03.08.2022 Pasco Board of County Commissioners Meeting (Afternoon Session)

[Music] good afternoon i'd now like to call back to order the pasco county border county commission meeting of march 8 2022 please science all all electronic devices and mute your microphones we are now going to proceed to public hearings and we'll start with ordinances p45 madam chairman and members of the board we have proof of publication of the hearing of this course of this matter in the january 19 2022 issue of the tampa bay times all right and madam chair commissioners denise hernandez item p45 is pdd2202333 this uh item comes with to you with a request for continuance to the april 5th 2022 1 30 p.m uh board of county commissioners meeting at 1 30 in dade city madam chair what's the what was the continuance date again continuous date is april 5th 22. the first reading is first reading is 3 2 22. 3 22. madam chair i would like to actually move this a little farther out i'm getting way too many questions from stakeholders we had this i had a discussion with the team on staff at lunchtime too um a lot of questions a lot of concerns by stakeholders out there i think we need more time i need more time myself as well to learn more about this um there's i don't want to get into the weeds right now but there's a there's a lot of areas that i wasn't even aware that were going to be included in this there's concerns i know how this is done so i i think this needs to be pushed at least another month to give time for all the stakeholders to get involved on both sides okay thoughts all right so do you want to amend who made the motion i made it so let's see let me well i gotta look at the date i got to give you guys i gotta give you a date you can while he's um looking up the date i would just say in the future i think you need to put the title what it is because i did not know that this was you know until you dug into it nowhere in the p-45 posting here does it say it has anything to do with the airport one two three i think i think it might have just been an oversight i'm sure that would move that would move it prop approximately let me see here um first reading april april 19th okay that'd be the first reading so that would mean the vote would happen in on may you're moving it to third no moving it that's only two weeks from first three april fifth right oh no no no no that's okay

yeah it's fine so as i understand it you want to move the first reading to 419-22 just at 130 in newport richie and the adoption to may 3rd 22 at 1 30 in dade city yes ma'am thank you okay that's a motion we have a second all in favor all right opposed okay thank you the next contin do i have to ask if anyone wants to speak to that since it's continued no okay all right p 46 madam chairman members the board we have proof of publication of the hearing of the matter at this time for the first hearing in the february 16 2022 edition of the tampa bay times commissioners denise hernandez pd220098 this is the first reading on this item so there's no action just uh please accept public comment um it's scheduled for adoption on 322 of 22. this is an ordinance by the pasco county board of county commissioners amending the pasco county land development code chapter 600 overlay and special district areas 602.8.0.3 villages of pasadena hills n section impact fees mobility fees and development fee surcharges and voph transportation development fee schedules exhibit 602-c and other amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for applicability repeal or severability and an effective date this is back actually tax revisions uh chart revisions and fee schedule revisions to um 602. so this went to the villages of pasadena hills plan the pasadena hills planning and policy committee on 216 of 22 and it was presented to the local planning agency on 217 of 22 who found it consistent with the pasco county comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board again there's no action required today this is set for adoption on march 22nd 22 at 1 30 in newport richie okay then we'll move on to p47 no public hearing we have one person uh signed up for the on the line contact bill oliver bill of oliver is the county um consultant if you have any questions he's here on standby to answer them for you and we have none signed up in the room okay well then is there anybody who wishes to speak to this idea i said that but no one came forward so we're moving on uh i believe 47. you need to vote on the first no okay um item uh p47 uh we have a proof of publication of a corrected notice on december 29th of 2021 for this date and time it's pdd22022 this is the adoption hearing on this item so we're asking that you adopt it by roll call vote vote this is an

ordinance amending the pasco county comprehensive plan providing for a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment so the future land use map map 2-15 and sheet 15 from res one resident residential one dwelling for gross acre two res three residential three dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 80 acres of real property located east of hancock road and north of island boulevard amending gold flew six pasadena hills figures ph five and ph six providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for repealer severability and an effective date this was presented to the pasadena hills planning and policy committee on 11 17 of 21 went to the local planning agency on 12 921 who found it consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board and it was transmitted on january 11th of 22. we're asking that you adopt this item by roll call vote all right is there anyone signed up to speak to p47 i believe we have the representative is the only one signed up joel two is okay madam chair uh joel 2 for the applicant the applicant will waive any presentation unless there's public comment or any questions from the board all right is there anybody signed up to speak to this mr two is the only one and anyone else wish to speak to this there's uh approval second all in favor aye okay that's right district one commissioner oakley aye district two commissioner moore aye district four commissioner fitzpatrick aye district five commissioner mariana aye district three chairman starkey aye p-48 madam chairman members of the board we have proof of publication of the hearing of this matter at this time in the november 24 21 19 2021 edition of the tampa bay times it's pdd220067 this is also the adoption hearing so we're asking that you adopt this item by roll call vote this is an ordinance amending the pasco county comprehensive plan providing for text amendments to the future land use element the glossary and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for a repealer severability and an effective date this is basically bringing into the comprehensive plan the legislative session 2021 uh solar facility items so this went to the local planning agency on 12 921 who found it consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board and it was transmitted on 111 of 22. board members any questions does anyone here wish to speak to p48 we have no one signed up either online or in person seen a move approval second all in favor oh yeah

district one commissioner oakley aye district two commissioner moore aye district for commissioner fitzpatrick aye district five uh commissioner mariano district 5. i'm sorry district 3. chairman stark aye p49 we have proof of publication of the hearing of this matter at this time in the tampa bay times on january 23rd 2022 pdd22 through 185 this is also the adoption hearing on this item this is an ordinance amending the pasco county comprehensive plan providing for a small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map map 2-15 and sheet 0-1 changing from rez 6 residential 6-1 units per gross acre and res 9 residential 9-0 units per gross acre to il industrial light on approximately 33 acres of real property located to the south of coit road west of bower road east of the csx railroad and north of cummer road and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for repealer severability and an effective date this comes to you with this this went to the local planning agency on february 3rd 22 who found it consistent with the pasco county comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board of county commissioners great um madam chairman we have no one signed up at this time either online or in person right and um does i don't know if the applicant needs to speak but this is a staff initiative comprehensive plan amendment all right so let's just go call for the roll call just ask the audience he said nobody but he said no one signed up you got to ask you got to ask does anyone want to speak to this one move approval sorry i was working on the sun there's a toll thing with secretary gwen okay okay all in favor by roll call vote district one commissioner oakley aye district two commissioner moore aye district four commissioner fitzpatrick aye district five commissioner mariana aye district three chairman starkey aye p50 madam chairman members of the board we have proof of publication of the hearing of this matter at this time in the tampa bay times issue edition of january 19 2022. on this item this is the adoption on this item pd220232 we're asking that you adopt this item by roll call vote an ordinance by the pasco county board of county commissioners establishing a temporary moratorium 180 days on the establishment or opening of any new or used car truck or van sales businesses within the unincorporated area of pasco county providing for authority legislative fighting's effect moratorium area temporary moratorium imposed duration of temporary moratorium and severability

this went to the local planning agency on february 3rd 22 who found it consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board and it was it came to the board for first reading on february 22nd 2022 i do want to mention that we have had uh with staff several meetings with stakeholders and we do have the big stakeholder kickoff meeting on april 13th of 2022 to work together and write an ordinance on this matter and i would add that was it yesterday yesterday at nine in the morning we had another meeting with our stakeholders um we had larry morgan david moss scott fink and uh the gentleman from firming um was there anyone else on that call i think there was someone but kind of was just like listening in yeah i think it was might have been with morgan um and um elizabeth and denise and we uh answered all their questions and they understand now and i think some of them understood but some of them didn't so they understand where we are and where we're going and they're looking forward to helping us and that they're actually helping us find a few more stakeholders to to join us on april 13th so okay this is uh does anyone want to speak to this item we have no one signed up all right um anyone here move approval second discussion discussion um i'm glad you had the meeting with both folks two other three i talked with and they weren't comfortable okay yeah so it's a roll call vote commissioner one uh i'm district one commissioner oakley i agree aye district two commissioner moore aye district four commissioner fitzpatrick aye district five commissioner mariano district three chairman stark okay we are now at the public hearings um so we are at chairman would you like to read the procedure i would there are two resounding agendas regular consent staff will present each application to the board of county commissioners if staff will plan the commission has recommended approval and there's no opposition the application will be considered by the board without further presentation the staff or planning commission has recommended denial or if there is opposition to the application the applicant would be given five minutes for presentation the opposition will be given three minutes for each individual or five minutes for a group representative and the applicant will be given three minutes for rebuttal any individual disagreeing with staff for planning commission recommendation or anyone wishing to object to any condition of the reasoning may at this time request the petition to be pulled from the consent agenda in which case that application will be

this is a request to continue this item to a date uncertain motions to continue it will have to be re-advertised but it we have traditionally handled them as a continuance to a date uncertain so that the application is not withdrawn thank you okay okay did we have a motion yep that motion in a second okay all in favor aye p54 we have publication of this matter at this time uh in the january 19th 2022 edition of the tampa bay times pd 227594 this is a zoning amendment eddie l and elizabeth a hill and lennon inc 54 in morris bridge road it's for a change in zoning from ar agricultural residential district to a c2 general commercial district the item comes to you with a recommendation of approval from the planning and development department and the planning commission okay um does the applicant want to speak to us about this this is a consent item yeah oh it does say consent okay how many more sorry they're not highlighted here okay let's go on if does anyone want to speak to this item if not we'll keep it on consent is there anyone online who wishes to speak to the site we don't have anyone online that has previously signed up and only the representative is signed up um at this time okay let's move on to the next consent item p55 we have proof of publication in the february 2nd 2020 22 edition of the tampa bay times this is pdd220053 this is the adoption i'm sorry not the adoption the uh transmittal hearing for this item so we're asking that you authorized transmittal to the deo and other reviewing agencies it's a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment cal 2115 gateway hub large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use element appendix to the gateway hub future land use classification and the future land use maps 2-9 and sub-area map 2-9 gateway hub sub category sub area map 2-9 gateway hub subcategories this went to the local planning agency on 217 of 22 who found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board and it's set scheduled for adoption on may 3rd of 2022 at 1 30 in date city this is the transmittal is there anyone here wishes to speak to this item the only person signed up i believe is the only representative of the owner okay anyone online then nope all right we'll keep it on consent and that is the end of the consent agenda move approved concern second all in favor aye aye post all right p56 uh we have proof of publication of this matter in the tampa bay times february 6 2022. good afternoon joanne ravita real property and planning the real property team has received a petition to vacate a

portion of a platted right-of-way filed by locus branch llc the petitioner has requested the vacation to allow for an additional building lot in phase two of the development there were no objections to this petition and the team recommends approval um this is in commission district 2. we have no one signed up for this matter at this time anybody wish to speak to this item that's in the audience you know move approval second all in favor aye aye aye rolling along p57 we have proof the publication of this matter in the tampa bay times february 2nd of 2022 good afternoon commissioners is the caller of public works uh this is a pves project number um three four five nine thank you um ten percent court there's one street in this project uh the estimated project cost is five fifty fifty three thousand two hundred and seventy two dollars maximum cost per eru is four thousand four hundred and thirty nine dollars and thirty four cents and the discounted amount is ten thousand sixty eight dollars and zero eight cents maximum cost per eru after the discount is 3579.50 uh there were 13 possible votes um seven responded which is 54 and all seven were in favor of the project um the amortization of a 10-year period at 3.25 percent interest rate next is a location map and uh next is an example of all the roads like staff is recommending approved okay is there anyone here who wishes to speak about this pves anyone online which is to speak about the pbs not aware of anyone online wow will cruel second all in favor aye aye good job p58 originally uh this matter was set or we have publication for the november 9th meeting that was continued to january 11th which was continued to today all right um who's who's going to speak to us about p58 madam sherman this was one that you were that you had conducted a full and complete public hearing toward closed public hearing and within deliberations when because of some issues you decided to continue it and give the applicant and staff the team members a opportunity to discuss the matter my understanding is that there were revisions to the stipulations which i'm assuming somebody from planning is going to go over yeah that's what i was waiting for good afternoon tammy snyder planning and

development department here we have placzewski and pd pdd227564 here is your location map we have tyndall road directly butting it to the north and proposed is a rezoning request from an ar agricultural residential zoning district and an ar-5 agricultural zoning district agricultural residential is only district to an mpud to allow the potential development of a maximum of 200 single-family detached and attached dwelling units and associated infrastructure on approximately 40 acres and here is their master plan and here is the um future land use we have ras three and res one to the west and um the site itself is village mixed juice type 2b and here we have various village concept plans um the original vo ph is up there and you can see kind of the circular format evans f1 came in and pretty much kept the same format boger ranch came in pretty much kept the same format and then when placeowski came in the vision road the north south vision road had been adjusted and so they shifted around some of the entitlements to fall in line with the roadway presently the subject site contains a residence in some outbuildings and pasture land and the project lies within village f of the villages of pasadena hills and due to recent bcc directives concerning all future amputees conditions were added to address a mix of lot sizes front yard trees architectural details and the maximum number of and maximum building size and placement of the attached products the phppc heard the item at the september 29th 2021 public hearing and voted to recommend approval with the inclusion of a condition requiring the removal of the proposed emergency only access to peach tree lane once a secondary access is constructed the applicant also added a new condition after the hearing to address the enforcement of potential on-street parking and obstruction of roadways and the bcc heard the item at the january 11 2022 public hearing and voted to continue it to the march 8 2022 hearing as there were outstanding questions regarding the north south vision roadway which lies off site to the east of and inviting the subject property among a few other details to be worked out and this is just depicting again the vision road alignment the big picture there is the plaza ski and beauty you can see that the north south vision road has shifted the south part of it has shifted to the east and then after additional conversations regarding the location of the vision road the applicant offered to set aside 35 feet of right-of-way along much of the eastern boundary of their site in the event it may be utilized for one half of the required right-of-way in the

future should the 35 feet of preserve right away on the plazawski property be utilized as such and shift the alignment of the elam road extension to the west it may potentially cause intersection issues at tyndall road to the north although the pdd does not object to the additional 35 feet provided the long-term recommendation is to keep the alignment as shown in the comprehensive planned vision roadmap and the proposed request is consistent with the pasco county ldc and the applicable provisions of the pasco county comprehensive plan and with that the pdd recommends approval with conditions okay um board representing questions madam chair i just have one question i guess prior to the applicant coming up your last slide um one more where it stated the pdd planning and development department okay there you go thank you although the plenty of development department does does not object to the additional 35 being provided a long-term recommendation is to keep the alignment shown in the comprehensive plan vision road map i'm just curious you know how did the plan yeah here it comes came up with that i know one of the things that you know i listened to and i worked with with the applicant on this as well um to come to some sort of compromise to so the burden wouldn't be entirely on either property owner i thought that was sufficient and the applicant agreed as well but you're making a different recommendation i find that odd good afternoon uh charles pito's planning development department the statement is that we don't object to the 35 feet if the road needs to move over it can move over it has the ability to move over but there's a plan and the comprehensive plan is asking for the alignment for elam road to be as shown and so if we can avoid moving the road over it's not necessary to move it over we could maintain the alignment our primary concern is the intersection alignment specifically so at the point where the the road comes the intersection there may be the opportunity to keep that alignment according to the comprehensive plan and shift the rest of the road further south as as may be needed but also the other thing to keep in mind is that the neighboring properties that in the event that they become mpuds at some point in the future with their own developments may desire to take hilum road another way well my assumption is i could be wrong that if the

property owner to the that'd be the east right i'm looking here they'd be to the east side if they do if they do develop it and they and they um request that all the that right away be or the road alignment i should say be on that property i'm sure their current advocate would be more than fine with that because they're right they're not they're that's they're gaining they're gaining that property back so that's why we don't object we felt that them providing the additional buffer enables a lot more flexibility for both properties to coexist with the road okay i i'm just curious why that statement was made in there i don't see the need for it but you made it okay man i'm sure yeah i've met with the applicant as well as the residents as well but in the conversation we had um it was a i think a good recommendation to say if the next guy is coming in which i don't expect to have them as you say put them right away over there but the next white guy come in he may say you know we want to keep it straight because we think it's going to be safe for the road is the one thing they can do right they have the ability to do it right yeah so for that reason i was i'm comfortable the language that i see there because i've been looking at that issue i do have one thing for the applicant i'd like to ask them a question when i look at the roadway with the right-of-way that's there and if we put this condition in somewhere there's going to be a trail on one side of sidewalk on the other side correct i believe that is the cross section the vopa i'm sorry joel 2 to an associates for the applicant i believe you're right commissioner in voph every uh every specific roadway has a specific cross-section that's required uh to be constructed uh including alternative vehicle network and trails okay it's gonna it could be a long time before the people to the east come forward yeah the people that own the property now say they're not interested when the errors come into play somewhere down the road they may come in and that's when other things will get looked at so and if you could give me the answer and i don't expect you to give me answers you'll probably talk with your team but you know one of the concerns we have with the small lots of 40-foot lots of 50-foot lots the kids have nowhere to play nothing it's it's tough if we're going to look at high density on the outside part of this whole thing one of the things that i think would be good is on that right away part if we shift over there and we go we put

in we say look we're going to go put a the golf cart path on that side somewhere in there and we fit that in there and we tie that into the neighborhood so until the other developers come in now you get a sidewalk and connect for everybody in there to go back and forth all of their property until it changes is that something that could be looked at and thought about now and if we don't think we do it now if that's something we can look at with staff later on yeah i think that's something that would have to be looked at down the road for the very reasons you've discussed right now when our properties develop no one really knows exactly where elam road will be constructed will will they take advantage of our 35 feet will they not uh will the intersection align exactly and then veer so i think the problem is you don't know what to construct until the party actually builds the roadway cross section the other the other comment i have is we're we're accommodating that because we're providing the full 35 feet no matter what and even if the county never requests the right-of-way because the road isn't moved we're still obligated on these conditions to permanently maintain that 35 feet as permanent open space maintained by our hoa you know we'll be providing our own internal connections up to 10 and that's where our residents will get on the um the av network and the trail system so i don't know if you're are you asking that we actually pre-build part of that i'm not sure understand exactly what you're asking and then again i just this this idea just come up right before the beginning so otherwise i would have brought it up when we talked about no problem um but but again to think depending how this goes if it does come out i'll say that if the other party yeah the parties alongside the keep the roadway just the way it is we don't need the right-of-way at that point if this had a trail going alongside it internal to the development we would be happy to it would be a benefit to everybody from the get-go and now and if it in case it takes a long time for it to develop it's something you're going to want to have in there anyway just your people could use it at start correct it could be built in there and then if it does change over another simple shift over where now it's gonna be part of the public right away i don't know how we could write that in so quickly well i think since we we are obligated to reserve this 35 foot right away the county at any point could request that to be donated for trail roadway sidewalk anything the county wanted so we are already obligated to provide that for any county purpose so my thought would be depending on how that plays out beside us

if the count even if the road didn't shift onto us if the county still wanted to use our 35 feet for the trail system certainly the county has the right to request that right away and the blazewskis or their developer have to donate it so we we are making land available for however however this plays out and frankly whatever whatever purpose the county wants to put that right away to right and but like i say if the road for the other situation where let's say it stays the way it was previously done where it's all on the other side this would be an amenity for your people inside and i'm comfortable to set that up and set that in and i'd feel better about the density knowing that everybody inside that area will not have a trail golf cart that they can actually ride the bikes safely and go around but we have no problem adding to that condition that where it says we have to reserve the right-of-way that the county is free to use that right away for roadway trail sidewalk whatever purpose the county deems appropriate but in other words it wouldn't have to be used for roadway right now like i said for the start until the other things develop on the other side what i'd like to do is to improve the development inside if it never comes out at least the people in there will have a trail to use and i don't want it to be in the county's burden to go build it maintain it or whatever until we know it's going to be ours if it ever becomes ours then we take it over so you want us to do you want us to build a trail when there may not even be a roadway constructed there next to us is that what you're asking correct and the reason for it and that well here's why just in just again i don't know if it can be done i don't know if it's even acceptable i just have the discussion because if if the roadway stays out to the side then then this is just going to benefit everybody inside there anyway if the roadway ever does get advantaged of using that right away then we'll have the right they will have these feet in there as well i don't want us to take it over now if that road if the trail gets built because i don't want the liability for it and i want it just to be for you guys anyway so go ahead you can help it out a lot of words it is it is well well we are we do have to construct our own neighborhood park for the kids i mean that's part of our requirement we are constructing that adjacent to the roll-on clay buffer so we will be providing our own recreational amenity areas and we'll we will be providing our own internal connections back up to tyndall road i mean do you have you talked to the

client about whether they want to build a trail i have one might be able to behind the houses okay good afternoon uh pat gas wave with height design representing the applicant um i'm gonna attempt to use a magic wand here that almost never works oh i believe what you might be looking for uh in this cross section is the sidewalk that is is all right i'm getting your new batteries along that strip from this sidewalk that will be internal to the subdivision to be able to go within that 35 foot buffer that may become right away so i i think that's what but but not just sidewalk trail so a little bit wider understood okay uh that would be a little odd in that cross section would be because it's got already you know the the vehicular uh the cart lanes in in the road bed so what what the applicant would be willing to do is build the future sidewalk to connect this sidewalk to the sidewalk that is along the south side of tyndall in order to provide that loop and um there won't there wouldn't be a large multi-purpose trail in that 70-foot cross-section so pre-building the five-foot sidewalk for the county in in the in the location where a future shifted road right away would be uh what would be acceptable to the applicant okay okay well i'm gonna ask a question man um why not [Laughter] if you put so in that 35 feet of dedication so if you could put that map back up if what i'm looking at on this oops oh take that button away from him she did it too it wasn't his fault so in looking at that map um it looked like there was a sidewalk on the east side is that what that kind of darker gray line is going down behind the houses and then it doesn't show it but behind those houses is a 20-foot required buffer right and then the 35-foot future right-of-way which will initially be maintained by the hoa if the road isn't shifted so the

um so in behind the lot there will be a required buffer and and then that in that 35 feet is where we would be suggesting that uh that left-hand sidewalk be constructed to be able to connect that that loop around there why um so we're looking at your the typical roadway section of the oph and i guess we're we're gonna ask why is there no trail why is there only a five foot sidewalk which is you know a person on a bike and a person walking two people on a bike can't we'll crash into each other on a five foot side i think that goes back to the original voph plan which is what the community plan i mean to not be able to use a bike or a golf cart anymore actually the golf cart lanes are in the road so if you would put put that typical section back up so if you'll see that the two vehicular lanes are in the center right on either side of the center line of the road and on the outsides of the vehicular lane are the six foot uh golf cart lanes and and then the curbs then you've got 10 foot tree planting zones outside that and then five foot sidewalks outside that and what's the speed of those roads um 35 or less so we those are anticipated to be golf cart friendly vehicular and alternative vehicle roadways that's why the the sidewalks flank on both sides i feel bad for the community they're not getting a trail those are the adopted sections not only in vo ph but also in connected city um commissioner oakley i'd like to say one thing too um after we continued the other day because you never know how the plan looks until you put it on the ground and see where it matches up so the plan worked for this project ended up next to no wood acres and i think it affected two lots if i'm not mistaken correct they set back 50 feet and then put the park in that area they redesigned their development to put the park where it's right behind those no wood acre properties so well yeah that's a good buffering they put in there where they touch those homes that been there a long time thank you i'm just didn't realize they're not getting any trails they're just getting sidewalks but can you go back can you go back to the placzewski um i'm just trying to understand your layout and i i see the difference can you please go back to the she's working on it yeah can you zoom in or is that as close as you can get so okay so i see this i see now where you have this shaded area that's the new dedica new donation is that right um next to the elam road right so there's and in the blow up you can see you've got

lots and then you've got the required buffer and then you've got the 35 feet and then you've got the 70 feet of right of way per the roadway that's adopted in the ordinance okay so going past that pond as you work down that darker line is not a sidewalk for the project a trail or whatever internal trail so uh in in because i see a line you guys see it getting the heavy the heavy line is actually the property in the corner what is that right there that's what i want to know if you look at the pond at the bottom right corner it's blue for the pond then it's green then it's dark then it's green and then it's brown so i'm asking is that straight line going down a trail or sidewalk or anything or is that your you don't see it that's the piece of the property that the applicants so i think the green that's uh east of the blue oh yeah it's kind of green gray kind of yeah it's a buffer oh it's a right okay so it's not a anything that's constructed okay so jack i don't know how they would build a trailer or sidewalk or anything coming down there when it would stop down there by that pond because they don't own the property where where the road would continue on so the trail would only go we're suggesting that it go from here where we will have a sidewalk to connect to i can't tell where you're pointing oh that's we need a better system i know we do um in fact i i could see you can't see it yeah i'm talking it would be the southern end of the sidewalk moving and traveling northward to to tyndall if i could help mr stuckey so if you take the on the top part with tyndall as you come down you get the pond then you get that brown dark brown loop and there's a roadway going across there yeah they're talking about bring it right across there oh just to the first road yes now if i could okay yeah if and if i could i think that's good yeah i do and if i just had to accept that i do go along with it but if there's any way to even take it down to that next one down and bring it around it makes it just a little bit longer but one section is good two would be great i don't think that would help anything the first section is what the applicant is yeah and i agree with that considerable because it might be good for the development anyway madam chair yeah are you are you going to present are you going to talk about joel are you going to talk about the buffers or anything like that okay well listen i'm just going to speak up for a second because there were certain concerns i

heard from the residents last time i was here and when i i know when i met with the applicant i'm sure the applicant met with everybody i don't know but um i met with the applicant this is what they brought forward and said we listen to you we know these are the these are the issues a lot of the sentences were talking about so there was that buffer and there was not gonna allow it outlet it was only gonna be emergency exit i said that was a nice my opinion good compromise um we're not always gonna each side's not gonna get everything they always want typically nice compromise i'm good now yeah i'm good too yeah thank you yeah okay okay so um do we want a motion a public comment well or you maybe are you gonna are you gonna reopen public comment you haven't already before you were you closed public comment right and directed staff to work on these issues which they have brought back you have the ability to open public comment if you wish to but we did what you you did a full and complete public comment i didn't madam chair i'm not sure commissioner and i'm happy with the conversation i had the suggestions about the right-of-way that little extra thing right in there for that piece um so it's it's come a lot better than it was talking to staff as well they're going to need density and density is going to come in this area i mean the grant that it's out further than it was anticipated further not i could see it at this point but it's got to go to make the whole thing fun all the way through and we just made an adjustment earlier to to agenda items before it where they had to do some changes to the accountants to make sure everything's going to fall in line so density is coming it's going to come in these corridors this is changing a little bit but we may see some other changes in some other ones too um under just let me ask you one more question um i don't know who was i don't know if it's a joel or to you one of the other issues was changing the matrix a little bit to and maybe we fixed that earlier to make sure that the costs of the roads are shared um in a more equitable way that was one of the conditions the concerns i had i think we took care of that right joel two again for the applicant and neither either david goldstein or i can notice that but just to confirm what i said at the prior public hearing we are processing for the voph stakeholders we are processing a financial plan update for you that would make all of these intermediate roadways which is what elam wrote is impact the creditable by adding that cost to the overall budget that's spread by everyone and what that does is that

removes the inordinate burden for example this property to the east should it be developed and need to build the road then that road would become creditable whereas now it's not but that is that is in review with staff we've gotten the document in and it's under review so that that is going to happen this year subject to your approval of course that will have to come i think we would approve that hopefully thank you so i just wanted everyone to remember that and the public to understand that yes move for approval madam chairman what one procedural matter before you so i've heard several commissioners say they met with the applicant and the residents since the last public hearing there's no ex parte forms in the record except for commissioner oakley yeah we have one so and if i can just for purposes of record i if i can just get each commissioner to indicate who they met with residence developer um [Music] for part of the purposes of the record uh and for export communication i'm pretty sure i went with the mind my meeting on the it was online so well the applicant was the applicable state for the record we had an individual meeting with each as requested at the last public hearing our meetings were all entirely with the full staff we met with mr pitos mr goldstein and ms snyder so hours were joint meetings with the staff and each individual commissioner we had zero individual meetings and zero contact other than the staff meetings that's from the applicant's standpoint but that was with all five yeah goldstein mr goldstein was in mine and i'm not sure who else was it was probably a lot of people i think joel's if you all agree with what joel just said i think that covers the disclosures for the applicant yeah but i think the commissioner mariano mentioned he also had meetings with the residents too so those if there's any meetings with residents those forms are don't we don't have those you would have to verbally disclose those now i i didn't meet with any residents i think i met with the resident months ago yeah before the last one that's fine yeah they're in there so so i had the staff meeting which we don't have to have a paper on that then i met with two friends of the applicant kind of an informal meeting but we did talk about it and i met with the applicant and staff

and i'm reminding my staff to make sure all exporters get turned in thank you yes and you make your seat where are we so yeah we not taking public comment did you have so we're under discussion just one just just for discussion as staff writes up the condition for that sidewalk to go alongside it i i i don't care if they make it private to themselves until that roadway opens up so it can just be internal until later on so i can't but we're not thinking i'm chairman so with commissioner mariano so you want the condition amended because we haven't you got a motion in a second on the floor we haven't really talked about oh adding the sidewalk amending the condition who made the motion i made the motion um can you amend your motion to include the sidewalk it's absent they agreed to it down to the first nope sorry you're good with it yeah where it talks about the buffer and the open space that there's there'll be a sidewalk from yes right i think in that 35 foot right away reservation area we we would agree to construct a sidewalk from tyndall road down to our first uh subdivision road connection if that's acceptable madam i would suggest that in 21 that would that'd be fine that's the right-of-way reservation section yes sir can we do that years under discussion or do you need it before the motion we're amending the motion i have a quick question what's the parliamentary do you have a question on the motion or do you have a question on the amendment to the money it should be under discussion okay so you have amended your motion to include the sidewalk and you have seconded okay under discussion okay the comment would be if that's supposed to be a buffer and are we building this sidewalk before or at the same time as the road and i thought the purpose of the buffer was to buffer the land between the landowner to the right east and have it buffered to the west so i think there's a buffer and then there'll be a sidewalk down to the first road and because we don't know when the road is going to get built now there's no buffer no there's a buffer and a sidewalk there is a but they're coming to the east of the sidewalk so if they're coming east of the buffer well we'll have applicants i'll try to answer that and pat will correct me but we have starting at at the back of our lots

we first have that required 20-foot buffer that the land development code requires anyway then we have this additional 35-foot right-of-way reservation my understanding is we would build this sidewalk close to the eastern edge of that 35 foot area i assume so i stand correct we would put the sidewalk outside of our 20-foot buffer but on the western edge of that 35 foot right away in case the road does get shifted over you don't destroy the sidewall yeah if the road doesn't get built then there's just a sidewalk and then we still will have to maintain that area between the sidewalk and the 35 feet i think that's very generous thank you very much thank you any more discussion all in favor opposed you can't we took papal comment last time so we don't have public comment this time sorry we closed public comment at the last that's what my my attorney said we closed public on it okay um i think we're done what was that all right um we're done okay so i wanted to let you know that i was in touch with secretary gwen i'll read you the message that i received from secretary gwen let's see it was a voice message so let me read it to you um he um he said hi it's david gwynne i got your text i talked to nikola over the turnpike and this is reading of voice messes so i don't know if that name is right and she promised me that you will have an agreement to review within the next day she um guests got the final draft of it up and they're ready to send it over to you so hopefully your folks will get it today or at the latest tomorrow so um we should be good to go good all right good there you go good anything else from car ball oh mike you're good back there have we uh is ralph here ralph any good news for us yet really i think that the letter's ready for you to sign the what the letter okay i'll sign it it's ready for you to sign okay what oh all right we're adjourned okay [Music] you