighborhood that's being affected. Um, I do not believe you should allow any type of mobile home or modular home in this community. As everybody has stated, it is zoned R1. It is intended for homes only. Uh what is it called? Um slab on grade homes. That's what it's intended for. Um another chairperson said that it's kind of a mixed bag out there. That's probably because of wax enforcement on the county's part. And now the taxpayer is going to have to bear the burden of you guys failing. And I don't want to pay that. My taxes have already increased. My mortgage has already increased. I purchased this home two years ago. I love the neighborhood. It's a beautiful neighborhood and renters and investors have been destroying the neighborhood. It's an awesome neighborhood. The people here are salt of the earth. I absolutely love this neighborhood and the county has done a disservice to Moon Lake because of its history or whatever, what have you. Uh we're trying to shed that history. There's good people here and I think you guys need to hear our voices. We don't want a mobile home. We don't want a modular home on Valar Road. The taxpayers should not bear the burden of any of this nonsense. What where's prestige? Why are they not culpable? Why are they not here? Where are their representatives? I'm sorry to Mr. Ortiz, but he should have done his due diligence and understood that the neighborhood is R1 is intended for slab homes, not mobile homes, not modular homes. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else to speak to this? Mr. Stark, you have a question for staff?

Well, um I have a couple questions. One, I want to I I want to know

well I for staff I I want research done on that road. I want to know what this lady was saying here because I drove down that road. Can you show my video and I feel so bad for the people who have built some beautiful homes on that road and then they got a piece of crap next door. And so I I just it's not fair. the these are probably their their wealth is probably tied up in these homes and we're destroying it.

So, I am 100% for not allowing this house in there. Um I do I am wondering why Prestige isn't you know [cough]

maybe this guy I don't know who's talking to Prestige, but I do agree they're they're culpable. Um but I have I have questions on why that what you called a modular was it modular? I don't know. The one that you said was supposed to be, "Oh, you can't tell the difference." Yes, you can. That one was is on concrete blocks. And where's the freaking garage? These people all have garages and these other guys, if you allow that other kind of house in there, they don't have garages. They don't have driveways. It It's a total degradation of the neighborhood. And I don't think it's fair to Moon Lake. I want to see Moon Lake get revitalized, [applause] not go downwards.

I wanted to see it go upwards. So, I um I don't know if you want to answer any of my questions. Where's

Well, I'm I'm not sure I can. I might need Mr. Murphy to come up and answer some of these questions if he's you could

No, sir. We public comments.

Well, yeah, we said we're not done with public comments. So, I don't

Yeah.

You want to finish that first?

What are you asking? Are you

Or do you want Mr. Murphy to answer?

That's up to the chair over here.

You want to finish public comment or have Mr. Murphy answer?

It's up to the chair. He's running the meeting.

I'll let her ask a question.

Okay. So, let's hear why why

we have we can have one more. If there's any if there's anybody who wants to speak, please line up. That way, we can keep moving forward.

Name, address for the record. And if you

My name is Rick Williams. I live at 1250 Randy Road, which is homes only also.

And have you been sworn?

No, sir.

Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth? So help you God.

I do.

Thank you. Welcome.

I've lived here for lived on that road for 46 [clears throat] years. And we have other people in here that's lived in Moon Lake as long as I have, if not longer. My parents have been here since ' 68. Do you want one vote or do you want the other people in here's vote? We We're the ones voting, not you.

Pardon me.

We're We are the voters

on this issue.

These people are going to vote on you all.

Okay. I thought you meant

all these people that represent us. Do you want his one, Mr. Ortiz's vote, and maybe his fiance's vote or do you want the rest of these people that live in Moon Lake and and want this to cease? I've seen it since I moved here. You know, you move one in and nothing can be done. Well, it's a modular home. Modular homes are set on something not concrete. They may be screwed into the concrete but not mounted. So,

thank you.

Okay. U one more. [clears throat]

Let record show Commissioner Joerger's joining online. We can see you Commissioner Joerger.

I haven't been sworn in.

Okay. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth. So help you God.

I do. Uh William Dent. I live at 12807 Golden Rod, two blocks away. I actually walk my dog down that street twice a day. I just want to actually clear up something on your video. You start the video on a different street. And on that video, you'll see that there is a trailer that is agricultural. Okay? So that's why that is there. As you continue down the street, you looked at the one on the left, which everybody's talked about, and they're saying it's a trailer. And somebody said, "Well, it was not zoned that way or when I checked it wasn't zoned." If you look at the appraisers's office, I just Which I just did. It is actually on the appraiser site saying it is a subtra. So that is that should never have happened.

And without getting upset like a lot of other people are doing, I'm going to tell you that I've been 46 years in the same house on Golden Rod. And throughout that time, we have watched stuff go down the line that should never have occurred. All of the neighbors, Joe, who lives across the street from me, he has called. Lisa has called. We don't get any response. And I don't know why. You know, I understand we're usually told, well, it's Moon Lake. That stuff happens out here. That's not That's not a good reason.

That's not right.

So, I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Okay, back to me. Um, so can you JP? I want to say while you're coming up, can you show my video? Um, and I I encountered a lot of residents walking their dogs there and they are not happy um of what has happened to their neighborhood. And I think we bear a lot of responsibility. I I think we're going to have to fix it and y'all are going to have to come up with a plan. That's [clears throat] how I feel about. Look at these houses. These are nice houses. It needs a tree. Y'all need to plant some landscaping. I'll say that.

But um Um,

and you know when I when I talked to one of the neighbors on the street next to this one, and that's the one that I mentioned this morning, he said we call code, but they say we have to put our name in, and I don't want to get a retaliation. So therefore, people are afraid and their neighborhood's going down the drain. That's not okay. Government, that's not what we're here for. We're here to protect these people and their investments. So,

I am No, you can't you can't talk from up there. So,

I we we've made a mistake. We made a lot of mistakes in here and I think we got to be on the path to fixing them. And for me, and I'm sorry about the taxes, but I think we're going to have we made a mistake. Prestige also made a mistake. My first thought was that we got to buy this guy's trailer, whatever it is, out. Um, wondered if we could use CDBGDR money because we got a lot of people who need trailers. Um, and so can we repurpose that somewhere in the county? But the thing is, if you're going to replace one for something else that looks just like that, but it's not that, how have we made the neighborhood better? So what what is why don't we have in R1? You don't have to have a garage. I mean what how do we protect the people who built home?

I I can't speak to the the zoning category R1. I just tell you that by statute the um modular homes are to be treated exactly like site built homes. So they are eligible use in R1.

I think we need to fix that. And so the the question came about

it's a state legislative issue.

Well, I think you talked about it's not fair to have a home with a garage then you got something on cement blocks next to it and they're considered equal in a neighborhood.

But it is what you just said. It is legal.

If it's on a slab,

it doesn't have to be on a slab. A pier foundation is equivalent a foundation for modular homes.

So just like your cracker style homes are elevated, pier does the same thing for a modular home. So to be clear, JP, so for this zoning

to put a modular home in under state law, that is permissible today.

Both state law and your local or code of ordinances.

Okay. And do we require a driveway?

That I believe we do require a driveway. Depends on the when 12880 was put in. I I'll do some research on that.

Yeah. And please, if there's any other mobile homes on that street, I want I want to know what happened.

Okay. Yeah. To our research, there was no further mobile homes that they were all modulars.

Wait, modular.

Your research is wrong. Yes, we watched.

So, we we'll report back to the commission on the couple that are there. But when when Mr. Goldstein was inquiring with us, our staff went back and researched those individual properties and found that they were modulars because we didn't want to have this problem could take come to this level as well. We're looking for Okay. Do we have multiple module or mobiles on that street and could not find any others? The only thing that was close in the in the whole zoning category were the two R1 MH's to the north.

All right. But I did see there are homes there that don't have driveways. As a matter of fact, I saw one that I'm not even sure has an address in a mailbox. That's the one I mentioned this morning that the neighbor on the other street said it was a shed that turned into a house.

Yeah. Based based on that uh based on that complaint.

Folks folks, please. Um, so we need we need that investigated.

Yeah, I'll send minimum.

This is a quasi judicial hearing on a vested rights determination. Outbursts from the audience are not appropriate. This is also not a a code enforcement issue [laughter] for the neighborhood. That should be taken up in a different format.

Okay. Um, well I I I

Okay. Can I just interrupt?

Yeah. So modified number two is

So the applicant does get rebuttal and we need to give him rebuttal.

Okay. Thank you. Again, I'll try to be brief. One thing is humorous. I think you all will appreciate this. Uh, Miss Theel, the first speaker, worked for our law firm for many years. So, [laughter] I've known Joan and didn't know didn't know she was on the street. But getting back to serious matters because this is very serious for Mr. Ortiz because he's got a big mortgage payment that he's having to make. By the way, I think the volume's very high all of a sudden. Um, but uh I I don't, as I said before, I don't think when you just talk about fundamental fairness, there's only two ways to go here. You either have to say the guy's got vested rights, but that's may not be great for the community, or we have to get a modular in there. And and this is the thing, Commissioner Starky, modulars under state law are treated exactly as sightbuilt houses, and they cannot be differentiated. And that's why our code in the ones where we, you know, uh, manufactured or mobile homes are not allowed, they're not differentiated between sight built and modular. They're treated as the same under state law. So to me, the only fair thing to do here, if you're weighing that public interest with the neighbors and you don't want more uh what we used to call mobile homes in there, you go for option two. And again, we're okay with limiting it, saying he won't sell the thing for at least like three years. Well,

Mr. Starky,

um, I don't know which option it is that that they're not up and I don't have them memorized. I don't think he's should be allowed to put that house in there. Um, I think we're going to have to buy buy it out.

The question is, do we go after Prestige because they messed up, too? So, we're not the only ones on the hook here. Um, I don't want to lose the You can't. Sorry. I don't want to lose the 50,000. Um so

if we buy we can certainly use that.

The buyout option is option two.

That is two.

Okay. But I'm and certainly we can look at going after prestige. Um as far as the mobile home goes. I did ask I spoke to truck lane about keeping the mobile home. He did say that community development has no program where they could use it. The DR program does, but he said it would take a few months for him to be able to repurpose that home. And the problem with that is I'm not sure Mr. Ortiz has a few months to wait.

No, Prestige can take it. They put it there. They can take it off and hold it for us until we find a place to put it.

They're the ones who put it there, right? I I can negotiate with it. I don't know if they'll just take it and hold it, but I can see if negotiate that with them. But um I mean there's there's a cost of transport. That's the issue

that they that they should have to bear because where is their culpability in messing up? Why are the taxpayers having to fix their mistake too? That that's that's [clears throat]

Commissioner Oakley has

Yes, Commissioner Oakley.

Yeah. On item two, can we I thought I heard you say they could trade out the value of the mobile home.

No.

Against a modular home and put

the way the way two is currently worded.

Okay.

Prestige would pick up the existing mobile home and give a credit for it against the cost of the modular.

And that's fair.

Minus $50,000.

It's a $55,000 credit. If we if we're going to keep the mobile home, they're not going to give us the $55,000 credit. So, we'd have to pay $55,000 more

if we're going to keep the mobile home.

But how much was the mobile home?

The about originally knew about 116,000.

Yeah,

we're losing money if we don't keep the mobile.

But as I said previously, mobile homes depreciate this, but it's our staff that made the mistake.

Yeah.

We got to pay up and make it hope. make it Mr. Ortizo and have the right kind of home in this neighborhood should

I agree but at least

the other way we get something out of it we get a mobile home that we can give to

part of our

we could put it in a park

county I just have concerns about taking over an asset not where we're going to put it my

just eat it

not take it

isn't it brand new

nobody's ever been in Well, ultimately, so the I spoke to Chuck about it. He said he can't really market it as new because it it's not really new anymore.

Once they moved off their yard, it's not new.

That's understandable.

Which is why it depreciated already.

So, we can't we can't put it on a park anywhere. Give it to a deputy that lives in a park. Well, you you could, but then you're effectively making the building department pay for a trailer for the parks department.

Yeah.

That goes to

tenants. Well, and any costs that may be needed to either cited. It's an openended issue.

Has every department been checked with sheriff's department? They're always miscellaneous. the jail school district. I know they're a different budget, but

I mean it's all public money anyway.

Same definition. We we take it comes from the taxpayer. So I don't it doesn't bother me whether it's a park's definition or the building department's definition to me. It's all all the same money. So, I I can't imagine that there's not a department somewhere, an outfit that couldn't use this.

I mean, the best deal is when you buy a car is one that was driven off the lot for a day or two and you get the

My guess is that you probably could find a user for it. The two issues are one is that the building department is going to have to pay 55,000 more to do that and I'll let JB comment on that. Um, and the other is that we're going to have to find a place to put it. I don't know if Prestige is going to be willing to just hold it. We'll have to figure that out.

Well, you got plenty of space to store it.

It's not.

Can I make a quick comment? Commissioner Jagger,

can I

Yeah. Don't we out in Moon Lake where we could hold the mobile home?

Yeah.

I I don't know the answer to that question.

We do have lots in Moon Lake.

Board's desire to store it. just putting it back into use is my concern, but I've made those points.

But if the board's direction is that it's option two, but we keep the mobile home, we'll just figure it out how we're going to do it.

It'll just cost us 55,000 more. It'll cost the building department,

nothing for it. The other way, we have nothing.

If that's the board's direction, we'll find a way to implement it. Commissioner Oakley,

fact of it is on item two, when you replace it with a modular home, have it put have them take that and give us a credit toward the modular home. Make Mr. Ortiz whole and go forward with business.

Don't save a house. Don't worry about where it's going next week. You're just opening up a can of worms. It's going to cost you more money down the road and we don't need to be in that process. We're in here to make sure things are followed by the rules. Our staff member made a mistake. We're going to pay up for our mistake and make Mr. Ortiz whole and put the module in there like it should be.

Um,

which is allowed on that that zone.

Mr. Star,

why don't we let the administrator chew on our idea of finding a for it and we could make it in a motion that we do one or the other once he's investigated if we can make a good use for it.

Commissioner

because maybe maybe you don't know yet but maybe there is a good place for it.

Commissioner Joerger, are you on the line here?

Yes.

Any opinion on keep it or let it go?

Honestly, it doesn't it doesn't matter to me. Either way, I can go either way. I think if we keep it, I you know, I'm sure we could find a use for it somewhere. Um, it is our mistake and, you know, we have to make it right for Mr. Ortiz and his wife. So, um, either way, whatever at the board's will, keep it or let it go.

You know, I want to be clear, it's not just use. I need to, if we're going to go that route, I need to know that there's a department that can move it off the site fairly quickly, too. I I don't know if Prestige is going to just voluntarily move it forward. So, I I can negotiate that with them, but I don't know if for sure they will do that.

Well, as an attorney, do they have any

But you're asking me to basically sue them? If you if you're directing me to sue them to get them to force them to do it, I can do that. But I it's not something I can just demand. I mean, I I can't just go out and get a court order demanding they do that. It's not something I can just run out and go get.

They have not volunteered to do that,

right? But um

but then that's that's that much more time that Mr. Mortiz will be waiting

right

for us.

I I still like I don't want to throw it all out the window. So, I still I would make a motion that we uh first work to find a solution to keep the mobile home and see if there's any department in the county or the sheriff's office that needs it or that could use it and and and that it could be moved or held quickly. Otherwise, we go to the regular option too, which is just replace. But I'd first like to take a swing to see if we don't just throw all of that out the window. That's my motion.

Well, that's that's not doable.

We have to make it it could potentially be added to one of the

You're you're suggesting alternative too with that modification.

Yes. Okay.

With the modification. So, Commissioner Oak Starky's motion is to uh as for option two with the three years to not sell the property or

No, never. No, no. To Oh, no. I

I'll be I'll be qu I don't know the I know that Mr. Hobby offered that. I'm not sure the benefit of that restriction to be honest. I mean,

wait, aren't we putting a legal home on there?

You are. I'm not sure what the benefit is of saying that they have to live in it for three years. I I I don't I mean,

if that's a legal house on that street, sadly, then we we can't do that.

Then we'll then we'll remove that from from Commissioner Stark's motion. So, Commissioner Stark's motion is option number two with finding a potential reuse for the structure that's currently on the site.

And if that cannot be found in a timely manner,

we're not going to use that as a credit,

then we we lose we Oh, then we can use it as a credit. Yeah.

I will second um Catherine Commissioner Skey's motion. We have a motion and a second.

If I could just add to that, can we just add timely matter so within we could get it moved in the next 30 days

because if it's going to take longer than that, it's going to we're going to have to start paying more of Mr. Ortiz's rent because

but didn't I see he has a $3,000 penalty if he doesn't stay in that house for

he has a three he he to terminate his lease an existing lease he's has to pay a $3,000 penalty but it's going to take four to six months to get a new modular in there. If we're if we can't get the mobile home off it's going to delay Prestigia's ability to get the modular built. So, if it's going to take us longer than say 30 days to get the mobile home off of there, at some point it's going to delay Mr. Prestige's ability to get the modular in there.

Well, are you saying they still have to build that modular if they if they are

and they do have to manufacture it, but

Okay, then we have some time that they still have to manufacture it.

So, we're out of

Yeah, but but there's a limit in how much time we have.

We have a motion and a second. We've had 30 days a 30-day window to the motion. One more, Commissioner Oakley.

Just One thing, if you're not using that home as a credit, you're not going to get that credit toward that modular home. So then you're going to be paying more money for a modular home to go on that site because you're holding back what you were going to get credit for before by pulling that mobile home off to the side.

But if we have a use for it,

that doesn't make sense to do that. It's it's not a clean straight. We made a motion on a second.

Well, I know you have, but you hadn't voted in. We

We've had ties. [laughter]

I mean, y'all can vote it that way if you want to. I'm not voting for that. I can tell you it's going to cost us money, more money than us.

Well, this is seem to be more of a humanitarian vote today um right now. So, we have a motion and second is not a roll call.

It is. I think

it is because Commissioner is online. Clerk, you please call the role.

District one, Commissioner Oakley.

No.

District two, Commissioner Weightman.

I.

District three, Commissioner Starky.

I.

District four, Commissioner Joerger.

I.

Commissioner District 5 Commissioner uh Chairman Mariano.

He's uh not here. Motion passes 3 to one. Um

thank you.

Thank you everybody. Mr. Is Mr. Ortiz here.

Thank you very much. He's here.

Yeah.

Thank you for being patient with us. We'll do what we can to appreciate commission rectify you on this.

Be sure and put a driveway in.

No more questions. All right.

Can we get the building department to get the driveways in the enforced?

Please, please, staff, please get with the customers and back. Okay. Now, we're going to move to public hearings. We'll proceed with public hearing starting with ordinance P-51. That's

51 proof of publication Tampa Bay Times January 28th 2026.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Octarios PTOs plank development economic growth department. Item P-51 is PDE 26004. Uh this is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code amending section 802 tree preservation and replacement. The request for today is to continue this item to March 24, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard in New Richie.

We have continuence on this one.

Move to continue. This is the last continuence I will vote for. This has got to get done. We are losing trees by continue and continuing.

You have a motion. Second.

I think I said that last time.

I have two people signed up to speak. It's on the agenda as a continuence.

All right. So folks, since this was on there as a continuence,

do you want to wait to speak to it when we hear the item at the next meeting?

If it's continuous, I may not want to speak to it.

So you guys want to wait? We're not going to hear this item today. Yes, ma'am. You can come up come up and speak. But if you speak today,

you can't speak in the future.

This is legislative, so they're they can speak every time.

Oh, they can't,

but they get your normal rules are that you don't take comments.

Well, they pass too. We've we've continued this awful and it's confusing and it's confusing folks. Go ahead, ma'am.

Okay.

My name is

Name and address for the record, please.

What? I

Name and address for the record.

Yes. My name is Jean Fehee. I live at 7629 Bay Hill Court in Tall Pines. First, I want to thank you all for what you are doing for all of us in Pasco County. I really want to thank you. It means a lot to me. It means a lot to my neighbors. We purchased our home in Tall Pines because of the trees and the Florida wilderness that surrounded us there up in Tall Pines. We knew then as now that trees mitigate climate change, prevent severe storm damage, and maintain environmental health. Our youngest son was 14 years old. He is now 46. We came back home to the US from Victoria, British Columbia, where I was the director of training and development for the province's Ministry of Lands and Forest. Just between you and me, don't you sometimes yearn to see once again the enchanting forest and wilderness of old Pasco County? Don't you wish your grandchildren could see that? You can make that happen by putting preservation back into our tree ordinance as a priority, as a major priority, as the priority. This will ensure all future generations, yours and mine, and yours. See and experience the beauty and magnificence of the Pasco County. We we love because as Theo of Golden says, for anything to be good, truly good, there must be love in it. There must be love in it. So my love and gratitude to you. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Next,

Julia Bartunic, 2645 Meadowwood Drive, New Purichi, Florida 34655. And I won't take much time here. Thank you for giving us a moment to speak on this uh even though it was continued. And uh I just wanted to thank everybody, especially Pasco County for all their hard work that they've put into developing this tree ordinance. and it we love the strength of it. We love the uh saving 20% of the tree canopy and we also love the mitigation credits that are going to be uh issued in addition to the 20% that is being saved. Um I'm not familiar if there's been a new updated revision. I would like to stay in awareness of any revisions that are made or I'd like to ask will there be more revisions made to it uh before March 24th? Uh if so, of course, we do not want any cap because $3,500 to mitigate and clear cut an acre of trees in Pasco County would really hurt Pasco County. Um it will hurt residents. It'll hurt taxpayers in the long run. It will be so expensive to remediate this clear cutting. Um because trees provide storm water uh benefit, biodiversity, economic benefits, increase property values, and help with community health and mental health. Um lastly, we also don't want the 5 acre exemptions that will um potentially for residential commercial lots, any residential and commercial lot can be included in maintaining 20% of the tree canopy. Today when I parked here for this meeting, of course, I looked under for a tree to park under because trees provide shade for our community. Thank you so much.

Thank you, ma'am.

Hi, my name is Jasmine Porkin. I live in Clearwater. Uh,

address, please.

100 Hampton Road, Unit 203, Clearwater, Florida 33759.

Thank you. I have 10 acres in uh Hudson. I bought them u 25 years ago. I take a trip from Clear Water to Hudson every day. Uh when I first bought this land, uh there were cow pastures on each each side of uh Little Road and there was basically nothing on Hudson Avenue. Now when I go up there every day there is a new parcel totally deforested completely bulldozed over. I don't recognize the place anymore. And if we continue this discussion, can we stop cutting trees until we make this decision? Because there will be no trees to protect by the time we make this decision. I have a presentation, but I'll save it for the next time.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Do you have a motion in a second?

Um under discussion.

Yes, ma'am.

Um just the reason it's being continued is not continuing to work on it is because we don't have two commissioners here and we want everyone to be here when we vote on it. So, Commission Commissioner uh Mariano is out of state on county business. So that's why it was continued because I asked the same question. Okay.

Have a motion. Second. All in favor?

I.

Commissioner Jagger is she online?

Oh yeah. Roll call.

She's not.

Okay.

All in favor?

I

continuing to pass. P52.

P52. Proof of publication Tampa Bay Times January 7th 2026 and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings. [snorts]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pitos playing development economic growth. Item P-52 is PTE 260011. This is an ordinance amending the Pasco County comprehensive plan providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps 2-15 and sheet 12 changing from res 3 residential three dwellings per gross acre to PD plan development and approximately 18.99 acres of real property located on the north side of state road 52 approximately 620 ft west of North Sun Lake Boulevard and a text amendment creating subarial policy flu 7189 and a map amendment to the future land use map 2-9 adding subaria map 2-989 9 SR52 Heasley. The request is to continue this ordinance to March 24, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard in Newporti. You

have a motion.

Uh so moved.

Second. All in favor?

I

P53.

P53 proof of publication Tampa Bay Times October 22nd, 2025 and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings. Item P53 is PTE 260023. This is an ordinance amending the Paso County comprehensive plan providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 19 from res 9 residential nine dwelling units per gross acre and IIL industrial light to IIL industrial light on approximately 75.017 017 acres of real property located at the corner of the south of the southwest corner of the intersection of interlocking road and gun highway and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for repeal servability and effective date. This comes with a recommendation to accept public comment adopt the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and ordinance by roll call vote.

Thank you. Do you have anybody?

We have a presentation signed up for this item. Anyone here to speak to P53? Seeing none, you have a motion.

Approve.

Second.

All in favor?

I

I thought this one was done already.

Thought they were like shovel in the ground.

Now back to public hearings.

Um I'm sorry. That was a ordinance. So it should have been a roll call vote.

P53.

Correct.

All right. Clerk, please call the roll. District one, Commissioner Oakley.

Hi.

District two, Commissioner Waitman. Hi.

District three, Commissioner Starky. Hi.

District four, Commissioner Joerger.

District five, Chairman Mariano.

Not here. Motion passes 30. B54.

B54. Proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, December 17, 2025, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings. This item was continued from February 3rd, 2026 BCC meeting to today.

Thank you. Item P54 is PD 260016. This is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPA 2403 Elite 52 PD. It's providing for the transmitt of a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and she 12 from AG agricultural and AGR agricultural rural to PD plan development on approximately 156 acres of real property located north of state 52 approximately 6 mile east of the intersection of state 52 and US highway 41 and a text amendment creating sub area policy flu 7181 uh 7.1.81 81 uh Elite 52PD and a map amendment to the future language map 2-9 adding sub area map 2-981 elite 52PD and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for repeal servability and effective date. This comes with a recommendation to authorize transmitt of the post comprehensive plan amendment to the department of commerce Florida Commerce and other reviewing agencies and there's a presentation if so desired.

Would anyone like to see a presentation?

No. Thank you.

Any public comment? I have three signed up and one online.

Uh, yes, ma'am. Who's in person?

Caitlyn Bu.

Name, man. Just for the record, have you been sworn?

I have been sworn. My name is Caitlyn Bule. BU L. My address is 11 1934 Driver Lane.

Thank you.

Okay. Um, so I'm a flight nurse and a private pilot. I live in pilot country with my husband who's also a pilot. Um I kept hearing in the planning commission meeting that the density was compatible. However, the neighborhoods surrounding this proposed development are 1, five, and 10 acre lots. Uh while this development has lots which are 0.165 acres, it seems like there are some mental gymnastics required to call that compatible density. These lots are small enough that a two-story house built on it will be quite close to my property line and it will loom over the privacy barrier, making the barrier ineffective. I am totally good with having a couple neighbors back there, but that is not what this is. This would put five or six seconds story windows right at my property line. There will be nowhere to hide. This is going to obliterate any privacy I have in my backyard or in my pool. The houses are planned to be too high and too close for me to be able to even regain my privacy with planting trees or building a wall. The concept plan uh happens to prove my point. [clears throat] The applicant owns the house in pilot country that backs up to the park area of this planned development. This guy knows it would suck to have five second story windows peering into his backyard and he has protected his own property from it while inflicting it on his neighbors. I support his effort to maintain his own privacy just as I hope you all will sorry support his neighbors in achieving the same. I see two possible solutions here which I hope you will consider. One is to limit the houses bordering pilot country to a single story or two instead of having these lots packed in like sardines make them halfacre lots that would allow the houses to be set farther back from the property line to make the privacy barrier effective. Uh, in conclusion, the combination of the height of the buildings and their density creates an overwhelming change to Pilot Country residents privacy. If either the height or the density were changed, then I would support this plan. Thank you for hearing me out.

Thanks.

Next up is Chris Bu.

Hello all. Christopher Buell 11 1934 Driver Lane. Uh I haven't sworn uh my wife and I wife just spoke were at the planning commission um that predated this uh three or four weeks ago as well. Uh a couple open topics for me that were coming from that. Um one of them was um there was nothing that they were advertising that there was enhanced privacy barrier um between Pilot Country and the development. Um, but there was nothing in there that actually defined what the plants or trees that they were going to plant as part of the privacy barrier or what the actual fence was going to be. Um, so if it's just going to be a white vinyl fence that's going to blow over in the next storm or if it's going to be some meaningful trees along with that. Um, so that was would be something I thought was an open um item from the planning commission that I'd like to hear more about. U, the other one is a followup. It was the um tree mitigation for all the clearing that was done uh on the northern part of the property while it was agricultural. And it's my understanding that there's a five-year waiting period if it's going to go and get reszoned into housing or unless there's a plan for the remeitation for the trees. Um and if there are, it would be great if that was put between us and uh the housing development to um reinforce the privacy barrier between the two. But those were open um issues from the previous meeting that I would like to to hear about. Again, like my wife said, you know, we're not opposed to developing um behind us there. they can do what they like with their land, but it would be um helpful uh to our property values as well as theirs if everything wasn't crammed in and there was something that defined what um the privacy barrier was going to be. Uh third concern is just the um level of flooding that we get in our neighborhood and the water mitigation coming from that part of the property to the east. um previous owners um did a significant amount of landfill dumping on the southern part of that property um in the last decade that's made the flooding significantly worse into our neighborhood because instead of all the water from that property flowing south towards 52 and getting cleared it now all goes west into the southeast uh corner of our neighborhood which is flooding over the wetland section there and there's nowhere else for it to go. Um, so I know there's supposed to be um, u, you know, part of the water commission is going to go out and do their planning purposes and stuff like that. I'm not sure that they are aware that there's BMS up there. They're larger than this room. Uh, and previous dumping that's already lifted um, the grade for a lot of that property already, making the flooding a lot worse. But thanks for your consideration. a couple uh your some of your timeline questions staff can answer on the tree tree uh timeline there.

Next,

next up is Mark Bod.

I've been sworn and my address Mark Bud. My address is 11748 Driver Lane and I was also here at the previous meeting. I have very similar concerns as the previous speakers. Uh I also talk about the inconsistency of the lot sizes from the Pasco Trails community and our community and this right in the middle. U I've always been uh concerned about the zoning around the airport. have made those uh concerns safety concerns and incompatible land use concerns in previous uh meetings concerning the airport zoning around the airport. So, I'm not going to reiterate those. Um, and I've been there for 25 years. I have a nice view out the back. It's beautiful. I understand that, uh, you know, there's progress to be made. I'm not against any of that, but uh the density that's there is pretty much five times what we have. And I can picture out the my back yard. Now, I'm going to be looking at potentially multi-story, at least twotory with 35 foot foot restriction. But if I get up close to my property line, I'm going to be looking 45 degrees up and nothing but walls with 10 foot uh clearance between them, which is going to really destroy all the property values along that western side of pilot country. And so I'm not not in favor of that kind of density at all. And I agree with uh Caitlyn and her husband that if you're gonna, you know, the density either has to be reduced or the the height of the houses have to be reduced to ensure that it's at least somewhat compatible with this uh surrounding communities and doesn't destroy our property values.

Thank you.

Thanks, sir.

Yes, I have someone signed up online, Spencer Brass. Mr. Brass.

Yes. Commissioner, can you hear me?

Oh, yeah. We sure can.

Go ahead.

111500 Country Drive

and we're going to

had the opportunity to meet

Wait. And good faith

all about this project. It's been a long time.

You've been sworn

and appreciate your support.

Yes, I have been sworn.

Okay. Thank you. had a little delay there

and I'm available to answer any questions that may come up.

Thank you, Miss Miss Wilhight. This is Miss Wilhight for the applicant.

Did you want to call for any more public comment?

Is that it? Do we have any more?

No one else has signed up.

Okay. Just want to make sure keeping things in order. Barbara will 6327 Grand Boulevard for the applicant. As Spencer Brass, my client has said, we've worked on this for a while. Um, when we originally brought this project forward, we came forward with 300 town homes at a density of 5.5 units per developable acre. We did that looking at the the development that had gone on that had been approved on the west side of the airport, which was 40 foot lots and apartments. So, town homes were were consistent. Um the other thing that has happened so our density now we've decreased it to 108 single family detached homes along our western border 60 foot lots and then the balancer 50 foot lots. Our density is now two um 0 two units per acre. So and my client did that after meeting with the the homeowners and the residents. That's when he decided to step back and and change the project to what you see today. To answer regarding the enhanced buffer, we brought forward from the beginning an enhanced buffer along that western boundary. When we came to planning commission and heard the concerns of the neighbors, the um planning commission asked if we could go at it again and have an enhanced enhanced buffer. So, we did. The question always comes up, what are you going to plant? How close are they going to be? and how tall at planting. So, we answered those questions. We we came up with this a southern red cedar. Those at planting will be 12 feet high and they're unlike a tree who like this and then goes up, right? Um those are are wide to begin with and then they fill themselves in. So, you have a pretty much a very a solid buffer. The [laughter] code would require our trees to be 30 feet on center and these will be 12 on center. Again, 12 feet of planting. We're required to have a six foot high wall or fence and we will have an 8 foot high wall or fence. We'll have our shrubs on the outside of the fence towards the neighbors, the 8ft high fence, and then the 12 feet high um at planting southern red cedars. regarding the safety concerns and the zoning concerns reg around the airport. After a long time, you have an airport protection ordinance and you you studied you had hired professionals to go do noise studies and to guide you and your staff did a lot of work um as to what's compatible with the airport and you have an ordinance. We're following that ordinance. This these uses are compatible with your airport ordinance that you adopted and we'll have to follow all the requirements of that ordinance. We did note again this is for the comp plan amendment but we will be bringing back an MPUD um it's already because it went to planning commission as the MPD and the zone and the comp plan but because you have a transmitt hearing you just have the comp plan before you but we did note Christy Barrerero is here from height design and we on our plans it has 35 feet as the maximum height that is always confusing to me you know

what is 35 feet is that two stories is that three stories we modify our plan coming to the with the MPD that comes to you at your next hearing after this is transmitted if you approve it um to two stories so it's clear instead of a height and then with regard to flooding I took notes regarding that um Miss Pereira is here from height design she also is taking those notes that is important to them as they design a project that they understand those localized issues the um the allegations regarding where the park area is located adjacent to the owner. I didn't even know that and and Christie didn't know that until it was raised at um at planning commission height design laid it out because that was the best location centralized location for the park and also made a nice look as you come through the project and you come up to the park and then go right or left the tree all the things you've heard from the neighbors regarding what somebody did to the property as prior to our client's ownership Whatever it is regarding tree mitigation, whatever the rules are for what somebody did prior to my clients uh our clients buying the property, that is is what it is. Um, as far as what happens to that, again, my clients didn't do any of the things that they allege regarding they and they did say previous owner regarding landfill dumping, removal of trees, all those things um were not done by my client, but certainly they're they own the property, so they're responsible for whatever the ordinance requires.

Thank you.

I think I hit each of the items. Thank you.

Mus,

can you put up that picture? So, I was gonna I was wondering what is that house that's jutting out into the property. So, is that the owner's You see that? See how those trees go into the back into the other property? Is I'm guessing that must be the owner's house then because I was trying to figure out what they meant. Why? Um

I I I have no idea. I don't do not know where my clients live.

Just give me a thumbs up if that's the owner's house. Yeah, I can come point it out for you more specifically if you want.

That's great.

Well, I I've just seen that there is a house there that's in the into the property behind it.

So interesting. But uh Okay. Can you go back to to Barbara's map? Um so I've been trying to see it on here. I did listen to the planning commission meeting and they I think it was John Moody who showed that the trees were trees have been taken out. Um are you saying your client bought the property after the trees were taken out?

That's my understanding correct. Yes. Spencer is online so he can answer if somebody will bring him up to him to speak.

I can't get Pasco. Um the property appraiser site is not working today and I can't get Pasco Mapper to work either. Um but I did see those see where that was heavily wooded and someone took it out. So we do have rules and what what are the rules if uh David Allen do you know what they are about clear land clearing before you come in to change your zone? So, it would depend on whether I can answer that. It depend on whether they did it under a agricultural exemption or not and whether they were properly zoned and did it for a 5-year period or not.

Well, that's what I'm asking. Did they

I have no idea. I don't

Well, why why why would we not research that before someone comes in for a reasoning?

Well, we would when they come in for site plan approval.

Yes. This is this is a transmit.

Okay. So, that that's when that happens.

This is this is a trans. When they come in for site plan approval, staff would look to see if they qualify for that exemption or not.

So why do we wait till site plan approval? Because then then someone could clear cut their property and then go through all this other stuff

because that's when we determine tree mitigation for all all tree mitigation is determined at site plan approval.

Okay. I think then then people are just going to cut away.

It's not when it occurs. That's when we address it. So they will look back.

Yes, they'll look back if if

but we don't do tree mitigation in the comp plan stage.

But but I but you uh how do I say

they'll have to it at site plan if if they improperly took down those trees? If they don't qualify for the exemption, they'll have to mitigate for that tree removal.

But when does the clock start ticking? At at at that moment or or when they started applying for the change?

The the clock was already t The clock was ticking on the exemption when they started the removal. But if you're asking when do we when do we start the look back? It's when they come in for site plan approval.

Okay. But you'll look let's see. Okay. So can you can you go back a few go back a few years?

With all due respect this doesn't have to do with what we're voting on today.

Okay. So we can't we can find this out. on this.

This does not that subject does not happen.

So Barbara's saying whatever our rules are, she she's admitting that if they have to mitigate for their removal, they'll have to mitigate further removal. She's

publicly stated that.

That's correct.

All right. So then the next thing um and I if you could go back to can you get rid of that box and I can deal with it like this. Um, so we have the small lots on the left, which they're not backing up to anyone, although that's not one of our better neighborhoods. I would take that back all day long. Um, uh, I'm I am a little concerned of putting 60s up to one acre lot behind one acres. I don't I um I'm not so concerned about the screening because that's the responsibility of both sides. I mean, you don't own your view. You don't own your view. So, but is it compatible to put a 60 next to I don't know how I don't know how big those lots

on the west side you have apartments up against up against there.

West approved apartments. Miss I think the question is what's future land use of this site for

it's it's currently AGR original land use agriculture.

Well I'm just talking about this row of houses next to that row of houses and and then I look over here and they're big lots over here. I I am getting concerned that you you until someone shows me the other way people are going to go east and west north of State Road 52. Should we really be increasing uh putting a lot of density along the northern side of 52? We're going to have a backlog kind of like what we have on 54. What's going to happen on 54? So, I'm I'm wondering if we could not change out some of those 60s for 70s.

Um

well, we can look at it, commissioner. This is a transmittal hearing on the comp plan and there and the size lots are not in the comp in the comp plan. It's just a number looking to my Yeah. So looking to your long range stat maybe the number is needs to be reduced just a little bit for my

well it's a maximum and ultimately if your MPD if you transmit the complent amendment with the numbers that are in it and then you decide at the MPD stage it needs to be something different you can do that still

but we can also transfer it with a less lesser

we'd be just guessing which really isn't fair to the applicant and you're not you're not out because you can address this at NPU It's perfectly fine to have one number in a comp plan and have less in the zoning. It does happen that way.

So, commission

and you can and they can reduce the number in the final adoption of the comp plan.

That's true. Very true. Very true. Transmitting it as it is today and then you're trying to negotiate down the line or what would you like to do since there's three of us?

Um, well, I want to hear what how you guys feel. I'm the only one that's said how I feel. So, I want to know. Well, I I don't have any problem with the the development that they're proposing. Uh I think I've already heard that they didn't remove the trees. It could have been done prior or before then. Not their fault at all. Um I think if there's a buffer here, we do need to make sure a buffer is is good for the folks here at Pilot Country and where this where this lies. And I think I believe that Spencer will take care of doing the right thing there. So

I think it's a good project.

So So on those buffers, I think it's also the responsibility of the pilot comp uh country residents if they don't own the view from their backyard. If they don't want to see the house, they can also plant trees. So I we always put it on the new develop new person, but I have a little mixed feelings on that. But um and frankly

I think that'll work out in the

process of developing.

And and Barbara, you're saying you're going to restrict them to twotory houses.

We can add that to the MPU because right now it's 35 ft, which probably could fit three. Yeah, that's

I I I don't I don't see a [clears throat] need for a restriction, but I just think the law should be bigger than that. But that's that happens somewhere else, right?

Yeah, that happens when it comes back to

We'll certainly look into it.

All right. Any any further questions? Have a motion to transmit this item up to Tallahassee for review. I'll

move second. Second

roll call, I guess.

Do we have to do is Lisa on?

No, it's not. This is not an ordinance adoption even though it's on that section here,

but she's not online.

So, all in favor?

I

I thank you.

All right. Thank you. B55.

B55. This item was not advertised correctly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chario Pitos again, planning development, economic growth, P-55 is PD26 C9. This is a conditional use request in the name of Bear Creek Group, Home Elevated Youth Services. The request is to continue the item to the March 24, 2026 uh Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. or assume thereafters may be heard in Newport Richie.

All right, we have a motion to continue. Move continuous.

Second.

All in favor?

I

B56.

P56, proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, January 7th, 2026, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

Item P-56 is PD 267890. This is a zoning amendment in the name of SR52 Heesley LLC/Sr52 Heesley MPUD master plan unit development. This is a resoning request from an AC agricultural district in MPUD master plan development to allow for the development of 100 uh units. The request here is to continue to the March 24, 2026 uh board of county commissioners meeting at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard in Neworichi.

So move continuous.

Second.

All right, we have a motion second. All in favor?

I

P57

P57 publication Tampa Bay Times January 7th, 2026 and Affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

Item P57 is PTE 267895. This is a zoning amendment in the name of groundf flooror storage LLC/Oldixie RV Resort MPUD master plan unit development. It's a reszoning request from an R4 Highdensity Residential District and MPU master plan unit development to allow for 52 RV space resort. This is request is to continue the item to the April 21, 2026.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. Right before the meeting, the uh applicant mentioned that they were requesting a continuence to a date uncertain on this item.

Okay, we have a motion to move 57 to a date uncertain.

Y have a motion. We have a second.

Second.

All in favor? I

P58.

P58. This item was not advertised correctly.

And item P58 is PE267899. This is a zoning amendment the name of Daniel D Pasquali and Kevin Singleary/Mass Massachusetts Avenue, which is a change in zoning from C1 Neighborhood Commercial to C2 general commercial district. This is requested to continue to the March 10, 2026 1:30 p.m. uh Board of County Commissioners meeting or soon thereafters may be heard in Date City.

Do we have a motion?

Move continuence.

Second.

All in favor? I

I thank you.

All right. Thank you. And we heard 259. We have anything from your folks for the good of the order?

No, sir.

Anything other from staff? All right. Well, with that, we'll adjourn our meeting.

Be careful how you do that.

Guy before me.

[laughter]

Yeah.

Good job.

Make sure it hasn't been.

You did better than I expected.

Well, thank you.