CAPTIONING NOVEMBER 13, 2008 BOCC PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 09-03 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - 2nd CYCLE 2008 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS - ROUND 2 2008 ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>KEN HAGAN: WELL, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. TONIGHT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL BE HOLDING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE FIRST TWO OF THE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS WE'LL CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PLAN AMENDMENTS TO FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. FIRST THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT AND THEN CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT PART OF THE SECOND CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2008. AFTER HEARING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, THE BOARD THEN WILL CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PRIOR TO GIVING IT TO MR. STEVE GRIFFIN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESENT THE BOARD AN OVERVIEW, I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD BY COMMISSIONER BRIAN BLAIR, I REGRET THAT I WILL NEED TO ARRIVE AT THE HEARING THIS EVENING LATE DUE TO ATTENDANCE AT A FUNERAL. I EXPECT TO ARRIVE BY 7:00 P.M. PLEASE READ THE REASON FOR MY ABSENCE INTO THE RECORD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER. WITH THAT, I'LL PASS THESE OVER MR. GRIFFIN FOR A BRIEF INTRODUCTION. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, THE OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATION, AND COMMENTS REPORT ISSUED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ON THE SECOND CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2008. THE BOARD WILL DECIDE TO EITHER AMEND OR NOT AMEND THE PLAN FOR EACH ITEM. THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TRANSMIT THE SECOND CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS TO DCA WAS HELD ON JULY 24th, 2008. FIRST, THE BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT. THE BOARD WILL THEN TAKE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, AFTER WHICH THE BOARD WILL TAKE THE VOTE TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL ADOPT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, AND THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CLOSED. THE BOARD WILL THEN OPEN A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE SECOND CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR 2008. THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF WILL REVIEW THE COMMENTS FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ON THOSE PLAN AMENDMENTS. DCA DID RAISE AN OBJECTION TO ONE OF THE THREE PLAN AMENDMENTS ON THE SECOND CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND THAT OBJECTION WAS RAISED ON THE RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. STAFF WILL DISCUSS THOSE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY DCA ON THAT ITEM, AFTER WHICH EACH AMENDMENT WILL BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED FOR THE COMMISSIONERS. THE APPLICANTS MAY MAKE A PRESENTATION IF THEY WISH AND IF IT'S DESIRED OF THE BOARD. THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO EACH ONE OF THOSE ITEMS. AFTER HEARING THE AMENDMENT, THE BOARD WILL TAKE A VOTE TO ADOPT OR NOT TO ADOPT THAT SPECIFIC AMENDMENT. AFTER COMPLETION OF THAT ACTION, THE BOARD WILL TAKE A FINAL VOTE TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT WILL ADOPT THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE VOTED ON EARLIER. ITEMS A-1, A-2, AND A-3 PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THOSE ARE CHANGES THAT MUST BE APPROVED BY AT LEAST FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE STATE STATUTE PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERESTED CITIZENS TO RECEIVE COURTESY INFORMATION STATEMENTS REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS' NOTICE OF INTENT. THE NOTICE OF INTENT IS THE FINAL ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AFTER THESE AMENDMENTS PROCEED COMPLETELY THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION STATEMENT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS SHOULD PROVIDE THEIR NAME, ADDRESS ON THE SIGN-IN SHEET LOCATED WITH THE RECORDING SECRETARY. WITH THAT, I WILL GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMMENTS FROM DCA ON THEIR OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS REPORT. IN YOUR BACKUP ON THE GOLDENROD PAPER, COMMISSIONERS, THAT IS THE COPY OF THE ORC REPORT RECEIVED FROM DCA. THEY DID REVIEW THESE THREE AMENDMENTS AND ONLY RAISED ONE OBJECTION, AND THAT IS WITH AMENDMENT DEALING WITH THE RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. DCA FOUND THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF DATA AND ANALYSIS TO DEMONSTRATE THE MITIGATION OF ANY TRAFFIC IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THIS PLAN AMENDMENT. ON OCTOBER THE 9th, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, ALONG WITH THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, HELD A CONFERENCE CALL WITH DCA TO REVIEW THAT OBJECTION. IN YOUR BLUE BACKUP, THE BLUE SHEETS ARE THOSE RESPONSES THAT WE GAVE TO DCA. WE GAVE DCA INFORMATION SHOWING AND DOCUMENTING THAT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAD COORDINATED WITH THE COUNTY STAFF IN REVIEW OF THE RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE ADEQUATE CAPACITY AND ADEQUATE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. DCA DID DO A FORMAL REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE TRANSMITTED TO THEM AND WERE SATISFIED THAT THAT INFORMATION WOULD REMOVE THEIR OBJECTION FROM THAT PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST. AND THEREFORE, WE'LL BE PROCESSING THIS AMENDMENT AND SENDING IT UP TO DCA BASED UPON THE BOARD'S ACTION. AND THAT WAS OUR RESPONSE TO DCA'S OBJECTION TO THE RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. I CAN MOVE ON TO THE FIRST PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD BE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AMENDMENT. MR. WILL AUGUSTINE WILL GO THROUGH THAT WITH YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD EVENING, MR. AUGUSTINE. >>WILL AUGUSTINE: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M WILL AUGUSTINE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU IS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S CAPITAL -- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 09-03, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT ANNUAL UPDATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 TO 2013. ALSO WITH US THIS EVENING FROM THE COUNTY STAFF, WHO'S ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, IS MR. BILL McCALL FROM THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTED THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON SEPTEMBER 18th OF 2008. THIS LIST DIFFERS FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BY INCLUDING ONLY THOSE PROJECTS DESIGNATED AS HAVING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE CIP, THOSE RELATING TO THE LEVELS OF SERVICE. THIS ANNUAL UPDATE OF THE SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS IS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND ARE INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT THE CAPITAL PROGRAM OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ALSO INCLUDED AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ARE THE ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2008 HARTLINE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECTS, THE ADOPTED FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WORK PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009, AND PROJECTS PROPOSED TO BE COMPLETED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPERS. THESE PROJECTS ARE ALL RELATED TO MEETING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STATED IN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE STATE STATUTE DEFINES FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AS ACHIEVING AND MAINTAINING ADOPTED LEVELS OF SERVICE THROUGH THE SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS. IT'S STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN MEETING THE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS PLANNED IN THE ADOPTED CIP, IT APPEARS THAT THERE WILL BE CONTINUING INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING ISSUES INVOLVING ITS ABILITY TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN THE ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE. THIS STATUTE ALSO INCLUDES ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE AFTER DECEMBER 1st OF THIS YEAR. THE ATTACHED REPORT FROM THE COUNTY CONTAINS EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND DATA AND ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THIS PLAN AMENDMENT. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD DELETE THE CURRENT SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS WITHIN THE CIE AND REPLACE IT WITH A SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS TABLES 5, 6, 13, 17, 21, 23, AND 26. THE REPORT ADDITIONALLY PROPOSES THE ADOPTION OF NEW CIE OBJECTIVE 3 AND FOUR NEW CIE POLICIES, POLICIES 3.A, 3.B, 3.C, AND 3.D, ALL TO ADDRESS THE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE DEFICIENCIES. OBJECTIVE 3. IT SETS THE OVERALL COURSE OF ACTION THAT THE COUNTY WILL PROVIDE NEEDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING SOLUTIONS THROUGH ITS LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES BY THE YEAR 2011. POLICY 3.A ESTABLISHES THE COUNTY'S SUPPORT OF THE TAMPA BAY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN AN EFFORT TO ELIMINATE TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES. POLICIES 3.B IDENTIFIES THE COUNTY THROUGH ITS TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE WILL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS TO FUND, DEVELOP, AND IMPLEMENT MULTIPLE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION BY 2011. POLICY 3.C STATES THAT THE COUNTY WILL BY 2011 IMPLEMENT THE MPO'S LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTO ITS LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES. THE LRTP IS TO SERVE AS A GUIDE FOR INTERJURISDICTIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING. AND POLICY 3.D STATES THAT THE COUNTY WILL CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY AND PRESERVE TRANSIT RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND WILL COORDINATE AND IMPLEMENT ACTIVITY CENTERS AS SHOWN IN THE ACCOMPANYING -- IN THE THREE ACCOMPANYING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAPS. FINALLY, THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ADMINISTRATION IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND CAPITAL -- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 09-03 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CIE ANNUAL UPDATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 TO 2013 CONSISTENT WITH ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDED ITS ADOPTION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. AUGUSTINE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COUNTY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PLAN AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. AND OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, SECOND CYCLE 2008. MR. GRIFFIN. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE SECOND CYCLE OF 2008 IS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 08-16. THIS IS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT RACE TRACK ROAD AND LINEBAUGH AVENUE, AND IT'S A PROPOSED CHANGE OF APPROXIMATELY 27.78 ACRES FROM THE CURRENT DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THIS PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND DCA DID NOT REGISTER ANY OBJECTION FOR THIS PLAN AMENDMENT. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT WITH US TODAY? GOOD EVENING, MR. SCHIFF. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. GORDON SCHIFF, 1211 NORTH WESTSHORE BOULEVARD, SUITE 401 FOR THE APPLICANT. WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: THE NEXT PLAN AMENDMENT, COMMISSIONERS, IS PLAN AMENDMENT 08-17. THIS IS ALSO A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD 579 AND PRUETT ROAD. THIS IS A PROPOSED MAP CHANGE OF APPROXIMATELY 38.29 ACRES FROM THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL-1 AND RESIDENTIAL-4 TO THE NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION PROPOSED OF RESIDENTIAL-2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THIS PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST INCONSISTENT. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT WITH US? YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AMY DRYER. THE ADDRESS IS 906 U.S. HIGHWAY 41, RUSKIN 33570. LET'S SEE HERE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRIOR VOTE FOR APPROVAL FOR THIS AMENDMENT AND ASK THAT YOU ADOPT THIS VERY REASONABLE AMENDMENT. MR. HORNER IS AT A CITY HEARING TONIGHT, HOWEVER, AND COULD NOT BE HERE, SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU ADOPT IT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COME ON DOWN, SIR. >>JIM NORMAN: YEAH, WE REMEMBER YOU. [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD EVENING. >> TO THE CHAIRMAN AND TO THIS PRESIDIUM. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY IN -- FOR YOU TO GIVE US YOUR VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN WHAT IS OCCURRING. WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HISTORICITY OF THE PAST, BUT WE WANT TO DEAL WITH OUR PRESENT, AND AS WE LOOK AT OUR PRESENT, WE CANNOT HAVE A FUTURE UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT OUR PRESENT. AS YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THAT WE COME IN TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT DEVELOPMENT IS TAKING PROGRESS, WE REALIZE THAT WE HAVE SOME UNREADINESS WITH SOME PEOPLE, AND ANYTIME THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SUCCESS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME UNREADINESS. AND NOTHING CAN BE MADE EXCELLENT WITHOUT CHANGE, SO, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY, THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR CHANGE. I ASK THIS BOARD TO PLEASE LOOK AT THIS CAREFULLY CONCERNING OUR HISTORY, OUR PRESENT, AND IF WE DO NOTHING ABOUT OUR PRESENT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A VERY EMPTY FUTURE. WE HAD A BANK ONE TIME. BEFORE THE BANK AT 579 AND MARTIN LUTHER KING WE HAD A BANK AT I BELIEVE MAIN STREET AND 579. THAT BANK HAD TO GO OUT SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH DEPOSITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT'S BECAUSE WE DIDN'T LOOK LIKE A PROGRESSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I SAY TO YOU WE DON'T WANT THINGS TO BE AVERAGE BECAUSE TO BE AVERAGE IS LIVING IN A DANGER ZONE BECAUSE IF YOU REMAIN AVERAGE, YOU CAN ONLY DIGRESS AND NOT PROGRESS, SO WE WANT TO BE ABOVE AVERAGE. WE WANT TO EXCEED, ACCELERATE, AND BECOME A COMMUNITY THAT THE AESTHETICS REALLY DISPLAY THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY, WHO AND WHAT WE ARE, SO I'M ASKING YOU AS BEING ONE OF THE LARGEST LANDOWNERS IN THAT SITE THAT YOU WILL RECOMMEND THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. >> SIR, MAY I HAVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> FOR THE RECORD, REVEREND J.H. SMALLEY AT 6450 COUNTY ROAD 579. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CAM OBERTING, AND I LIVE AT 11318 EAST SLIGH AVENUE, WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 579. I'VE LIVED HERE FOR OVER 40 YEARS, AND I REPRESENT THE TAYLOR ROAD CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND NUMEROUS MEMBERS THAT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS PROPOSAL. I WAS A MEMBER OF THE THONOTOSASSA LAND USE PLAN. I ATTENDED EVERY MONTHLY MEETING FOR OVER THREE YEARS. IT WAS A MAJORITY VOTE THAT APPROVED THAT ONE UNIT PER ACRE. THAT WAS THE PLAN FOR THONOTOSASSA TO KEEP THONOTOSASSA RURAL. THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE THONOTOSASSA LAND USE PLAN. IF THIS PLAN IS APPROVED, WHAT AN INJUSTICE, A WASTE AND ABUSE TO CITIZENS THAT VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME TO KEEP THONOTOSASSA AGRICULTURAL, RURAL, AND COUNTRY. THIS COUNTY IS RAPIDLY BECOMING AN ASPHALT AND CONCRETE JUNGLE. AS FOR THE TRAFFIC, I TRAVEL ON COUNTY ROAD 579. I LIVE THERE, FOLKS. AND THE TRAFFIC IS NOW ALREADY TREMENDOUS. IT'S A DISASTER. TRAFFIC -- YOUR OWN TRAFFIC ENGINEER HAS STATED THAT COUNTY ROAD 579 IS NOW OVERCAPACITY WITH NO PLANS TO WIDEN 579 IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. I DO NOT LIE, I DO NOT MAKE UP STORIES. I HAVE, HOWEVER, HEARD SOME UNTRUTH BEING TOLD. ONE SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT WE PREACH. COMMISSIONER BLAIR -- AND I SEE HE'S NOT HERE -- AND COMMISSIONER SHARPE HAVE TOURED THIS AREA AND WITNESSED THE SEVERE PROBLEMS THAT NOW FACE THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE. HOPEFULLY SEEING IS BELIEVING, AND I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE SEEN AND YOU HAVE BELIEVED, COMMISSIONER SHARPE. SEVERE WATER SHORTAGE IS ALSO IN THE PICTURE. LISTEN TO SWFWMD. TO CONTINUE TO OVERDEVELOP THAT AREA IS GOING TO CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN WE ALREADY HAVE. WE DON'T NEED THEM, AND BY THE WAY, THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS DO NOT APPROVE THIS PLAN. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. OBERTING. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION. FOR THE GREATER PART, I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE DISMANTLING AND THE SLOWLY TEARING APART COMMUNITY PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE. I THINK WE'RE TREADING ON SHAKY GROUND AGAIN IF WE START PIECEMEALING THESE THINGS, RIPPING THEM APART, OR DOING IT SPECIFIC TO A SITE, AND I THINK IT'S A BAD POLICY TO START IMPLEMENTING AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY PLANS AND NOT APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT TONIGHT, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL STAND STRONG ON COMMUNITY PLANS AS WE GO FORWARD AFTER TONIGHT NO MATTER WHAT YOUR VOTE IS. IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART. YOU'VE PROMOTED IT AMONGST YOURSELVES AS WELL, AND HERE WE HAVE ONE TONIGHT BEFORE YOU THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PICK APART, SO IT'S NOT SENDING A GOOD MESSAGE, SO I HOPE YOU WILL NOT APPROVE THIS TONIGHT. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. FLOTT. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? OKAY. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? >> MOVE THE ITEM FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I WANTED TO SPEAK BOTH TO CAM AND TO MRS. FLOTT, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT CAM HAS GIVEN ME ON NUMEROUS INSTANCES TO COME OUT TO THE AREA, TOUR THE AREA. I AGREE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES IN THAT AREA, SIGNIFICANT, TRANSPORTATION BEING ONE OF THEM, THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OUT THERE. AND NORMALLY I RESIST WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE SPRAWL, BUT IN THIS CASE, HAVING READ THIS CAREFULLY, I ACTUALLY BELIEVE, AS I STATED BEFORE, THIS WILL HELP THE AREA AND WILL IMPROVE THE CONDITION OF WHAT IS A VERY CHALLENGED PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, SO I KNOW THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL BE DISAPPOINTED, BUT ON THIS ONE I HAVE TO MOVE APPROVAL, SO I WILL MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ITEM THAT I ASKED FOR A SEPARATE VOTE ON IN TERMS OF TRANSMITTAL. I HAVE REVIEWED THE INFORMATION AS -- AS ALL OF US HAVE, I'M SURE, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A HARDSHIP TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF IT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM SUPPORT, SO I WILL STAND FIRM WITH MY POSITION BEFORE, AND I WILL NOT BE APPROVING THIS -- SUPPORTING THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>STEVE GRIFFIN: THE FINAL ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, IS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 08-19. THIS IS ALSO A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE. IT'S FOR THE RIVERVIEW DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AT U.S. HIGHWAY 301 AND RIVERVIEW DRIVE. THIS IS A PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGE OF 45.51 ACRES FROM SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6 TO THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE- 12 AND 4.64 ACRES FROM RESIDENTIAL-6 TO RESIDENTIAL-9. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THIS PLAN AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AGAIN, DCA DID RAISE OBJECTIONS TO THIS, AND STAFF HAS GONE OVER OUR RESPONSE TO THOSE OBJECTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PAUL DE GUENTHER, AND I LIVE AT 10420 PINE AVENUE IN RIVERVIEW, AND I JUST WANTED TO COME OUT TONIGHT. I'VE LIVED DOWN THERE ALMOST 40 YEARS, AND I LIVE BESIDE ONE OF THE PARCELS BEING CONSIDERED. YOU HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORDER TO MANAGE CHANGE. YOU CAN COME UP AND PICK APART PLANS AND DO THINGS, BUT I THINK COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IS VERY IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE PLANNING THE CHANGE IN YOUR COMMUNITY. I'VE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO ATTEND THESE MEETINGS. I WANT TO SAY TONIGHT THAT I CONCUR AND I SUPPORT THIS RIVERVIEW PLAN, THE DISTRICT. WE'LL BE BACK WITH LAND TEXT -- LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXTS IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT I REALLY WANTED TO COME TONIGHT AND COMMEND THE STAFF THAT HAS REALLY PERSEVERED IN LIGHT OF BUDGET CUTS AND CHANGES IN PERSONNEL AND EVERYTHING. THIS SO FAR HAS GONE ABOUT 20 MONTHS. IT STILL HAS FAR TO GO, BUT BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF HAVE BEEN EXCELLENT, AND I WANTED TO COMMEND THEM TONIGHT, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M VINCENT CRANE. I LIVE AT 10804 CEDAR STREET IN RIVERVIEW. I HAVE BEEN AT THAT ADDRESS FOR 22 YEARS. I LIVE IN THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE DOWNTOWN RIVERVIEW PLAN AND HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING ON THIS TASK FORCE OVER THE LAST YEAR. I GAVE SOME DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING WHERE THIS WAS DISCUSSED AND JUST WANTED TO REITERATE MY SUPPORT. THE TEAM HAS WORKED WELL TOGETHER AND I THINK COME UP WITH A WORKABLE PLAN. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: ANYONE ELSE? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE FOR APPROVAL -- >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- OR ADOPTION, I GUESS. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO VOTE SEPARATELY ON THE ORDINANCE, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID LAST TIME? BREAK THEM UP SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE. >>ADAM GORMLY: BREAK THEM UP. >>ROSE FERLITA: YES, PLEASE. ABSOLUTELY. >>KEN HAGAN: CAN WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ADOPTING ORDINANCE 8-16 AND 08-19. >>JIM NORMAN: SO MOVE. >> SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: AND THEN A MOTION APPROVING CPA 08-17. >>JIM NORMAN: SO MOVE. >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. HAGAN. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: THAT CLOSES OUT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING. NOW WE'LL GO TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS. MR. GRIFFIN, DO YOU KNOW WHO'S GOING TO BE INTRODUCING THIS? >>STEVE GRIFFIN: THIS WILL BE DONE BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. >>KEN HAGAN: IS MR. MOREDA MIA? >>PAULA HARVEY: I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM. HE WAS SITTING RIGHT THERE A MOMENT AGO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS UNTIL THE GENTLEMAN WHO'S GOING TO PRESENT THE ITEM SHOWS UP, SO PLEASE BE PATIENT. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >> JOE'S IN TROUBLE. [RECESS TAKEN] >>KEN HAGAN: WELCOME BACK FROM OUR BRIEF RECESS. MR. MOREDA, GLAD YOU COULD JOIN US. REMEMBER YOUR PLEDGE TO ME EARLIER THIS EVENING TO KEEP THINGS MOVING? >>JOE MOREDA: YES, SIR. >>KEN HAGAN: AND PLEASE PROCEED. >>JOE MOREDA: WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ALONG. WE'LL GO RIGHT INTO ITEM "A." THIS WAS REQUESTED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO PROPOSE A STREAMLINING OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. >>KEN HAGAN: DOES ANYONE HERE FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? IF NOT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "B" WAS TO CORRECT THE DEFINITION OF REGULATED SUBSTANCES -- >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. >> HUGH MARTHINSEN, SAXON GILMORE FIRM, 201 EAST KENNEDY. NO OBJECTION TO THIS ITEM. JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT WE'LL BE WORKING WITH STAFF WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT ROUND WITH SOME LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE THAT'S COME UP IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN DELETED WHICH IS REMOVAL OF THE REFERENCE TO THE REPORTABLE QUANTITY UNDER THE SUPER FUND STATUTE WHICH IS WHERE THE DEFINITION FOR REGULATED SUBSTANCE CAME FROM. THE CONCERN THAT ARISES IS AT THAT POINT UNDER CURRENT LAW IN SOME CASES THAT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED, FEDERAL AND STATE, YOU COULD HAVE A NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE LIKE ARSENIC, WHICH OCCURS RATHER FREQUENTLY IN THE GROUND HERE. A FARMER COULD GO OUT AND TILL THEIR GROUND, MOVE SOMETHING, SOMEONE COULD EXCAVATE AND MOVE EARTH. YOU COULD BE HANDLING A REGULATED SUBSTANCE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE REPORTABLE QUANTITY THRESHOLD AS PART OF THE DEFINITION. I DON'T THINK IT'S A PROBLEM, AND PERHAPS THERE'S JUST -- I KNOW WE'VE TALKED WITH STAFF, AND STAFF AGREES THAT WAS NOT THEIR INTENT TO SORT OF BE CAUSING THAT ISSUE AND PERHAPS STAFF COULD JUST MAKE THAT STATEMENT ON THE RECORD, AND WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF IN THE NEXT ROUND IN TERMS OF LANGUAGE THAT WOULD HELP TAKE THAT CONCERN OUT, BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM "C." THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE FREQUENCY OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE PHOSPHATE MINING PROCESS. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION. >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE TO APPROVE. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "D" PROPOSES TO ESTABLISH A DEFINITION OF SHADE TREE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE TO APPROVE. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "E" PROPOSES TO CLARIFY THE PLANTINGS REQUIRED UNDER OVERHEAD POWER LINES. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "F" ADDRESSES THE STREET TREE LOCATION WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE WIDER SIDEWALK WIDTHS REQUIRED BY ADA STANDARDS. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "G" -- >>JIM NORMAN: EXCUSE ME. >>JOE MOREDA: I'M SORRY. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM IS REQUESTING A REMOTE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO LEAN UP AND -- DO YOU THINK ANYBODY COULD ACCOMMODATE HIM? >>ROSE FERLITA: YEAH, I'M GOING TO ACCOMMODATE HIM. [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: PLEASE CONTINUE, MR. MOREDA. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "G" ESTABLISHES A CONSISTENT UNIT OF MEASUREMENT FOR TREES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS PUBLIC -- THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "H" MAKES THE LDC REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE FLORIDA ACCESSIBILITY CODE FOR HANDICAP PARKING. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: I'M SORRY. COULD YOU PLEASE REREGISTER YOUR VOTES. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "I" DEALS WITH APPROVED FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR OFF-SITE CONSTRUCTION. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO ROUND ONE OF 2009. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM "J," TO REFINE THE INCENTIVES FOR THE GREEN ROOF OPTION TO MAKE SURE THERE'S SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE TO ENSURE IF THAT OPTION IS SELECTED THAT IT'S FOLLOWED THROUGH. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>ROSE FERLITA: I AM SO SORRY. CORRECT THAT. I MEANT TO SAY YES. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: OKAY. I'LL CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: YOU NEED THE REMOTE. [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "K," THE PROPOSAL IS TO STREAMLINE THE APPLICATION WITHDRAWAL PROCESS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "L" PROPOSES TO REVISE THE LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO SPECIFY WHERE STANDALONE CREMATORIUMS AND ALSO ACCESSORY CREMATORIUMS -- WHICH DISTRICTS THEY'RE ALLOWED IN. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >> MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "M" IS A CLARIFICATION PROPOSED TO CROSS-REFERENCE THE REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLINGS, ACCESSORY KITCHENS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "N" IS A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE STREAMLINED ZONING AND PERMITTING REGULATIONS FOR EXCAVATIONS WHICH CREATE AGRICULTURAL RESERVOIRS. TO QUALIFY FOR THIS PROCESS, IT WOULD REQUIRE A CONTRACTUAL PARTNERSHIP WITH SWFWMD AND USDA. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "O" PRESCRIBES MINIMUM SAFETY STANDARDS FOR OUTDOOR PAINTBALL FIELDS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS TO REQUIRE NETTING ALONG THE FRONT YARD ALONG THE ROADWAY. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "P" PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE OUTDATED TEXT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ADD INTENT STATEMENTS FOR EACH STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "Q" IS A PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE THE MAIN ENTRANCE DOOR OF A RESIDENCE TO FACE THE REAR YARD. I BELIEVE THERE'S AMENDED LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN HANDED OUT TO YOU, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS AMENDMENT. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? YES, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING. SCOTT ANDREASEN, 909 TERRA MAR DRIVE, TAMPA, FLORIDA. CAN I USE THE PROJECTOR? >>KEN HAGAN: YES, SIR. >> ARE WE GOOD? I'M NOT SPEAKING AGAINST THIS. I'M SEEKING CLARIFICATION IN THIS CONDITION. AS IT STATES NOW, IT STATES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES' FRONT SHALL BE ORIENTED -- SHALL NOT BE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE REAR YARD. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS FROM ONE PARTICULAR CASE. WHAT I JUST WANT TO DO IS JUST GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME EXISTING PROJECTS WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND HAVE THIS OCCURRING, AND I HAVE SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT MAYBE NEEDS SOME ADDITIONAL WORDSMITHING ON THIS, BUT THIS IS IN WESTCHASE, THE VINEYARDS COMMUNITY. THE ORANGE UNITS SHOWN HERE FACE THE LAKE, WHICH IS HERE. ON THOSE UNITS THE FRONT DOOR IS CLEARLY FACING THE LAKE. THE BACK BACK HERE, ALTHOUGH YOU MIGHT PERCEIVE IT AS AN ALLEY, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A STREET BECAUSE IT HAS ADDRESSING ON IT AND MAILBOXES, AND IT IS THE ONLY ADDRESSES FOR THOSE UNITS WHICH MAKES IT DIFFERENT THAN AN ALLEY. IF THIS CONDITION AS IT EXISTS NOW WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE, THAT PARTICULAR THING WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. ADDITIONALLY IN THIS COMMUNITY THEY ALSO HAVE WHAT ARE CALLED MUSES OR GREENSPACES WHERE THE UNITS ACTUALLY FRONT THAT GREENSPACE. THE DOORS ARE LOCATED THERE AND NOT ON THE STREETS ON THE BACK SIDE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS SOME NEW PRODUCT THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON. I MYSELF AM A LAND PLANNER. WE'RE CALLING IT CURRENTLY A COTTAGE PRODUCT, WHICH IS KIND OF SHOWN HERE AS A PLAN VIEW EXAMPLE, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE HAVE A COMMON GREENSPACE THAT THE LOTS FRONT WHILE THEY HAVE A COMMON PARKING AREA LOCATED HERE AND DON'T REALLY EVEN ADDRESS A STREET PER SE. IT'S A NEW PRODUCT THAT I THINK IF THIS CONDITION WAS PUT IN PLACE WOULDN'T EXIST. SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT LOOKS, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY NOT WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND ADDITIONAL EXAMPLE IS THIS ONE TOO, WHICH I THINK HAS AN ATTRACTIVE LOOK AND CAN MEET NUMEROUS THINGS. AND THE ONE LAST THING ON THIS IS THIS IS WATERSET, WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL ON. THE ORANGE UNITS HERE WOULD ALSO FALL UNDER THIS, ALTHOUGH THEY ACTUALLY ARE ON A STREET, AND IN THIS TYPE INSTANT WE'D BE LOOKING AT TWO-FACE ARCHITECTURE WHERE THERE WOULD BE A FRONT DOOR LOCATED ON THIS SIDE AS WELL AS ON THE BACK SIDE, AND I'VE GOT COPIES OF A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING THAT I CAN GIVE TO I GUESS THE CLERK. ALL RIGHT. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANKS. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD STAFF LIKE TO ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS? >>PAULA HARVEY: I WOULD. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SEE HIS PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT BECAUSE I CAN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU IF IT WORKS OR DOESN'T UNTIL I'VE SEEN IT. THE SECOND THING IS, COMMISSIONER, FOR THOSE PROJECTS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT HAVE THE SPECIAL DESIGN FEATURES THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT SITE PLANS THAT ARE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTS, WE GIVE A LOT OF FREEDOM TO THE DESIGNER OF THE PROJECT TO CREATE SOMETHING UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THEY DO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE SIMPLE WAY TO CHANGE THE AMENDMENT WITHOUT HAVING REVIEWED THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE OFFERED BY THIS GENTLEMAN IS TO SIMPLY ADD UNDER "K" WHERE WE SAY, THIS REGULATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO SAID STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN ZONING DISTRICTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF FIVE ACRES OR MORE, TO ALSO ADD, OR WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTS. AND THEN THE PROJECT DESIGNER STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THE TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HE JUST SPOKE TO AND SHOWED ON THE OVERHEAD. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. DEWAYNE "HERB" HURLBURT, 109 FORBES ROAD, PLANT CITY, FLORIDA. I SPOKE TO THIS BEFORE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGE, THE ACREAGE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY IF THERE IS A PROPOSED CHANGE, MAYBE A CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE OLD MATH USED TO BE DIVIDING UP OF A SECTION, AND WE GOT DOWN TO 165 FEET. WELL, IF YOU TAKE A 165-FOOT ROAD FRONTAGE OUT THERE, THAT'S A HALF A MILE BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO FIVE ACRES. NOW, UNUSUAL AS THAT MAY SEEM, THE UNUSUAL CAN HAPPEN WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SO WITH THAT SAID, NO OTHER COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS WE'RE SETTING REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF A RESIDENT FACE THE STREET? >>PAULA HARVEY: ESSENTIALLY, YES. I MEAN, THEY CAN'T FACE THE REAR YARD. FOR THE MOST PART THEY WOULD BE FACING THE STREET OR THEY COULD POTENTIALLY FACE THE SIDE YARD. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. SHOULD WE REQUIRE THESE FOLKS TO PUT IN A ROUND AND A SQUARE WINDOW AS WELL? I'M BEING FACETIOUS WITH YOU. >>PAULA HARVEY: I UNDERSTAND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE REGULATION. ARE WE GOING TOO FAR? I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT, BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT ARE WE JUST OVERSTEPPING AND ARE WE GETTING TOO INVOLVED IN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TELL HOMEOWNERS THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO? >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: MOTION TO DENY. >> MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT PAULA INDICATED, ADDING WITHIN PD DISTRICTS. >>PAULA HARVEY: YES. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEVIN WHITE: THAT WAS WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE? >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>KEVIN WHITE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER NORMAN. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. COMMISSIONERS HIGGINBOTHAM AND NORMAN VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM "R." THE PROPOSAL IS TO REINSERT THE TERM "JUNK YARDS" IN THE USE MATRIX, CLARIFY WHICH DISTRICT THE JUNK YARDS ARE ALLOWED IN, AND THAT WOULD BE IN THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>MARK SHARPE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: BRINGS US TO ITEM "S." THIS PROPOSAL WILL ALLOW FOR AND DEFINE COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION SIGNS IN COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING AREAS. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>ROSE FERLITA: MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JIM NORMAN: YOUR STOMACH'S GROWLING. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "T," THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO CLARIFY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ AND HOPEFULLY GET PEOPLE TO USE THE COMMERCIAL APARTMENT OPTION IN THE CODE TO PROMOTE MIXED-USE. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-0. >>JOE MOREDA: BRINGS US TO ITEM "U." THIS PROPOSAL IS A MODIFICATION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE TWO-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR PD APPLICATIONS. IT WILL CLARIFY THE TIME FRAME FOR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND ALSO CLARIFY THE VARIANCE CRITERIA THAT IS USED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. BY THAT, I MEAN IT WOULD ALLOW THE BOARD TO HAVE THE ULTIMATE APPROVAL AUTHORITY IN VARIANCES. RIGHT NOW THE CODE IS CONFIGURED TO ONLY -- IT WOULD REQUIRE THE ZONING HEARING MASTER TO FIND AN APPROVAL FOR THE BOARD TO DO THAT, SO THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO CONCUR WITH THE HEARING OFFICER. THIS WILL ALLOW THE BOARD TO HAVE A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION OR FINDING FINAL APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? YES, MA'AM. >> TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AS WELL AS UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK, U-CAN. FIRST COMMENT I HAVE TO MAKE IS TOMORROW WE'RE MEETING FOR OUR SECOND MEETING WORKING ON INFILL AND NEW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CODES ALONG WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS MANY OF THE DEVELOPERS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE IN THIS ROOM TONIGHT ARE GOING TO BE THERE AS WELL. I THINK THIS IS PREMATURE TO START MESSING WITH THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW WHILE WE'RE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT WHAT PROVIDES FOR INFILL AND WHAT DOESN'T. THAT BEING SAID, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT -- I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE MIXED-USE ISSUE IN HERE. WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE APPLICATIONS HAVE TO BE GREATER THAN TWO ACRES IN SIZE, WHAT -- THE WORDING IN THIS DOESN'T TOTALLY MAKE SENSE TO ME IN THE SENSE THAT WHAT HAPPENS WITH LESS THAN TWO ACRES? WE'RE SAYING WE'RE ELIMINATING THE TWO ACRES, SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE WORDING. IN THE PRESUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A MEETING IF REQUESTED BY CITIZENS, THEN THE LEAST WE CAN REQUIRE IN THE NOTICE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE THAT AN E- MAIL BE PROVIDED SO CORRESPONDENCE CAN BE DOCUMENTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN HERE IT SAYS "AND/OR." AND THEN AS YOU GET DOWN TO THE VARIATIONS AND THE VARIANCES IN THE PROCESS, I AM CONCERNED THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IN THE PD PROCESS VARIATIONS TO PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION. THESE THINGS AREN'T GOING TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED. TYPICALLY THEY'RE USED TO LIMIT WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. I JUST THINK IT'S THE WRONG WAY TO GO ALONG THIS WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITIES. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO START INFILLING ON PROPERTIES THAT ARE LESS THAN TWO ACRES, THEN THE VERY ABSOLUTE LEAST YOU CAN DO AS COMMISSIONERS IS REQUIRE THAT THEY SUBMIT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC INSTEAD OF JUST LEAVING IT OPEN. THEY COULD HAVE A BUBBLE PLAN, THEY COULD HAVE WHATEVER THEY WANT IN THIS THE WAY THAT IT'S WORDED, SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, WE SHOULD -- HERE AGAIN, ANOTHER OPTION IS TO SAY IT HAS TO BE A PD SPECIFIC. I PERSONALLY HOPE THAT WE WON'T START FIDDLING WITH THIS TONIGHT. LET'S GET THROUGH A PROCESS THAT WE'RE ALREADY IN WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY RATHER THAN DEAL WITH THIS. THIS WAS PUT FORWARD BY COMMISSIONER BLAIR AT THE FIRST LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING WHERE HE COMMENTED TO PAULA ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WAS THE PROCESS ON THIS PD ORDINANCE. WE RECEIVED NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT HARDSHIP REALLY EXISTED. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. FLOTT. >> THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT, PLEASE. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: PAULA, ADDRESS THAT WHEN THEY'VE COMPLETED -- >> AGAIN, DEWAYNE "HERB" HURLBURT, PLANT CITY, FLORIDA, 1009 NORTH FORBES ROAD. CLARIFICATION IS WHY I'VE COME FORTH, AND AGAIN, AS MS. FLOTT JUST SPOKE TO, BUT A MANUAL MUST BE ABLE TO BE INTERPRETED, AND ONLY ONE INTERPRETATION MUST STAND. IF AN INTERPRETATION CANNOT STAND BY ITSELF AND I CAN INTERPRET IT, YOU CAN INTERPRET IT, SHE JUST DID AN INTERPRETATION FOR YOU, THEN IT'S NOT A GOOD AMENDMENT. I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S WHAT A GOOD MANUAL DOES, AND WHY DO WE WANT TO DO IT AND DO IT AND DO IT AGAIN? YOU TELL ME IT DOESN'T COST YOU, BUT ANYTIME YOU DO SOMETHING OVER, IT'S COSTING US. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> DAVE KULOW, BOYETTE SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 12312 YELLOW ROSE CIRCLE, RIVERVIEW. I HAVE A FIERY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. WHAT IS BROKEN WITH THE PRESENT PROCESS? WE HAVE THE ZONING HEARING MASTER, WE HAVE ADEQUATE KINDS OF PROCESSES IN PLACE THAT PROTECTS BOTH DEVELOPER, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, GIVES PEOPLE A CHANCE TO INPUT. WHY SHORTCUT, SABOTAGE THE PROCESS BY CHANGING IT? IF IT ISN'T BROKE, WHY TRY TO FIX? AND I THINK THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF THAT. TWO-ACRE PARCELS CAN BE VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT, AND THAT TWO-ACRE THRESHOLD REALLY BOTHERS ME AND MY HOMEOWNERS BOARD BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT ON A TWO-ACRE PARCEL, A LOT OF THINGS CAN BE PUT UP, AND YES, WE WANT INFILL, YES, INFILL'S DESIRABLE IN MOST CASES, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A ASSURANCE THAT IT BLENDS IN WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT IT ISN'T JOE'S BEER JOINT THAT APPEARS IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND SO FORTH, AND SO YOU GET THE GIST OF MY -- MY THOUGHTS IS THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE TURNED DOWN OR SENT BACK FOR SOME VERY, VERY CAREFUL REVISION. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. I BELIEVE THAT AS PART OF YOUR BACKUP YOU HAVE A REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TWO-ACRE THRESHOLD. WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES RIGHT NOW, IF I HAVE A PARCEL THAT'S 1.8 ACRES AND I WANT TO FILE A PD ZONING, I HAVE TO FIRST FILE A VARIANCE AND GO THROUGH THE LUHO PROCEDURE PROCESS, WHICH TAKES TWO TO THREE MONTHS. AT THAT POINT, IF IT'S GRANTED, THEN I CAN FILE A PD. YOU'VE LOST NO PROTECTIONS BY ALLOWING US TO FILE A PD FOR THE TWO-ACRE -- WITH LESS THAN TWO ACRES. ALL IT IS DOING IS ELIMINATING A HEARING IN FRONT OF A LUHO. I THINK THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS THAT EVERY SINGLE VARIANCE APPLICATION BEFORE THE LUHO WAS APPROVED BUT MAYBE ONE, AND THIS WAS INITIATED, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BY STAFF. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER IT. IF IT'S A PD AND YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN ALWAYS VOTE IT DOWN; HOWEVER, IT SAVES A STEP OF GOING TO A LUHO JUST TO HAVE A VARIANCE TO FILE LESS THAN TWO ACRES. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. JAMES. NEXT, PLEASE. >> VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON, AND I SUPPORT TERRY FLOTT'S POSITION THAT IT'S -- WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS, THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST TIME TO MAKE THIS MODIFICATION. I ALSO QUESTION CHANGING -- WHY ARE WE INCORPORATING CHANGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENTS IN WITH THE PD ORDINANCE MODIFICATION ITSELF? I THINK THEY'RE REALLY TWO SEPARATE THINGS, AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THE FINAL VERSION OF THIS IS GOING TO WORK, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE FIRST MEETING ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE WAS TRYING TO FIND ALTERNATE WAYS THAT PEOPLE COULD ACCESS INFORMATION AND NOTICE ON PROPERTY APPROVALS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT TECHNOLOGY'S NOT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, SO I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED WITHIN THE PD NOTICE MODIFICATION, AND I THINK THE WHOLE THING'S A LITTLE PREMATURE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. BACCA. ANYONE ELSE? PAULA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS MS. FLOTT'S CONCERNS? >>PAULA HARVEY: I'LL TRY TO ADDRESS ALL OF THEM, IF I CAN. WHEN THE PD ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS OCCURRED TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, THEY HAD AN AWFUL LOT OF INPUT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND THE CITIZENS. AT THAT TIME, WE ADVISED THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT AFTER WE HAD HAD SOME EXPERIENCE IN WORKING WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS THAT WE WOULD BE BACK BEFORE THE BOARD TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WHERE WE THOUGHT THEY WERE NEEDED. WE BELIEVE THESE ADJUSTMENTS ARE NEEDED, AND I'LL TRY TO REMIND YOU, IN FACT, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD ABOUT SOME OF THEM ALREADY. ONE OF THEM HAD TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT VARIANCES THAT WERE -- I MEAN THE TYPE OF VARIANCES AND THE NEED FOR THEM, THAT'S NOT CHANGING, JUST THE FACT THAT PROCEDURALLY THE ZONING HEARING MASTER MAKES A RECOMMENDATION. THAT PROCESS WILL STILL BE THERE, BUT WHAT COMPELLED THE BOARD TO ASK US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITUATION WAS THAT IF FOR WHATEVER THE REASON THE ZONING HEARING MASTER RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE VARIANCES, YOU LOST ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER IT YOURSELF. IT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU. YOU WANTED TO HAVE THE SAME ABILITY TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCES THE SAME WAY THAT YOU CONSIDER THE REZONING ITSELF. YOU REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZONING HEARING MASTER AND IT COMES BACK TO YOU. YOU ARE THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER, AND YOU ASKED THAT THE VARIANCE CONSIDERATION BE IN THAT SAME STATUS, SO THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT ACCOMPLISHES IN PART. SECONDLY, WE'VE RUN INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD SOME APPLICANTS WHO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY WANTED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. THE APPLICANTS WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THAT MEETING AND BE ABLE TO HAVE IT STAND AS A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO FACE A SITUATION OF COMING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOW UP AND SAY, WELL, WE NEVER HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. APPLICANTS ARE PARTICULARLY GOOD IN THIS COUNTY ABOUT KNOWING WHEN THEY'RE DEALING WITH A CONTROVERSIAL REZONING, AND SOMETIMES THEY WOULD PREFER TO GO AHEAD AND BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND BE POSITIVE AND AGGRESSIVE ABOUT HAVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE REQUEST FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR THAT. IN TERMS OF THE TWO-ACRE THRESHOLD, MS. JAMES -- WHAT MS. JAMES SAID WAS CORRECT. WE BUILT IN A DELAY PROCESS WHEN WE PUT IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF YOU WANT TO DO A PD OF LESS THAN TWO ACRES, YOU'VE GOT TO GO ASK FOR A VARIANCE IN FRONT OF THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICER FIRST. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE LAND USE HEARING OFFICERS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY AT ALL LOOKING AT THE SUBSTANTIVE NATURE OF THE REZONING REQUEST, WHETHER IT'S A GOOD IDEA OR NOT. THEY'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY WITH LESS THAN TWO ACRES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A PD. THAT'S VERY LITTLE FOR THEM TO EVEN BE ABLE TO CONSIDER, SO, YES, FOR THE MOST PART THEY'VE GRANTED ALL OF THEM. THEY GIVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO THAT SMALL LAND PROPERTY OWNER AS THEY WOULD FOR THE LARGE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IF THEY WANT TO PROCEED THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT, AND THEY CAN PROCEED THE BEST WAY THEY CAN. WE IN NO WAY HAVE MODIFIED THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SITE PLANS. THEY STILL HAVE TO DO THE SAME DETAIL THAT THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO DO THAT YOU REVIEW EVERY LAND USE MEETING THAT YOU SEE, SO NOTHING'S CHANGED ABOUT WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE. MAYBE THEY WANT TO DO A PD-S, BUT QUITE FRANKLY, A PD-S IS SOMETHING THAT A DEVELOPER, IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO IT, THEY'RE MOVING INTO THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW PROCESS THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REZONING. THE DETAILS OF INFORMATION ON THE PLAN ARE SET OUT IN THE PD ORDINANCE. THE SAME ONES WOULD APPLY WITH THE SMALL ZONINGS JUST LIKE THEY DO TO THE BIG ONES. THEY DON'T GET ANY SPECIAL FAVORS AS A RESULT OF IT. AND THE QUESTION ABOUT THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT COULD GET - - A PD APPLICANT COULD GET A VARIANCE FOR, WELL, THEY ARE THE SAME TYPE OF THINGS. WE ALWAYS SAID THEY WERE THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND THEY ARE THOSE ITEMS IN SECTION 6 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PARKING AND LOADING AND LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING, AND YOU WILL -- OCCASIONALLY YOU'LL SEE THOSE ITEMS COME UP. WE ARE NOT TAKING AWAY SOMEBODY'S OPPORTUNITY OF LESS THAN TWO ACRES TO BE ABLE TO REZONE. WE NEVER HAVE. IF YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF PROPERTY, YOU ALWAYS HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO REZONE, AND IN FACT, YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD THE ABILITY TO REZONE TO A PD IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU JUST HAD TO GO GET A VARIANCE FIRST BEFORE YOU COULD PROCEED WITH YOUR REZONING APPLICATION. SO I'M CONCERNED THAT THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE TO YOU THOUGHT THAT SOMEHOW WE WERE GIVING THE TWO-ACRE PEOPLE SOME KIND OF OPPORTUNITY TO REZONE THAT THEY NEVER HAD BEFORE. THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REZONE, SO -- >>KEN HAGAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MS. HARVEY. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 4-2. COMMISSIONERS FERLITA AND SHARPE VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: ITEM "V" HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO ROUND 1 OF 2009. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM "W." THIS IS KNOWN AS THE CPTED OR CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES. THIS PROVIDES FOR DESIGN TECHNIQUES TO HOPEFULLY REDUCE CRIME ON SITES THROUGH SITE DESIGN. >>KEN HAGAN: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>JOE MOREDA: THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM "X." THIS WILL PROVIDE A METHOD TO ISSUE PERMITS ON UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY. >>KEN HAGAN: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >> MOVE THE ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: YES, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. DEWAYNE "HERB" HURLBURT, PLANT CITY, FLORIDA. ACTUALLY I HAVE SOME ITEMS THAT I'D LIKE TO SHOW ON THE OVERHEAD, BUT I WOULD NEED ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEBODY TO DO THAT AND BE ABLE TO TALK. AND I'LL GIVE YOU A NOD WHEN TO CHANGE IT FROM SLIDE NUMBER ONE, OKAY. FIRST I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSAL AS IT IS, LDC 1047, AND AS IT COMES UP ON THE SCREEN WHERE WE CAN SEE IT -- IT'S A LITTLE HARD, BUT THIS IS THE APPLICANT'S AMENDMENT AND THE INTENDED PUBLIC PURPOSE AND BENEFIT. IT STATES THAT IT'S FOR THE NONIMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY. CURRENTLY A CONNECTION MAY BE ISSUED ONLY TO AN IMPROVED OR MAINTAINED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. NOW, THOSE ARE THE PROBLEMS. THE SECOND ITEM THERE, OF COURSE, DEALS WITH THE COMPARATIVE SUMMARY AND ESSENTIAL CHANGE ELEMENT, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTING A NEW ROAD TO COUNTY STANDARDS, AND THE COST MAY PLACE A HEAVY FINANCIAL BURDEN ON A SINGLE LOT OWNER. NOW, THERE'S A MODE TO MY REASON FOR BRINGING THESE UP. THE ANTICIPATED COST, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, IS INSUFFICIENT -- WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR FIRE TRUCKS AND AMBULANCES AND SO FORTH, AND THAT TELLS ME THAT IT'S GOT TO BE TO COUNTY STANDARDS, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENGINEERING COSTS. YOU NAME IT, WE GOT IT. THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES -- THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 5, AND AS IT'S PROPOSED, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH KIND OF LEADS INTO EVERYTHING, BUT BOILING IT DOWN, IT SAYS THE COUNTY ROAD IS A PUBLIC ROAD, AND WITH THAT COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT. THAT IS ONLY ISSUED WHERE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR FIRE TRUCKS, AMBULANCES, POLICE CARS, AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES. AGAIN, I BRING YOU BACK TO THAT COST FACTOR, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNER HAVING TO PUT THIS PRICE UP THERE. NOW, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE STAFF'S GOING, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM, BUT LET'S CONTINUE ON DOWN AND GO TO "A," "B," "C," AND TRY TO DIRECT IT A LITTLE MORE FOCUSING. THE PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO A HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY-MAINTAINED ROAD, AND THE ROUTE OF ACCESS TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY IS NOT MAINTAINED BY PUBLIC FUNDS. NOW, THAT LANGUAGE BY ITSELF IS ALMOST DIRECTING INTERPRETATION TO PLATTED SUBDIVISION, NO IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE THE PUBLIC ROAD MUST BE THERE WHETHER IT IS MAINTAINED OR UN -- OR OWNED BY THE COUNTY, BUT THE NO IMPROVEMENT ROAD IS A PRIVATE ROAD. AND THE CURRENT PLATTING PROCESS, THE DEDICATIONS AND SO FORTH, SINCE ABOUT THE EARLY 1980s, IT HAS READ THAT THAT PARCEL IS UNDIVIDED AND THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS WOULD MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THOSE ROADS AT THEIR EXPENSE. SO WE'RE TAKING INTERPRETATION GOING BACK TO A PLAT THAT WAS IN HISTORY TO A PLAT THAT IS TODAY, AND AGAIN, I UNDERLINED THE BOTTOM DOWN THERE -- >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. >> -- FIRE TRUCKS, AMBULANCES BECAUSE OF THE COST AND SO FORTH, AND TO THAT, I WOULD ASK YOU TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. >>KEN HAGAN: NO, SIR. YOU'VE GONE WAY BEYOND YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. PAULA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS THAT HE -- OR MR. ALUOTTO. >>PAULA HARVEY: MR. AWE ALUOTTO AND MR. CAMPBELL ARE HERE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR THE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST. >>KEN HAGAN: YES, SIR. >>PETER ALUOTTO: COMMISSIONERS, PETER ALUOTTO, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS THAT WERE DONE MANY YEARS AGO IN THE '20s AND '30s WHERE THERE IS A PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT THE COUNTY HAS NOT -- WAS NOT DEDICATED OR CONVEYED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO MAINTAIN. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO OWN PARCELS IN THESE OLD SUBDIVISIONS, AND WE CAN'T PREVENT THEM FROM BUILDING A HOUSE IF THEY HAVE LEGAL ACCESS, BUT IN SOME CASES THEY HAVE NO PHYSICAL ACCESS, SO THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT, AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT ANYBODY WHO HAS A LOT ON A ROAD THAT'S UNIMPROVED, THERE'S NO STREET THERE, THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY PURCHASED THAT LOT THAT THE COUNTY HAS NO OBLIGATION OR RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT THAT ROAD IN, AND WE'RE ALSO SAYING THAT IF YOU HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO YOUR OWN PROPERTY IF YOU WANT TO BUILD IN THOSE LOCATIONS. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE STANDARD, WE PUT THE MOST MINIMAL STANDARD THAT WE COULD PUT IN THERE SO THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLES COULD ACCESS THE PROPERTY. WE'VE MET WITH MR. HURLBURT AND WE'VE EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THIS DOES NOT AFFECT, YOU KNOW, EASEMENTS AND ANY OTHER AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE. THIS IS FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND WE'VE EVEN HAD THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY SEND HIM A COUPLE E-MAILS TO THAT EFFECT, SO WE'RE PRETTY SATISFIED WITH IT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? >> MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SHARPE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: THIS BRINGS US TO ITEM "Y." THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO STREAMLINE THE RECORD SUBMITTAL PROCESS FOR THE "R" CATEGORY FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IF AN APPLICANT SEEKS AN "R" CATEGORY FOR A RESTAURANT, THERE'S A REPORTING REQUIREMENT TO VERIFY THAT THERE'S 51% FOOD SALES. WE GOT INTO SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD AT THE WORKSHOP ON THIS ITEM, AND COMMISSIONER NORMAN REQUESTED SOME FOLLOW-UP FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND ALSO FROM PGM STAFF TO PROVIDE A SURVEY OF SEVERAL OTHER RESTAURANTS TO SEE IF THEY HAD ANY ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSAL IN TERMS OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENT, AND ALSO THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARIFICATION, I THINK, THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION HAD AT THE WORKSHOP ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE RESTAURANTS AND ALSO ABOUT SPOT CHECKS THAT MAY BE DONE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROPOSAL. COMMISSIONER NORMAN, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU STILL WANT THE FOLLOW-UP EVEN THOUGH WE'RE IN AN EXPEDITED PRESENTATION MODE TONIGHT, AND WE'RE PREPARED TO GIVE IT, BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT THAT FOLLOW-UP, THEN -- >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>JOE MOREDA: SIR? YOU'VE SEEN IT? >>KEN HAGAN: HE'S SEEN IT. OKAY. THANK YOU, JOE. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO APPROVE COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: THIS BRINGS US TO ITEM "C." COMMISSIONERS, THIS WAS A PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT FROM TINA ROSENBERGER AND FRANK COSTANZA TO ADOPT CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS WHICH WERE ADMINISTRATIVE -- ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PRESCRIBING STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS AND HOURS OF OPERATION AND DIFFERENT THINGS OF THAT MANNER TO REGULATE THE USE OF DIRT BIKES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN AGRICULTURAL ZONES. I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION, AND STAFF OBVIOUSLY HAS TO SPEAK TO IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL, SO HAVING SAID THAT, WOULD YOU PREFER TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, THEN US RESPOND AFTER THAT? >>KEN HAGAN: SURE. >>JOE MOREDA: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GOOD EVENING, SIR. PER BOARD POLICY, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. >> GOOD EVENING. FRANK COSTANZA, LIVINGSTON AVENUE, LUTZ, FLORIDA. FIRST I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED REVISED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, WHICH BASICALLY EXCLUDES MOTOR HOMES, TRAILER HOMES FROM THIS CODE. OKAY. OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, OUR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN VICTIMIZED BY UNCIVIL BEHAVIORS WITH MRVs, WHICH I'LL REFER TO AS POLLUTANTS. WE HAVE PLACED OVER 40 CALLS TO THE SHERIFF, EPC, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER AGENCIES TO TRY TO REMOVE THIS POLLUTION IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE ALSO SENT MANY CORRESPONDENCES TO THOSE PARTIES, WHICH INCLUDE SWFWMD AND ATTORNEYS. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY WHO JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THOSE WHO LIVE AROUND THEM, NOR DO THEY CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT WE LIVE IN. RIGHT NOW MRVs, POLLUTANTS, MAY BE USED AT ANY TIME AND ON ANY RESIDENTIALLY AND AGRICULTURALLY ZONED PROPERTIES IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. PMG HAS ADVISED THAT THEY MAY LIKE TO RESTRUCTURE THE CURRENT NOISE ORDINANCE WHICH IS OUT OF DATE BUT WOULD STILL ALLOW RIDING ON ANY LOT SIZE NO MATTER HOW SMALL. ALTHOUGH WE GREATLY APPRECIATE PMG EFFORTS AND THEIR WONDERFUL WORK ETHIC, A NOISE ORDINANCE WILL NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES RELATING TO MRVs, BEING NOISE POLLUTION, DUST, ODOR, AND VIBRATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. WE ARE HERE BECAUSE ADAM LAMB OF CODE ENFORCEMENT, WHO WORKS IN THE FIELD, IS PROACTIVE AND HAS DILIGENTLY TRIED TO HELP OTHERS AND US WITH SIMILAR ISSUES NEED THIS CODE IN ORDER TO HAVE SOME ENFORCEMENT. THE EPC CHAPTER 1-10 NOISE STATES A NOISE NUISANCE IS A SOUND WHICH, "A," IS OR MAY BE HARMFUL OR INJURIOUS TO THE HEALTH OR WELFARE OF ANY PERSON. "B," UNREASONABLY INTERFERES WITH THE ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, PROPERTY, OR OUTDOOR RECREATION OF A REASONABLE PERSON WITH NORMAL SENSIBILITIES. "C," IS OF SUCH CHARACTER AND LEVEL AS TO BE DETECTABLE BY A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERSONS SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR HEALTH, REPOSE, OR SAFETY, OR TO CAUSE SEVERE NOISE, INTERFERENCE, OR DISCOMFORT. THESE PROVIDE ALL OF THE ABOVE. BEFORE I PLAY AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIRT BIKE NOISE THAT I AM REFERRING TO, I'M SURE IT YOU WILL AGREE IT MEETS THE NOISE. THESE POLLUTANTS COME IN A VARIETY OF MOTOR SIZES AND ALL OF DIFFERENT AMPLITUDES AND FREQUENCIES, AND THEY ARE ALL ANNOYING NO MATTER HOW SHALLOW THE NOISE, AND THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE. NO MATTER HOW LOW THE NOISE, THIS IS JUST ANNOYING. GO AHEAD AND PLEASE PLAY THE 22-SECOND FILE. [AUDIO PLAYED] NOW, I COULD HAVE PLAYED THAT REALLY LOUD, BUT THE POINT HERE IS THAT IT'S ANNOYING AT ANY NOISE LEVEL. THIS IS ONLY A 22-SECOND SOUND CLIP. WE HAVE HAD TO LISTEN TO THIS SEVERAL HOURS AT A TIME AT 110 DB, SOMETIMES SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE DAYS AT A TIME AND SOMETIMES TWO OR THREE OF THESE VEHICLES AT A TIME. THESE POLLUTANTS ARE INTRUSIVE TO OUR WELL BEING, HEALTH, AND HOME LIFE. THEY DEGRADE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. PLEASE GET THEM OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND BACKYARDS. THIS IS A PROBLEM IN OUR COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. COSTANZA. MR. MOREDA. >>JOE MOREDA: COMMISSIONERS, AS I NOTED BEFORE, PGMD STAFF IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROPOSAL. ALTHOUGH WE SYMPATHIZE WITH THE APPLICANT, WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE APPROACH BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL ATTEMPTS TO PROHIBIT A LAND USE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A NUISANCE PROBLEM, I.E., BEING THE NOISE AND DUST, AND BY DOING IT THIS WAY, EVEN IF IT IS APPROVED, THE REGULATIONS WILL NOT BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT, AND WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO, YOU KNOW, GET IN THE SAME ROOM WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WITH EPC ON THE NOISE, AND ALSO THE AIR QUALITY, AND ALSO CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND WE WERE TRYING TO STEER THIS IN A DIRECTION OF TRYING TO POSSIBLY AMEND A NUISANCE ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT. IF IT'S DONE IN THAT MANNER, THE GOOD THING ABOUT THAT IS THAT ONCE THAT STANDARD IS ADOPTED, THEN ANY KIND OF FUTURE ACTIVITY THAT OCCURS, IT CAN BE ENFORCED UPON AND MEASURED IN A WAY THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY STOP THAT ACTIVITY IF IT IS AS ANNOYING AS IT APPEARS TO BE. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WE COULD GET INTO BY REGULATING THESE TYPES OF LAND USES AS A LAND USE IN A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS REALLY, IT'S THE -- IT'S THE NUISANCE ACTIVITY THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IF SOMEBODY WERE TO GO OUT THERE AND DO A BARBECUE OR HAVE A RADIO THAT WAS PLAYING TOO LOUD OR A POOL ACTIVITY, BASKETBALL, SOMEONE PLAYING WHIFFLE BALL IN THEIR BACKYARD AND STARTED MAKING NOISE AND DECIDED THEY WANTED TO DO THAT EVERY DAY, THEN CONCEIVABLY WE COULD START LOADING UP OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REGULATING WHIFFLE BALL OR REGULATING WHEN YOU COULD HAVE A BARBECUE, SO ASIDE FROM THE OBVIOUS ENFORCEMENT ISSUES FROM SOME INTERMITTENT ACTIVITY, WE'VE TRIED TO STEER THIS, WE'VE TRIED TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT IN THE DIRECTION OF TRYING TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF NUISANCE ORDINANCE WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO TRY TO GET THIS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING IT FOR THE REASONS THAT WE JUST SAID, AND PRIMARILY, IF THIS DOES GET IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, EVEN IF IT IS, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW ENFORCED, THEN AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S NEXT DOOR TO THEM, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN GOING ON, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO ANY CHANGES, AND I BELIEVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CAN SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF, YOU KNOW, THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION, AND ASIDE FROM THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. MOREDA. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS. PAM CLOUSTON, 1621 THOMPSON ROAD IN LITHIA. AS ANNOYING AS THOSE LITTLE DARLINGS ACROSS THE ROAD FROM ME ARE WHEN THEY GO UP AND DOWN THE ROAD ON THEIR FOUR- WHEELERS ON A NICE QUIET SUNDAY AFTERNOON, IN A RURAL AREA THEY ARE RIDING ON THE STREET, AND THAT IS ILLEGAL, AND THAT CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS ATVs AND DIRT BIKES. THEY ARE NOT STREET LEGAL. BUT IF YOU DO GO AGAINST STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR ME. I HAVE A FOUR-WHEELER, A BIG HONKING FOUR-WHEELER. IT IS RATHER QUIET, AND SINCE MY ONE DAUGHTER RAN MY OTHER DAUGHTER OVER, WE DON'T REALLY GO FAST ON IT ANYMORE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THE FARMING WORK THAT I DO WITH IT. I PULL A DUMP CART BEHIND IT, I PULL MANURE SPREADERS, I PULL THINGS LIKE THAT, AND I USE MINE, AND I DON'T HAVE SIX ACRES, SO IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT, I GUESS I MIGHT BE IN VIOLATION OF SOME KIND OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE GO WITH STAFF. I KNOW THAT WILL AFFECT MORE THAN JUST ME. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE RURAL AREA THAT ACTUALLY USE THESE FOR WORK AS WELL. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? MR. GORMLY, DO YOU CONCUR WITH MR. MOREDA AS FAR AS EVEN IF THIS WERE TO PASS, IT WOULD NOT SOLVE MR. COSTANZA'S PROBLEM, IT WOULD NOT BE ENFORCEABLE? >>ADAM GORMLY: YES. AND I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT ASPECT OF THE REQUEST THAT MR. COSTANZA HAS MADE, AND IT'S PART "D" OF HIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT THE NONCONFORMITY PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE SHALL NOT APPLY. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY COULD SUPPORT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTION IF SOMEBODY HAS LEGALLY COMMENCED A USE ON THE PROPERTY TO THEN GO BACK AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL AND HAVE THEM STOP THAT USE THAT WAS LEGALLY STARTED, THERE COULD BE SOME LEGAL -- LEGAL DIFFICULTY WITH ENFORCING THAT, AND THERE COULD BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE USES ON THE PERSON'S PROPERTY, SO I WOULD -- I WOULD SUGGEST THAT A RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD BE RATHER DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THIS IS THIS APPEARS TO BE REALLY THE WRONG VENUE, AND I AGREE WITH MR. MOREDA, THIS IS REALLY NOT A LAND USE ISSUE, IT'S A CONDUCT ISSUE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S EXHAUSTED SOME EFFORTS OR ENOUGH EFFORT, MAYBE PERHAPS, TO WORK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, BUT THIS IS CLEARLY IN THE WRONG ARENA HERE, AND I CERTAINLY CANNOT SUPPORT IT FOR THAT REASON. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE TO DENY. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION TO DENY COMMISSIONER FERLITA, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: THIS BRINGS US TO ITEM "AA." THIS WAS REQUESTED BY GALAXY FIREWORKS, AND IT'S ANOTHER PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO REVISE THE SIGN REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY VENDORS. HAVING SAID THAT, I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK, BUT MR. HARRY HEUMAN OF OUR STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. PATRICK COOK, 204 EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33603. WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. WE'VE WORKED WITH STAFF TO WORK OUT ALL THE WRINKLES. WE FEEL THAT THIS DOCUMENT AS IT'S AMENDED WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE VENDORS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT TO COME TOGETHER ON THIS AND MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>JIM NORMAN: MOVE THE ITEM. >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. I THINK THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN TERMS OF SPEAKING ABOUT THIS AS A TEMPORARY -- TEMPORARY BANNER TYPE ISSUE. I THINK IN SOME CASES THE APPLICANT WAS -- WAS -- ALMOST WAS BETTER OFF LETTING STAFF WRITE THIS FOR HIM. I THINK IT'S TOO BROAD, I THINK THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH RESTRICTION ON IT IN TERMS OF EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION, IN TERMS OF SIZE. I JUST DON'T SUPPORT THIS AS A TEMPORARY BANNER THING THAT'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY, SO I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: THIS BRINGS US TO ITEM "BB." THIS IS ANOTHER PRIVATELY INITIATED APPLICATION REQUESTED BY JIM PORTER. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO CREATE PERFORMANCE- BASED STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OF CELL TOWERS ON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS. HAVING SAID THAT, I'LL LET MR. PORTER SPEAK AND THEN STAFF WILL FOLLOW WITH THE REASONS FOR THE -- FOR OUR NONSUPPORT OF THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD EVENING, MR. PORTER. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS. JIM PORTER, RUDEN McCLOSKY, 401 EAST JACKSON STREET. AT YOUR LAST MEETING WE DISCUSSED WHY WE WERE DOING THIS, AND THESE REGULATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN LOOKED AT SINCE 1998. WE'RE PROPOSING TO CREATE STRINGENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE ERECTION OF CELL TOWERS ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES IF THEY'RE MET. IT CREATES A REVENUE STREAM FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS. IT BENEFITS SOMETIMES UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS, AND THE CRITERIA THAT WE SET FORTH IN THE CODE PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. WE WON'T DO A LENGTHY PRESENTATION, BUT WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. PORTER. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? >>KEVIN WHITE: MOVE APPROVAL. >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER WHITE, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN. NO OTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 7-0. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>JOE MOREDA: NEXT ITEM IS "CC" ON THE AGENDA. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REGULATION IS TO REVISE LAND EXCAVATION REGULATIONS FOR REVISION AND CLARIFICATION OF SPECIAL USE CRITERIA, INCLUDING LOCATIONAL CRITERIA, SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, HOURS OF OPERATION, SETBACKS, PERMIT EXPIRATION, AND WAIVER CRITERIA. MR. TOM HIZNAY OF OUR STAFF HAS A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS AMENDMENT. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD EVENING, SIR. >>TOM HIZNAY: GOOD EVENING. TOM HIZNAY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF. AS JOE MENTIONED, THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THE LAND EXCAVATION REGULATIONS. THE PURPOSE IS TO BETTER PROTECT ROADWAYS, RESIDENTIAL USES, AND GENERAL COMMUNITY WELFARE FROM THE ADVERSE IMPACTS POSED BY LAND EXCAVATIONS. IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY, I'M JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON TWO OF THE MAJOR CHANGES THAT WILL PROBABLY BE THE PRIMARY TOPIC OF DISCUSSION TONIGHT. ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIRED FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM THE CURRENT DISTANCE OF 100 OR 150 FEET TO 500 FEET, INCLUDING ALL RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. CURRENTLY THE CODE REQUIRES A SEPARATION OF 100 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL -- PROPERTY THAT'S AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE OR UNDER DEVELOPMENT WITH A RESIDENTIAL USE, AND THAT DISTANCE INCREASES TO 150 FEET IF THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE A DENSITY OF GREATER THAN TWO UNITS PER ACRE, SO IN MOST OF THE RURAL AREAS WHERE THE EXCAVATIONS ARE FREQUENTLY LOCATED, THE SETBACK -- MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIRED IS A HUNDRED FEET. TO HELP EVERYONE VISUALIZE WHAT THIS EXISTING SETBACK REQUIRES, I WENT INTO OUR GIS SYSTEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND I MEASURED THE BLOCK FACE HERE OF THIS -- OF THE BLOCK WHERE THE COUNTY CENTER'S LOCATED, AND THIS BLOCK FACE ALONG KENNEDY BOULEVARD IS ABOUT 210 FEET, WHICH MEANS THAT UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, SOMEONE'S HOUSE COULD BE ON ONE CORNER OF THE BLOCK, AND THE EXCAVATION WOULD BE ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE BLOCK, SO YOU CAN SEE IT'S NOT A REALLY SUBSTANTIAL SEPARATION, AND AGAIN, YOU CAN VISUALIZE HERE ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THAT SETBACK IS NOT A BUFFER AREA AND THAT UNLESS THE PERMITS ARE SPECIFICALLY CONDITIONED TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF THAT SETBACK, THE CODE ALLOWS THE HEAVY MACHINERY THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXCAVATION TO OPERATE WITHIN THAT 100-FOOT SETBACK AREA. STAFF, AS PART OF OUR EFFORT HERE, WE LOOKED AT OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN FLORIDA AND WHAT THEY REQUIRE SETBACKS FOR EXCAVATIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. AND WE FOUND THAT OUR CURRENT SETBACKS APPEAR TO BE ON THE LOW SIDE, WHEREAS, THE ONES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD BE ON THE HIGH SIDE. SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES -- LET'S SEE. I'VE CONTACTED AT LEAST SIX OTHERS. FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES, CHARLOTTE COUNTY, THEY REQUIRE A 1,000-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND 75 FEET FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE VACANT, AND THAT'S FOR MAJOR BORROW PITS. FOR EXCAVATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PLANS, THEY REQUIRE THEM 150 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND 75 FEET FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. PASCO COUNTY REQUIRES A 500-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED OR ZONED PROPERTY. HERNANDO COUNTY REQUIRES A 300-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. LAKE COUNTY REQUIRES A 200-FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND 100-FOOT SETBACK FROM PROPERTY WITH OTHER ZONINGS THAT ARE DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. POLK COUNTY REQUIRES A 200-FOOT SETBACK FROM PLATTED OR APPROVED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS AND 200 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. AND ALACHUA COUNTY REQUIRES A 150-FOOT SETBACK FROM PROPERTY DESIGNATED URBAN OR ESTATE RESIDENTIAL IN THEIR COMP PLAN AND A 100-FOOT SETBACK FROM PROPERTY DESIGNATED RURAL OR AGRICULTURAL IN THEIR COMP PLAN. ALSO, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT SOME OF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS WE SURVEYED REQUIRE GREATER SETBACK FROM ROADS OR OTHER FEATURES THAN WE DO. FOR EXAMPLE, ALACHUA COUNTY REQUIRES A 250-FOOT SETBACK FROM CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION AREAS; WHEREAS, WE REQUIRE A MAXIMUM OF 50 FEET. HERNANDO COUNTY REQUIRES A 100-FOOT SETBACK FROM ROADS WHILE WE REQUIRE ONLY 25 FEET FOR LAKE CREATION AND EXCAVATION. SO EVEN WITH THE INCREASED RESIDENTIAL SETBACK, STAFF IS PROPOSING THE NET SITE AREA THAT CAN BE MINED IN MANY CASES SHOULD COMPARE FAVORABLY WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE EXISTING SETBACKS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF EXCAVATION SITES IN RURAL AREAS WHERE THE PROPERTIES ARE AGRICULTURALLY ZONED WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF ONE ACRE OR MORE. FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN IF THE MAXIMUM SETBACK NOW REQUIRED OF 150 FEET IS PROVIDED AROUND AN EXCAVATION AND THE SITE IS ZONED ASC-1, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP THE REMAINING AREA WITH BUILDABLE RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS BECAUSE AFTER SPACE IS SUBTRACTED FOR AN ACCESS STREET, THE LOTS WOULD HAVE -- WOULD BE 100 FEET DEEP, AND BECAUSE OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THEY'D HAVE TO BE 435 FEET WIDE, WHICH OF COURSE IS AN ABSURD LOT PATTERN. ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE OF THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS, WHICH ARE 50 FEET, THOSE SETBACKS WOULD MEET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT, AND THERE WOULD BE NO PLACE TO BUILD A HOUSE. AND SO OUR -- THE SETBACKS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING OF 500 FEET ARE MUCH MORE CONSISTENT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP RURAL STYLE LOTS. TYPICALLY, IF YOU HAVE A LOT THAT'S 150 FEET WIDE, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIRED IN THE AG DISTRICTS, LIKE ASC-1, AND THEN THE LOT DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 290 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR A ONE-ACRE LOT, AND THEN YOU ADD IN THERE AN ACCESS STREET, WHICH IS TO SAY A RURAL CROSS-SECTION, WHICH WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 90 FEET IN WIDTH, THAT MEANS THAT NEARLY 400 FEET -- 400 FEET OF SPACE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT. I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT FINALLY THAT THE -- THE NEW REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WILL NOT BE RETROACTIVE TO ANY EXISTING PITS, THEY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO NEW APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN IF THESE REGULATIONS ARE ADOPTED. IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY, I'LL HOLD OFF ON ANY FURTHER REMARKS, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? PLEASE LINE UP. I KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF YOU. >> I HOPE THEY GIVE YOU GUYS COMP TIME FOR MEETING AT NIGHT. [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: IT'S A PLEASURE TO SEE YOU DURING THE EVENING, MR. BROWN. THANKS FOR COMING DOWN. >> MY NAME IS DAVID BROWN. I'M FROM SUN CITY CENTER. NORMALLY I APPEAR BEFORE YOU IN THE CAPACITY OF FIGHTING THE ABOVEGROUND BACKFLOW VALVES THAT ARE BEING FORCED ON THE ELDERLY IN SOUTH COUNTY. FOR A CHANGE OF PACE, I'M HERE TONIGHT TO URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AS IT STANDS. MY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE AIRBORNE PARTICLES THAT RESULT FROM THE HAULING AND THE DIGGING OPERATIONS OF BORROW PITS, PARTICULARLY IN SOUTH COUNTY AND PARTICULARLY ON WINDY DAYS. WE HAVE A KITTY CAT, AND HE HAS BESTOWED THE HONOR ON ME OF BEING IN CHARGE OF HIS LITTER BOX. I TRANSFERRED THE LITTER FROM THE STORE BOX TO AN INTERMEDIATE CONTAINER THAT I SCOOP FROM AS THE NEED ARISES. THIS MORNING AS I POURED THE LITTER FROM THIS BOX INTO THE CONTAINER, A CLOUD OF DUST AROSE, AND I GOT TO THINKING THAT IF YOU MULTIPLIED THAT CLOUD BY 10,000 TIMES A DAY, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LIVE NEXT TO ONE OF THESE BORROW PITS OR ALONG THE ROAD THAT LEADS TO IT. LAST YEAR FRIENDS OF OURS IN SUN CITY CENTER DECIDED TO MOVE OUT TO ARIZONA BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE DRY CLIMATE WOULD BE BETTER FOR HER RESPIRATORY AILMENT. THEY MOVED BACK WITHIN A FEW MONTHS. WHAT THEY FAILED TO ANTICIPATE WAS ALL THE AIRBORNE SAND CAUSED BY THE EARTH-MOVING OPERATIONS THAT ARE PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION BOOM IN NEARBY PHOENIX. THE SAND MADE HER CONDITION WORSE. ADELL SAID THAT THE ONLY DAY SHE COULD SEE THE MOUNTAINS OF ARIZONA WAS ON SUNDAY WHEN THE EARTH-MOVING OPERATIONS TOOK THE DAY OFF. YOU KNOW THAT I LIKE TO BRING SHOW AND TELL WHEN I TALK ABOUT ALL THE BAD THINGS ABOUT BACKFLOW VALVES. MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT FOR TONIGHT WAS TO BRING A BOWL FULL OF TALCUM POWDER AND A TANK OF COMPRESSED AIR AND TO SPRAY IT TO CREATE A CLOUD THAT WOULD FILL THIS ROOM; HOWEVER, I SETTLED ON JUST BRINGING THE EMPTY LITTER BOX. [LAUGHTER] UNFORTUNATELY, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE NEXT TO THESE BORROW PITS AND ALONG THE NEARBY ROADS DON'T HAVE THE OPTION OF SUBSTITUTING AN EMPTY LITTER BOX FOR THE CLOUD OF AIRBORNE PARTICLES ALL DAY LONG. I URGE YOU TO LISTEN TO YOUR STAFF AND CONSTITUENTS AND VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT AS IT STANDS. AND COMMISSIONER FERLITA, AS YOU SAY, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. >>MARK SHARPE: CAM. >> MY NAME IS CAM OBERTING, AND I LIVE IN AN AREA THAT IS SATURATED WITH BORROW PITS. I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU ON THIS BOARD HAS LIVED NEXT TO A BORROW PIT, SO YOU MAY NOT KNOW WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT, BUT THE NOISE AND THE DUST AT TIMES, THEY'RE JUST -- IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. WE WOULD PREFER NO BORROW PITS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, BUT, HOWEVER, WE WILL ACCEPT THIS SETBACK, AND HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE THIS BOARD WILL BE MORE PRUDENT IN ALLOWING AND NOT ALLOWING THOSE THAT ARE BREAKING THE RULES, THAT YOU WILL BE MORE STRINGENT ENFORCING THEM TO DO BETTER. THANK YOU. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU. MS. JAMES, ARE YOU NEXT? >> GOOD EVENING. JUDY JAMES, 325 SOUTH BOULEVARD. I MADE A PRESENTATION LAST TIME, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A FEW DIFFERENT ITEMS. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A BORROW PIT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY OF VACANT LAND 40 ACRES WITH A 500-FOOT SETBACK, THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T DEVELOP 85% OF YOUR SITE. YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO DIG 15%. THIS -- THE VACANT LAND -- THE PRESENTATIONS YOU'VE HEARD EARLIER IS AS IF THE BORROW PIT WAS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A PROPERTY OWNER. AS ONE OF THE OTHER FACTORS IN THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS THAT WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED LAND EXCAVATION, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER THE PROXIMITY TO RESIDENCES. IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE THAT YOU HAVE TO BE 100 FEET MAXIMUM AWAY, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DIG EXACTLY A HUNDRED FEET AWAY, BUT A 500-FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, SO WE'RE ASKING YOU THAT YOU NOT CONSIDER THE 500 FOOT. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IF YOU'RE OPERATING A MINE, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT SETBACK IS FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY? IT'S 200 FEET. SO WHY CAN I MINE PROPERTY IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AT 200 FEET AND HAVE A 500-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A LAND EXCAVATION? THE OTHER TWO ITEMS THAT I BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. IF I HAVE AN EXISTING STOCKPILE ON MY PROPERTY OF MATERIAL THAT I WANT TO REMOVE, HOW COULD I REMOVE THAT STOCKPILE IF I'M REQUIRED TO HAVE A 500-FOOT SETBACK? ALSO, IF I'M A PD ZONING AND I'M DOING A SUBDIVISION WITH A LAKE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AND I WANT TO REMOVE THE LAND FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE LAKE, ALL OF TOM'S CALCULATIONS MEAN NOTHING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE LOT. IF I'M THE ONE PUTTING 100-FOOT LOTS AROUND THAT EDGE OF THAT LAKE OR WHATEVER, I DON'T HAVE THE 500-FOOT BACK AT THAT POINT. IT WON'T WORK FOR A PD. THAT WASN'T TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. JAMES. NEXT, PLEASE. WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. PAM CLOUSTON, R-LAND, 1621 THOMPSON ROAD, LITHIA, FLORIDA. I THINK THE 500-FOOT SETBACK IS OKAY. LET ME PUT IT IN THESE TERMS. ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN COMPARED IT TO THE BLOCK HERE. HERE'S ONE THAT I KNOW ALL OF YOU WILL GET. IT'S LIKE IF YOU RAN AROUND THE BASES AT A BASEBALL FIELD, THAT DISTANCE. THAT'S NOT VERY FAR. IT'S A LITTLE BIT FARTHER THAN THAT. I'VE ALSO HEARD OF -- WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SETBACKS BEFORE, I'VE HEARD FOLKS SAY THAT IT'S LIKE A TAKING OF THAT PERSON'S LAND, BUT IF YOU LIVE IN A PROPERTY THAT IS NEXT TO ONE OF THESE BORROW PITS, YOU'RE HAVING SOMETHING TAKEN FROM YOU. YOU'RE HAVING YOUR LIFESTYLE TAKEN FROM YOU, YOU'RE HAVING YOUR PEACE AND QUIET, YOU'RE HAVING THE CLEANLINESS. I CAN TELL YOU I LIVE ON A DIRT ROAD, AND JUST WHEN IT'S DRY LIKE THIS TIME OF YEAR, JUST GOING SLOWLY UP AND DOWN THE DIRT ROAD RAISES ALL KINDS OF DUST LET ALONE IF YOU'RE DIGGING, AND LIKE THEY SAID, THIS WON'T BE RETROACTIVE FOR WHAT'S ALREADY APPROVED, THIS IS FOR WHAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE, AND I THINK THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE RIGHTS OF ALL THE CITIZENS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THIS IS REALLY GREAT. OTHERWISE YOUR STAFF WOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT IT FORWARD. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. CLOUSTON. NEXT, PLEASE. WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING. VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON. I SUPPORT THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA FOR LAND EXCAVATIONS AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED. SOME PROPERTY OWNERS MAY SUGGEST THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CONSIST OF A TAKING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. I SUBMIT THAT THE PRESENT REQUIREMENTS CONSIST OF A TAKING WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION OF THE RIGHTS TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. FURTHER, I WANT TO POINT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 11 OF THE MODIFICATION, SECTION "C," WAIVERS, PART THREE, WHICH ALLOWS, QUOTE, WHERE THE APPLICANT PROVIDES AFFIDAVITS OF NO OBJECTION FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, PECULIARLY AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED WAIVER, SUCH AS REDUCED SEPARATION BETWEEN AN EXCAVATION AND NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; HOWEVER, IN NO CASE SHALL WAIVERS BE GRANTED WHICH SERIOUSLY ADVERSELY IMPACT HEALTH AND SAFETY. THIS PROVISION ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND POTENTIALLY COMPENSATE THEM SHOULD THEY DESIRE TO REDUCE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THESE PROPERTY OWNERS DESERVE PROTECTION AND JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF THEIR RIGHTS. IF THE LAW WERE FAIR AND EQUITABLE, PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO PROFIT FROM LAND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THE SAME SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY SEEK TO IMPOSE ON THEIR NEIGHBORS. UNTIL THAT PROVISION IS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS SECTION, I THINK ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SETBACK AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS RING HOLLOW. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. BACCA. NEXT, PLEASE. >> TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AND U-CAN. I DO HAVE A LETTER THAT SOMEBODY LEFT THAT I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD JUST SO YOU GUYS HAVE IT [OFF MICROPHONE] ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORS. BUT I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. I'M BOTHERED BY HEARING THAT -- THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING SETBACKS ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT EXCEED THE 100-FOOT OR 150-FOOT LIMIT THAT WE NOW HAVE IS A TAKING OF ONE'S PROPERTY, AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. IT'S NOT A TAKING OF PROPERTY, IT'S A SPECIAL USE. THERE ARE GUIDELINES FOR ALL THAT WE DO. WE HAVE -- IT'S -- WE HAVE SETBACKS FOR HOMES, WE HAVE SETBACKS FOR A LOT OF OTHER STUFF. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THE CODE IS. TO -- WE NEED TO HAVE SOME MORE STRINGENT POLICIES IN PLACE. THIS DOESN'T EVEN BRUSH THE SURFACE AS FAR AS A LOT OF US ARE CONCERNED, BUT IT'S A MOVEMENT FORWARD THAT PROTECTS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INUNDATED WITH THESE PROJECTS WITHIN CERTAIN COMMUNITIES OR ANY COMMUNITY THAT HAS A PIT THAT'S IN THE PROCESS. IT'S -- IT'S AN EMOTIONAL THING, AS YOU CAN WELL TELL, AS YOU HEARD THE LAST TIME. BUT I'M ASKING YOU TO LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND GET OVER THIS PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE AND MOVE ON, AND LET'S PUT SOME PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ALREADY LIVE THERE, HAVE LIVED IN THE AREA FOR MANY YEARS. IT'S NOT LIKE PEOPLE JUST MOVED IN. THESE THINGS ARE HORRENDOUS TO LIVE BY OR NEAR, AND IT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS, AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. FLOTT. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING TO OUR COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS VIRGINIA RUTLEDGE. I LIVE AT 16001 COLDING LOOP. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, WE ARE AN AGRICULTURAL AREA, AND WE USED TO HAVE A LOT OF BEAUTIFUL FIELDS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES GROWING ALL AROUND. TODAY THEY HAVE MOSTLY DISAPPEARED AND ARE REPLACED BY BORROW PITS. WE HAD NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. IT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE FAIR, BUT THAT'S THE WAY A LOT OF THINGS ARE IN THIS WORLD ANYMORE. WE THANK YOU, BUT YOU WOULD THINK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. WE NEED FOOD TODAY, AND IT GETS LESS AND LESS. MORE PLACES ARE -- QUIT GROWING, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE FOOD TO LIVE. ANYWAY, WE HAVE -- WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE SAY-SO ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT TO US, AND THERE IS A BORROW PIT 100 FEET FROM MY PROPERTY LINE, AND THEY HAVE TO -- THERE'S NO REAL ENTRANCE TO IT FROM THE ROAD. THEY GO BY PART OF MY PROPERTY BEFORE THEY GET TO THE ROAD, AND WHEN THESE HUGE DUMP TRUCKS GO IN AND OUT, IT WILL BE NOTHING BUT A FOG OF DIRT EVERYWHERE. THERE WILL BE NO FREE AIR, NO CLEAN AIR FOR ANYONE THAT IS OUT OF DOORS. YOU CAN'T GO ANYWHERE OR DO WORK OUTSIDE OR DRY CLOTHES ON YOUR CLOTHES LINE. THAT IS NOT SO GOOD, AND IF THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFTER DOLLARS RATHER THAN OTHER THINGS, THEY MIGHT CHANGE THEIR MIND. LET'S SEE. ANYWAY, WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL THINK ABOUT WHAT INVOLVES ALL OF THIS, SO -- AND TO MR. HIGGINBOTHAM, HE ASKED WHEN HE WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTION FOR US TO VOTE FOR HIM. NOW WE HOPE HE FULFILLS HIS PLEDGE AND HELPS US IN VOTING FOR THIS AMENDMENT. THAT WILL HELP US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND GOD BLESS EVERYONE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANKS FOR COMING DOWN AGAIN, MS. RUTLEDGE. APPRECIATE IT. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, PLEASE. NEXT, PLEASE. >> I REALLY DON'T LIKE FOLLOWING THAT. [LAUGHTER] I'M STEVE ALLISON, AND I'M SPEAKING AGAINST THE AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME. LIKE OTHERS IN OBJECTION, I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE 500-FOOT SEPARATION. I'M KIND OF NEW TO THE PLANNING FIELD. THIS IS ONLY MY 30th YEAR, BUT NEVER HAVE I SEEN A STAFF PROPOSE A FIVEFOLD INCREASE IN ANY REQUIREMENT EVER, AND LIKE I SAY, I'M NEW, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, HAVE SOME JUSTIFICATION FOR IT IS ALL THAT I ASK. THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION I'VE HEARD IS THAT, WELL, WE FOUND ONE OTHER COUNTY THAT HAD A 500-FOOT REQUIREMENT, SO MAYBE -- YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE CAN BE MORE LIKE PASCO. THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE -- AND I SERVED ON THE STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE FOR THIS -- THERE'S BEEN NO ANALYSIS OF, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE 500-FOOT SETBACK WOULD HAVE MEANT HISTORICALLY TO THE OTHER BORROW PITS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR LET'S CALCULATE HOW MUCH LESS YIELD OF FIELD -- OF FILL MATERIAL WE MIGHT HAVE HAD HAD WE IMPOSED THIS SETBACK, HOW WOULD THAT HAVE LED TO ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY TO THE BENEFIT OF ANYONE. MANY OF THE POINTS BROUGHT FORWARD BY MR. HIZNAY TONIGHT, THOSE ARE THE FIRST TIME WE'VE EVEN HEARD THAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS, AND AGAIN, WE HAD A STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE ON IT. THERE ARE CONCERNS OTHER THAN THE 500 FEET. THEY INVOLVE ALLOWABLE ZONING DISTRICTS, SEPARATION FROM CHURCHES -- YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE -- CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, I THINK THE MISUSE OF THE SPECIAL USE PROCEDURE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT AND THE SPECIAL USE EXPIRATION, WHICH IS ALSO WITHOUT PRECEDENT. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WILL ARE POSITIVE ELEMENTS TO WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED. STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB IN CLEANING UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE. SOME OF IT HAS BEEN VERY POORLY WRITTEN. BUT AT THIS POINT, THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT READY TO BE APPROVED. I'M NOT SAYING THAT AN INCREASE IN SETBACKS IS COMPLETELY A NEGATIVE THING, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE ANALYSIS THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO JUSTIFY IT AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY. SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S AN ONGOING ALTERNATIVE EFFORT REGARDING DENSITY CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH LAKE CREATION. THAT COULD LEAD TO COMP PLAN AND LDC CHANGES IN THE FUTURE. IT MAY BE THAT ALL OF THESE CHANGES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THAT CONTEXT AND AT THAT TIME, DO THEM ALL AT ONCE INSTEAD OF PIECEMEALING IT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. ALLISON. NEXT, PLEASE. >> HI THERE. MY NAME IS KELLY CORNELIUS. MY ADDRESS IS 18732 DORMAN ROAD, LITHIA, FLORIDA. I'M HAPPY TO SAY IT'S STILL BYPASS FREE AND, AFTER LISTENING TO TWO OF THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, VERY HAPPY THAT IT IS BORROW PIT FREE. I CAME DOWN TONIGHT, TURNED DOWN REDWING/LIGHTNING TICKETS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT IMPORTANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY IN BALM. THESE CITIZENS ARE BEGGING FOR YOUR HELP AND YOUR PROTECTION, AND IT'S MINIMAL. IT LOOKS LIKE SEVERAL COUNTIES DO A BETTER JOB THAN WE DO, AND WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THAT. A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MS. JAMES SAID MADE MY EARS PERK UP WHEN SHE SAID THAT MINING OPERATIONS ARE ALLOWED TO DO THIS WITHIN 200 FEET. MAYBE WE NEED TO OPEN UP OUR REGULATIONS AND LOOK AT THOSE FOR MINING. MAYBE THEY NEED TO BE SET BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TOO BECAUSE THAT SEEMS OUTRAGEOUS THAT A MINE CAN OPERATE 200 FEET, AS DOES A BORROW PIT FOR 100 FEET, SO I JUST CAME DOWN TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO LISTEN TO YOUR CITIZENS. I THINK YOU'VE SEEN A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN YOU IGNORE THE CITIZENS AND FAVOR A SPECIAL INTEREST, SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO STEP AWAY FROM THE DARK SIDE AND OVER TOWARDS THE CITIZENS AND GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. CORNELIUS. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD EVENING. >> I'M LAUREN O'GRADY, 660 BRYAN TERRACE DRIVE IN BRANDON, FLORIDA. I WANTED TO SAY FAREWELL TO COMMISSIONER BLAIR. HE'LL BE LEAVING SHORTLY, AND GOOD LUCK. >>BRIAN BLAIR: THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANTED TO GET ON RECORD TO SUPPORT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION -- SORRY -- IN SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>KEN HAGAN: THANKS FOR COMING DOWN. NEXT, PLEASE. WELCOME. >> HELLO. I'M KERMIT OSTEEN, 15133 CARLTON LAKE ROAD. NOW, THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE I CAME BEHIND MRS. RUTLEDGE AND SHOWED YOU PHOTOS OF HER. I THOUGHT OF DOING THAT AGAIN BUT CHANGED MY MIND AFTER I GOT HERE. I WANTED TO TELL YOU A LITTLE PERSONAL STORY. I RETIRED EIGHT YEARS AGO AND I LEFT TAMPA, LEFT HYDE PARK, SOLD OUT AND MOVED OUT TO BALM WITH MY WIFE AND I RETIRED, AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY WE WERE -- WE GOT INTO THIS THING WITH THE DIRT PITS. I SAID I'M STUMBLING BECAUSE I CHANGED WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. SO WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING THAT NOW, AND I'M SURE THAT YOU ARE TIRED OF LOOKING AT MARCELLA'S FACE MAYBE, AND I KIND OF WANT HER BACK SO WE CAN RETIRE. [LAUGHTER] AND I'VE -- I MEAN, YOU MIGHT BE TIRED OF LOOKING AT MY FACE, I'VE BEEN DOWN HERE TOO, AND ALSO MY DAUGHTER HAS BEEN HERE AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN HAVE BEEN HERE. SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS DISAPPEAR MAYBE IF -- AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT US, AND THEN MAYBE -- JUST HELP US OUT TO GET OUR PEACE OF MIND BACK AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. IT HAS -- IT'S REALLY BEEN BLASTED THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, AND SO JUST PLEASE SUPPORT THIS AS IT STANDS I ASK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. DENNIS CARLTON, 601 SOUTH FALKENBURG ROAD 33619. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT COME TO LIGHT ON THIS PROPOSAL, AND ONE OF THEM IS -- WE TALKED TO STAFF ABOUT IT. EVIDENTLY IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY HEADWAY, AND I WOULD LIKE FOR EITHER THE COMMISSION OR STAFF AT SOME POINT IN TIME TO TELL ME WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS, AND IT DEALS WITH CHURCHES. I'M A CHRISTIAN. I GO TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORNING, SUNDAY NIGHT, AND WEDNESDAY NIGHT. I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THAT UNDER THE OPERATIONAL PERMITS THERE'S A SETBACK REQUIREMENT HERE THAT SAYS -- I'VE GOT A COLD -- 1,000 FEET FROM ANY SCHOOL, HOSPITAL, OR CHURCH PROPERTY LINE. YOU CAN'T HAVE A BORROW PIT IN OPERATION ON SUNDAY, AND YOU DON'T HAVE -- THEY'RE NOT IN OPERATION WEDNESDAY NIGHTS, SO WHILE A SCHOOL OBVIOUSLY IS OPEN, NEEDS TO BE A THOUSAND- FOOT SETBACK, HOSPITAL CERTAINLY SHOULD, I DON'T SEE THE RATIONALE BEHIND A CHURCH BECAUSE DURING THE TIME THE SERVICES ARE WHEN THE CHURCH IS ACTIVE, BORROW PITS ARE SHUT DOWN. AND THE SECOND THING I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU, TOM HIZNAY WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT UNDER THE -- IF IT WAS A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PIECE OF PROPERTY. SAID IF IT WAS AT THE CORNER, ONE-HALF OF THIS PROPERTY ALONG THE FRONTAGE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH, AND HE'S RIGHT, BUT IF IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH ANY OF IT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. YOU KNOW, IT'S A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE TO ME. ANYTIME SOMEBODY COMES TO THIS BOARD -- IF I WAS TO COME TO YOU AND ASK YOU I WANT YOU TO FIVEFOLD INCREASE THE AMOUNT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY ME, YOU'RE GOING TO TAX ME, OR ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THAT'S PROBABLY PRETTY EXCESSIVE, AND AS I READ THIS, IT TALKS ABOUT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND TALKS ABOUT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. ALL OVER HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THERE'S LAND. I HAVE BOUGHT AND ZONED LAND JUST TO CREATE VALUE. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING IT. IT'S IN STRAWBERRY FIELDS TODAY, BUT THE REALITY IS IF THIS WAS TO PASS, MY NEIGHBOR, I CAN TELL HIM -- OR HE WOULD, HE'D HAVE TO BACK UP 500 FEET. HE'S GOT A STRAWBERRY FIELD TOO. THERE'S NO RATIONALE BEHIND THAT. THERE NEEDS TO SOME PROTECTION AGAINST -- ON -- WITH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, BUT IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN PROBABLY THROUGH THE OPERATIONAL PERMIT, MAYBE THE TIMES THAT THEY CAN WORK, POSSIBLY A DIFFERENT SETBACK, BUT JUST TO ARBITRARILY SAY 500 FEET I DON'T THINK MAKES ANY SENSE, SO THE CHURCH ISSUE I WOULD -- YOU KNOW, MAYBE STAFF COULD TELL US WHY THAT, AND I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN REFERENCE TO THE 500-FOOT SETBACK. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BERYL FERNANDEZ. I LIVE AT 13501 BURNETT ROAD, BALM. I'M SPEAKING NOT ONLY FOR MYSELF THIS EVENING BUT ALSO FOR MY 94-YEAR-OLD MOTHER, CATHERINE BURNETT. IT IS OF GREAT EFFORT THAT SHE IS HERE WITH US TO SHOW HER SUPPORT FOR OUR SMALL COMMUNITY. THAT'S MOTHER IN THE MAROON SUIT BACK THERE. OUR FAMILY HAS LIVED IN BALM OVER 100 YEARS. SHE AND I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE FOR ONE THING, IT DOES GIVE A MORE APPROPRIATE SETBACK FROM PEOPLE'S HOMES. IN THE LONG RUN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LASTING EFFECT IS GOING TO BE. WILL WE HAVE LAKES FULL OF WATER OR HALF-DRIED MOSQUITO HOLES? WOULD YOU LIKE THIS UNCERTAINTY? WE FEEL THAT A 500-FOOT SETBACK IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK. WE HAVE FOUR BORROW PITS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF OUR HOME. ANOTHER BORROW PIT HAS BEEN PERMITTED WITHIN THE SAME AREA. WE ARE TOTALLY SURROUNDED WITH PITS. IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY ALL OF THE PITS HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO EXCAVATE AROUND CREEKS AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS. MRS. JAMES' 40-ACRE ILLUSTRATION SHOWING THE EFFECT OF A 500-FOOT SETBACK WAS A JOKE. MOST OF THE BORROW PIT SITES IN BALM ARE 200 ACRES AND UP. THE TWO THAT ARE CLOSEST TO US ARE 220 AND 479 ACRES. BIG DIFFERENCE; RIGHT? THE PITS ARE LARGE AND CAN BE 40 TO 50 FEET DEEP. IN RESPONSE TO MR. ALLISON'S RECENT E-MAIL TO YOU, THE BOARD, AND MS. OSTEEN, HE SEEMED TO RESENT OUR PRESENTATION AT THE OCTOBER 16th MEETING. I WAS NOT GIVEN A SCRIPT FROM ANYONE. I SPOKE FOR MYSELF, SIMPLY VOICING MY OPINION AND CONCERNS. MR. ALLISON DOES INDEED KNOW ME. HE HAS BEEN IN OUR HOME TWICE REPRESENTING LAND GROVES TO DISCUSS THE 479-ACRE TRACT WITH MY FAMILY AND NEIGHBORS. PROPOSED HOUSES WILL SIT ON TOP OF ONE OF THREE NATURAL CREEKS THAT RUN THROUGH MY ADJACENT PROPERTY. MR. ALLISON IS WELL AWARE OF THIS. THE BORROW PIT OWNERS WANT THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. BIG MONEY FROM DIRT SALES, WINNING HIGH-DENSITY CREDITS AROUND THEIR PIT, AND I GUESS EVEN DAMMING UP A CREEK BED FOR THEIR PERSONAL GAIN. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE GOLDEN RULE? THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT ENTIRELY ADEQUATE, BUT IT IS MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY. WE STRONGLY URGE YOU TO APPROVE IT WITH NO CHANGES. BY THE WAY, NOT ONE OF THE BORROW PIT OWNERS WORKING IN OUR AREA LIVE IN BALM. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, PLEASE. WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M MARIELLA SMITH. I LIVE AT 108 JANIE STREET IN RUSKIN. WE HAVE HAD BORROW PITS AND EXCAVATION PROJECTS IN MY COMMUNITY, AND WE WILL HAVE -- THERE ARE MORE PLANNED IN THE FUTURE -- IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THERE'S A CONTINUING DISCUSSION GOING ON. HILLSBOROUGH IS GROWING. MORE PEOPLE ARE COMING INTO OUR COUNTY, MORE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING, AND IT MAKES SENSE AT THIS POINT TO LOOK AT INCREASING OUR PROTECTIONS BETWEEN THE KINDS OF ACTIVITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. IT MAKES SENSE TO THINK OF BRINGING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S PROTECTIONS IN LINE WITH THE OTHER COUNTIES. CHARLOTTE AND COLLIER COUNTY HAVE A 1,000-FOOT BUFFERS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND THIS KIND OF EXCAVATION. 100 FOOT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JUST ISN'T -- ISN'T ADEQUATE ANYMORE AT THIS TIME. IT ALSO MAKES SENSE IN TODAY'S ECONOMY WITH WHAT OUR HOMEOWNERS ARE FACING, WITH WHAT COMMUNITIES ARE FACING, THE ECONOMIC PICTURE TO -- TO PROTECT THE SMALL HOMEOWNERS FROM THE DEVALUATION OF THEIR HOMES THAT THESE KINDS OF EXCAVATION PROJECTS CAN CAUSE, AND IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL HOLE AND THE HOME, IT'S THOSE TRUCKS GOING BY IN -- WITHIN THAT BUFFER AREA, SO THE MORE OF THAT BUFFER AREA YOU HAVE, THE MORE PROTECTION YOU HAVE FROM THE DIRT BLOWING, THE NOISE, THE -- EVERYTHING THAT DEVALUES THE PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE SMALL HOMEOWNERS IN THESE TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES. THIS IS A -- THIS IS A PROPER TIME TO CONSIDER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. NEXT, PLEASE. >> DAVE KULOW AGAIN FROM BOYETTE SPRINGS. THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO CHURCHES ONLY OPERATING ON SUNDAY. THE GENTLEMAN IS SADLY UNAWARE OF WHAT CHURCHES DO WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND MANY OF THE CHURCHES OPERATE ON 24/7, AND MOST OF THEM OPERATE 12 HOURS A DAY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, AND SO CHURCHES WOULD BE AFFECTED MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY, AND SATURDAY, AND SUNDAY, AND I THINK HE WAS VERY CULTURALLY UNAWARE. BESIDES THAT, THERE ARE CERTAIN DENOMINATIONS THAT DO NOT - - THAT WORSHIP ON OTHER DAYS THAN SUNDAY. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRIEFLY STATE THAT THE STAFF HAS WORKED VERY HARD. THIS IS A GOOD AMENDMENT. IT'S REAL PROGRESS. IT'S BADLY NEEDED. LET ME GIVE YOU AN ILLUSTRATION. THERE'S ABOUT 30,000 OF US THAT HAVE TO USE BOYETTE ROAD. RIGHT IN PHASE II THERE WAS A BORROW PIT THAT WAS DUG WITHIN THE 50 FOOT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE OLD BOYETTE ROAD. INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO PUT A SIX-LANE ROAD WHICH WE NEEDED, THERE WAS ONLY ROOM TO SQUEEZE IN FOUR LANES, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE 30,000 PEOPLE THAT ARE INCONVENIENCED BY THIS. IT'S TIME THINGS WERE CHANGED. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, LADY AND GENTLEMEN. GEORGE NEIMANN, DOVER, FLORIDA, MEMBER OF UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK. I COME TO YOU TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AMENDMENT, AND I WOULD -- I WANT TO GIVE YOU A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD FROM MANY OF THE CITIZENS, YOU'VE HEARD FROM SOME OF THE BUSINESS INTERESTS. HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU. I VIEW THIS -- WE'VE BEEN VERY EXCITED AFTER LAST WEEK. WE'RE VERY, VERY EXCITED. WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS A NEW ERA FOR THE BOARD. THIS IS A NEW ERA, BUT I JUST WANT TO CAREFULLY CAUTION YOU, I WANT TO MOTIVATE YOU, THAT THIS -- WE WANT YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE CITIZENS. YOU'RE SITTING HERE TONIGHT ON THIS AMENDMENT. YOU'VE GOT CITIZEN INTERESTS ON THIS SIDE. THEY'RE SUFFERING. IF I WERE LIVING ANYWHERE NEAR A BORROW PIT I'D BE ASKING FOR A THOUSAND FEET. YOU'VE GOT A PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING. IF THEY DON'T, THEN I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD REPLACE THEM, BUT YOU HAVE A STAFF THAT ARE EXPERTS, AND THEY RECOMMEND 500 FEET. YOU HAVE THE BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT ARE MOTIVATED BY PROFIT, AND THEY WANT TO DO THINGS EASIER, CHEAPER, AND GET MORE OF IT DONE AND CRAM IT IN. SO YOU'VE GOT TO FACE -- YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THIS, DO I WANT TO HELP THE CITIZENS AND LESSEN THEIR BURDEN OR DO I WANT TO BENEFIT THE BUSINESS INTERESTS? SO WHAT I TELL YOU IS IN THIS NEW ERA STARTING ON THE 18th, WE'RE GOING TO PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION, AND THIS SYMBOL -- WE'RE WATCHING YOU. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE WATCHING YOU, AND I WANT TO TELL ALL THE CITIZENS THAT CAME DOWN TONIGHT, PLEASE TAKE NAMES AND NUMBERS BECAUSE THE REST OF YOU WHO ARE GOING TO RETURN ON THE 18th, YOU'RE GOING TO BE UP FOR ELECTION, AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO PAY ATTENTION AS TO HOW YOU'RE VOTING, AND THEY'RE GOING TO THINK TO THEMSELVES, AS WE SAW LAST WEEK, IS THIS PERSON VOTING IN MY BEST INTERESTS OR ARE THEY VOTING IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S BEST INTERESTS? SO EVERYONE THAT'S WATCHING ON TELEVISION AND EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE TONIGHT, PLEASE WATCH THIS BOARD. LOOK AT EACH OF THEM. AND WHEN THEY VOTE AND THEY CAST THE VOTE, IF IT'S AGAINST YOUR INTEREST, REMEMBER THAT WHEN THEY COME UP NEXT ELECTION THAT THEY'RE BEING REELECTED, OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. NIEMANN. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] WELCOME. >> IS IT LIVE? OKAY. SORRY FOR THE DELAY. MARCELLA OSTEEN, 15133 CARLTON LAKE ROAD. I'M PRESIDENT OF BALM CIVIC ASSOCIATION, AND I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. WILL ALL OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE ALSO HERE TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT PLEASE STAND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, MANY OF US CAME DOWN TO THE FIRST HEARING, AND I THINK THAT YOU HEARD US LOUD AND CLEAR, GAVE YOU A LOT OF BOOTS-ON-THE-GROUND INFORMATION, AND I KIND OF FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT HOW THE VOTE'S GOING TO GO, BUT JUST IN CASE, I'M GOING TO BRING SOME MORE NUTS-AND-BOLTS DATA FOR YOU ALSO. I WANT TO REFUTE SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS YOU MAY HAVE BEEN HEARING TELLING YOU THAT THE SETBACKS ARE WAY TOO BIG OR THE COST OF DIRT WILL RISE TO THE POINT OF IT BEING FISCALLY UNWISE TO HAVE THIS AMENDMENT, THAT IT MIGHT EVEN HURT THE COUNTY'S OWN POCKETBOOK. WELL, I SAY HORSE FEATHERS TO THAT. TRUE ECONOMIC IMPACT WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE, BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME FACTS AND FIGURES NOW. I ASKED STAFF FOR SOME DATA THAT I NOW WANT TO SHARE, DATA THAT WILL SHOW THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AT THIS TIME PLENTY OF ALREADY PERMITTED UNDUG DIRT TO LAST US FOR A GOOD LONG TIME FROM THE EXACT PITS WE ALREADY HAVE NOW PERMITTED. CHECK THIS OUT. ON THIS THING HERE -- CHART, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT THAT WELL, BUT THIS REPRESENTS THE PITS THAT ARE ALREADY PERMITTED IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THERE'S 21 OF THEM, AND ACTUALLY, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE THAT WERE LEFT OFF THIS LIST, BUT NEVER MIND THAT. YOU WILL NOTE THAT NINE OF THEM ARE FROM BALM, AND OF THOSE NINE FROM BALM, THAT REPRESENTS 64% OF THE DIRT, SO -- FROM OUR LITTLE, SMALL AREA. OKAY. STICK WITH ME HERE. I KNOW THAT EYES GLAZE OVER WHEN YOU SEE A CHART, AND MINE DO TOO, BUT THERE'S A STORY BEHIND THESE NUMBERS. COLUMN ONE REPRESENTS THE CUBIC YARDS THAT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED, AND THAT'S 76 MILLION AND CHANGE. COLUMN TWO AND THREE, THAT REPRESENTS THE DIRT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DUG. COLUMN -- THE LAST COLUMN IS THE DIRT THAT HASN'T BEEN DUG, AND THAT'S 36 MILLION 362 AND CHANGE. NOW, THIS DOWN HERE SHOWS THE CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT REMOVED BY YEAR STARTING IN '98, ENDING WITH THE MOST RECENT TWO QUARTERS, AND THAT TOTALS 38 MILLION AND CHANGE. DIVIDE THAT BY THE 11 YEARS, AND YOU GET 3,474,663 -- OH, NO -- YARDS PER YEAR, AND THEN YOU DIVIDE THAT BY THIS UP HERE, AND YOU GET THE FIGURE. WE GOT TWO -- 10.1 YEARS OF DIRT LEFT. BUT IF WE NEVER DIG ANOTHER BORROW PIT, WE'VE GOT -- IT'LL LAST US TEN YEARS, AND THAT'S NOT EVEN COUNTING THE DIBBS PIT, WHICH HAS JUST BEEN -- IT'S ALMOST BEEN PERMITTED FOR TWO MILLION POINT FIVE, SO THAT WOULD EVEN BE TWELVE YEARS, WHATEVER. OH, MY GOSH. CAN I HAVE A LITTLE MORE? >>KEN HAGAN: QUICKLY. >> OH, MY GOODNESS. NOW -- OKAY. ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT'S BROUGHT FORWARD BY MS. JAMES SHOWING A PARCEL THAT WAS 40 ACRES AND HOW THE 500-FOOT SETBACK WOULD RUIN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOTS THAT SHE COULD HAVE. WELL, GUESS WHAT. MAYBE 40 ACRES IS NOT -- SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL ZONING IS NOT THE RIGHT PROPERTY FOR A BORROW PIT. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ALL. YOU EITHER HAVE A BORROW PIT ON YOUR 40 ACRES OR YOU HAVE HOUSES. YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING. SO THAT'S NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. OSTEEN. >> OH, MAN. [APPLAUSE] >> OKAY. THIS IS OVERDUE. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, SO DO IT WITHOUT CHANGING IT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: ANYONE ELSE? WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS CHART, THE REQUIRED EXCAVATION SETBACKS FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND I -- IF I COULD ASK YOU A QUESTION. I SEE WE USED SEVERAL COUNTIES HERE THAT WERE MORE RURAL IN NATURE. WHY DIDN'T WE USE A COUNTY LIKE ORANGE OR BROWARD OR DUVAL COUNTIES THAT HAVE MORE OF A COMBINATION OF -- AND REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR COUNTY. >>TOM HIZNAY: I TRIED TO PICK COUNTIES THAT WERE LOCATED CLOSE TO US. I CERTAINLY DIDN'T TRY TO CHERRY-PICK, YOU KNOW. I JUST TRIED TO PICK THE COUNTIES THAT WERE AROUND US, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE COUNTIES, YOU KNOW, ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND OTHERS ARE NOT. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND THEIR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. BUT DO YOU HAVE MAYBE AT YOUR FINGERTIPS, SINCE ORANGE AND DUVAL ARE REALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF US, THE -- THESE COUNTIES? >>TOM HIZNAY: NO, SIR. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: WELL, I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN GENERAL SINCE THIS IS MY LAST MEETING HERE. MS. OSTEEN, YOU SAID IT RIGHT, THE ECONOMY'S VERY IMPORTANT, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING. MY DAD'S A CARPENTER. I'LL NEVER FORGET THE TIME THAT THEY WENT ON STRIKE, AND I WAS ABOUT 12 YEARS OLD. HE WAS BUILDING THE AIRPORT, AND WE STARTED GETTING BOXES IN, AND PRETTY SOON I LEARNED I WAS GETTING FOOD STAMPS. GOT CAUGHT TAKING FOOD STAMPS, NEVER FORGET THE HUMILITY THAT I LEARNED FROM THAT. YOU OFTEN CALL THE BUILDERS SPECIAL INTERESTS. YOU-ALL LIVE IN A HOME THAT A DEVELOPER BUILT, MOST OF YOU. YOU GUYS NEED TO REALIZE THAT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTES -- AND I'M SAYING THIS VERY PEACEFULLY AND CALMLY SO YOU REALIZE SOMETHING THAT'S FACTUAL. 65% -- ALMOST 65% OF OUR ECONOMY IS AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT AND -- GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S A FACT. IT TAKES ALMOST 90 DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES AND OCCUPATIONS TO BUILD ONE HOME, AND THINK OF THE ANCILLARY OCCUPATIONS FROM THE GUY THAT MOWS LAWNS, THE POOL MAN, THE PERSON THAT CLEANS GUTTERS, A PERSON THAT TRIMS TREES, THE BANKER, THE GUY THAT MAKES A NAIL, THE ROOFER, THE CARPENTER, THE ELECTRICIAN. YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE HOMELESS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY AND HURTING AND SUFFERING, AND MANY OF THIS -- MUCH OF THIS HAS HAPPENED -- NOT ALL OF IT. WE'VE GOT SCANDALS, WE'VE GOT ALL KINDS OF THINGS, BUT I'M TELLING YOU SOMETHING. WHEN YOU OVERREGULATE SOMETHING OR WHEN YOU OVERDO SOMETHING -- AND LET ME SAY FIRST, I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO A DIRT PIT, AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN ONE SECOND. THERE'S NO WAY I'D WANT TO LIVE IN A DIRT PIT -- NEXT TO A BORROW PIT, BUT WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY AND YOU KEEP MAKING -- WHEN -- I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. WE'VE GOT THE HZM, THE PROCESS, THE HZM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, THEN YOU'VE GOT EPC, SWFWMD, DEP, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WE'VE GOT TRAILS, PARKS, WE'VE GOT ELAPP. WE'VE GOT LOTS OF THINGS, AND OUR ENVIRONMENT IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCE, IT'S OUR MOST IMPORTANT ASSET, AND WE DO HAVE TO PROTECT IT, BUT EXTREMISM IS NOT A VIRTUE. WE'VE GOT TO FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN-SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ARE FOLKS LIKE -- THAT GATHER AND THAT ARE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>BRIAN BLAIR: THE -- THE BUILDERS -- THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE BUILDERS PROVIDE JOBS, THEY PROVIDE EVERYTHING THAT MAKES THE DOLLAR GO AROUND. I FEEL ABSOLUTELY SORRY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE BORROW PITS RIGHT NOW, BUT IF THIS IS GOING TO INHIBIT AND OVERPROTECT AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY DONE A STUDY ON THIS -- AS FAR AS RIGHT NOW GOES, THERE'S -- I GUESS THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO, BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO PUT A BUSINESS OF ANY KIND, WHETHER IT BE A BORROW PIT OR ANYTHING AND THERE'S NOTHING AROUND THEM AT THE TIME, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF TO SAY THIS 500 FEET'S PERFECT, THIS IS THE PERFECT NUMBER, THIS IS A GREAT NUMBER, LET'S JUST PULL THIS OUT OF THE HAT, AND IT'S DONE TOO OFTEN IN GOVERNMENT. IT'S KNEE-JERK REACTIONS BECAUSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE TIME TO COME HERE AND TAKE THE TIME TO COME HERE INFLUENCE STAFF, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS, MY KIDS, THE KIDS I MENTOR AND THE KIDS THAT YOU -- YOU ARE RAISING RIGHT NOW ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE OUT OF THIS STATE TO FIND A JOB. GROWTH HAS GOT TO BE WHERE GROWTH SHOULD BE, BUT DON'T -- DON'T -- EXTREMISM IS NOT A VIRTUE, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY. IT'S NOT, AND IF YOU -- IF YOU DON'T HAVE ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC BACKUP OR FACTUAL BACKUP TO JUSTIFY MAKING ANYTHING MORE DIFFICULT, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY. [APPLAUSE] >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: MS. HARVEY, IF THERE IS A SITUATION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL WANTS -- IF THIS IS -- IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL -- IT'S DETERMINED THAT THE 500-FOOT SETBACK IS TOO EXTREME, WOULD THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK IN FOR A VARIANCE OF SOME SORT AND ASK FOR A REQUEST OF A WAIVER OF THIS AMENDMENT? >>PAULA HARVEY: THEY WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO COME BACK IN. IN A SEPARATE ACTION VARIANCES FOR SPECIAL USES ARE HEARD AT THE TIME OF THE SPECIAL USE, SO IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. >>MARK SHARPE: SO THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY? >>PAULA HARVEY: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: AND LISTEN, I -- OF THE FOUR YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD, I'VE BEEN ADVOCATING LONG AND HARD FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I BELIEVE WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY WE EMPLOY INDIVIDUALS, THOUGH, AND I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS OBVIOUSLY ON THE HIGH-END QUALITY BIOTECH JOBS, BUT FOCUSING ON THIS ISSUE HERE, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A GOOD BALANCE. IT PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR THE CITIZENS, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO CONTINUE EXCAVATING DIRT, AND FOR THAT REASON, I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND WITH DISCUSSION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. SHARPE, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE SOMEBODY THE OPINION THAT WE'RE NOT FOR GROWTH. WE ARE FOR GROWTH, BUT -- JUST AS MR. BLAIR SAID, BUT I'M TAKING THE OPPOSITE SIDE, GROWTH SHOULD BE WHERE GROWTH SHOULD BE, AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T JUST UP AND LEAVE BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS AFFECTING THEM TOO NEED SOME EXTRA PROTECTION, AND I THINK THAT 500-FOOT BUFFER AT LEAST GIVES THEM SOME OF THAT PROTECTION NOW AS OPPOSED TO IN THE PAST, LIKE THIS LADY AT THE FIRST -- IN THE FIRST ROW. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO FOR HER, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GIVE SOME PROTECTION TO NEIGHBORHOODS AS WE GO FORWARD, AND THE VERY GOOD POINT THAT MR. SHARPE MADE WAS THAT DURING THE PROCESS, IF WILL THERE IS A HARDSHIP, IF THERE IS A REASON THAT THIS SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND RE-REVIEWED, THE PROCESS ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER, THE PETITIONER TO SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE, SO I CERTAINLY AM SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, AND I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE ALREADY SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, AND I WAS NOT FINISHED WHEN COMMISSIONER BLAIR STARTED. I WAS JUST GETTING THE REST OF MY NOTES. I HAD SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THERE. I CERTAINLY SEE THE BENEFIT AND SUPPORT OF A 500-FOOT SETBACK AND HAVE BEEN OUT THERE IN THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS, I GUESS IT WAS FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND I HAD MY STAFF GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT, AND, YOU KNOW, THE BIG PROBLEM OUT THERE IS THE DIRT AND THE DUST AND THE NOISE, AND IT'S THE TRUCKS, AND IF THERE WAS A BETTER WAY TO REGULATE THE ISSUE WITH THE TRUCKS -- AND I THINK THE FIRST TIME I WENT OUT THERE AND MET WITH MRS. OSTEEN -- I THINK YOU'RE BACK THERE -- OKAY. THAT WAS YOUR MAIN COMPLAINT WAS THAT THE TRUCKS WERE LOUD, NOISY AND DIRTY AND DUSTY, AND I GET IT, AND I LISTENED, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I WORKED WITH YOU-ALL ON THIS DENSITY CREDIT ISSUE AS WELL AND BRINGING THAT IN TO A QUESTION, BUT ONE OF THE -- WE HAVE THIS QUESTION ON WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE BORROW PIT TOO CLOSE TO A HOME AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT CASE, AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES WITH THAT. THEY'RE THERE AND WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT, AND YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD NO, BUT THE BORROW PIT'S THERE AND THE HOME'S THERE. WE CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE STUCK WITH THAT, BUT TO PREVENT THAT IN THE FUTURE WITH THIS -- THIS 500-FOOT SETBACK, THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMEONE ELSE FROM HAVING THE HEARTACHE THAT YOU DO, BUT WHEN WE HAVE VACANT LAND AND WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE A SETBACK ON VACANT LAND, THEN I'VE GOT A CONCERN, I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON THAT, DO WE NEED ON THE VACANT LAND TO HAVE THAT? AND I KNOW THAT I'M LOOKING MORE AT THE LAND THAT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL, AND MAYBE YOU CAN COME UP HERE AND -- AND I'M NOT READY TO TALK TO YOU, BUT COME ON UP. I WANT YOU TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THAT, BUT ARE WE ELUDING SOME COMMON SENSE HERE ON LAND THAT DOES NOT HAVE A HOUSE ON IT BUT MAY ONE DAY HAVE A HOUSE? IF WE PASS THIS, WHAT HAPPENS -- AND I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME QUESTIONS -- WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT POINT IF YOU'VE GOT RESIDENTIAL ZONED LAND AND YOU GOT THE BORROW PIT NEXT TO IT? RIGHT NOW YOU CAN'T HAVE A HOUSE 500 FEET IF WE PASS THIS. IN THE FUTURE A HOME DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, THEY CAN'T -- WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE BORROW PIT AND THE LAND THAT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL AND THEY START BUILDING? WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT BORROW PIT? DO THEY HAVE TO FILL IT IN OR -- >>TOM HIZNAY: NO, SIR. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: RIGHT. IN THE FUTURE, IF WE GO WE HAVE LAND AND THEY WANT TO PUT A BORROW PIT IN THERE, WE'VE GOT THE RESIDENTIAL, THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO -- WHEN THEY WANT TO DEVELOP THAT? >>TOM HIZNAY: WELL, IT WOULDN'T -- WHATEVER SETBACKS WERE APPROVED AS PART OF THE SPECIAL USE WOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT. I MEAN, IF -- AND THE REASON THAT WE RECOMMEND INCLUDING RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY THAT'S YET NOT DEVELOPED, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM OUR REGS TODAY, IS IN VIEW OF THE LENGTH THAT BORROW PIT PERMITS CAN LAST. AFTER SPECIAL USE APPROVAL YOU HAVE TWO YEARS TO REQUEST YOUR OPERATING PERMIT, AND THEN WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR OPERATING PERMIT, YOU HAVE TEN YEARS, SO THAT'S A -- POTENTIALLY A 12-YEAR PERIOD THAT IF A BORROW PIT IS ONLY SETBACK AS UNDER TODAY'S REGS, LET'S SAY A HUNDRED FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IT SHARES WITH VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WE FELT THAT THAT ACTUALLY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR QUITE A LENGTH OF TIME, 12-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, AND THAT'S WHY WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY BE INCLUDED IN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE HAVE THE 500 FEET, IT WOULD MAYBE ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE WANTING, AND IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO GO IN THERE AND BUY IT, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, WE DON'T WANT THE -- TO LIVE NEXT TO A BORROW PIT, SO LET'S NOT -- LET'S LEAVE THAT AGRICULTURE AND LET'S LEAVE IT VACANT UNTIL THAT PERMIT EXPIRES. >>TOM HIZNAY: I DON'T SEE WHERE -- THE 500-FOOT SETBACK, AGAIN, I BELIEVE WOULD BETTER ENABLE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. I SEE SOME OTHER LIGHTS ARE ON. I'M INTERESTED BEFORE WE MAKE -- BECAUSE MY CONCERN REALLY IS ON THIS -- THIS SETBACK ON LAND THAT'S VACANT THAT'S ZONED RESIDENTIAL. DO WE NEED 500 FEET THERE OR SHOULD IT BE 200 FEET? I MEAN -- BECAUSE I HEARD SOMEONE EARLIER TODAY SAY ON THAT -- THAT ATV ISSUE WHERE THEY HAVE A SMALL SIX-ACRE FARM, AND THAT COULD POSSIBLY IMPEDE THEIR FARM BUSINESS. ARE WE UNNECESSARILY IMPEDING THIS ENTERPRISE, THIS -- I CONSIDER THIS AN AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE, ALTHOUGH IT'S DEALING WITH DIRT, BUT ARE WE IMPEDING THAT BUSINESS LIKE WE WERE WITH THIS SMALL SIX-ACRE FARM? AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AS MUCH THE PITS AS IT IS ALL THE TRUCKS, BUT I SEE SOME OTHER LIGHTS. I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME MORE DEBATE BEFORE WE CALL THE QUESTION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. I WAS ACTUALLY HAPPY TO SECOND THE MOTION ON THIS, AND I THINK IN MY TENURE SITTING UP HERE I'VE BEEN VERY, VERY PRO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH, AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE AUDIENCE AS WELL AS JUST PEOPLE ALL OVER OUR COUNTY AND OUR COMMUNITY, THAT WE WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER WORD TO THAT. WE WANT SMART GROWTH AND WE WANT SMART DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I THINK WHERE WE'RE LOOKING HERE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUE AS WELL AS A HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE ISSUE. MR. BROWN CAME UP AND SAID IF HE THREW UP TALCUM POWDER -- AND YOU KNOW, I'VE DRIVEN THROUGH THE AREAS WHERE A COUPLE OF THESE BORROW PITS ARE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GO THAT FAR. IF YOU GO RIGHT DOWNTOWN -- I'VE BEEN GETTING CALLS AND E- MAILS AND WE REFER THEM TO D.O.T. AND THE CITY, ABOUT YOU RIGHT DOWN HERE WHERE WE HAVE THE INTERCHANGE EXPANSION RIGHT AT HOWARD AND ARMENIA -- AND THIS IS A SMALL AREA, THIS ISN'T EVEN A BORROW PIT. THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE LIVING RIGHT NEXT TO THE INTERSTATE -- THIS NEW INTERSTATE IS COMING UP 50 FEET TO A HUNDRED FEET FROM THESE PEOPLE'S BACK DOORS, AND THEY'RE SAYING, I TAKE MY CAR AND I GET IT WASHED, AND I WAKE UP IN THE MORNING AND I GOT A HALF INCH OF DUST ON MY CAR AND IT'S RUINING MY PAINT, AND OF COURSE, THAT QUALITY OF LIFE, I CAN'T EVEN LEAVE MY WINDOWS OPEN DURING THE DAY. HERE WE ARE GETTING INTO THE FALL SEASON WHERE I SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEAVE MY WINDOWS OPEN THAT TECO JUST TOOK UP THE ENERGY BILL 25%, AND I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY SOME COOL BREEZE COMING THROUGH, BUT MY WHOLE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE DUSTY. I CAN'T -- LIKE MRS. RUTLEDGE SAID, I CAN'T EVEN HANG MY CLOTHES OUT ON THE LINE. BUT IT COMES DOWN TO -- I THINK, MS. OSTEEN, FOR ONE THING, WE DON'T AGREE ALL THE TIME, AS I'VE TOLD HER, BUT I SAW THE CHART THAT SHE HAD, AND I HAD NEVER BROKEN IT DOWN QUITE THAT EXTENSIVELY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S 100% ACCURATE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAKES ECONOMIC AND FEASIBLE SENSE. I'LL GET WITH STAFF, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS, BUT I'LL GET WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH THEIR ANALYSIS OF YOUR CHART, BUT ON -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL, NO. I MEAN, I REALIZE THAT THAT WAS THEIR NUMBERS, BUT I'M SAYING ON THE ECONOMICS OF IT AND THE PRICE, BUT I GUESS THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO SAY, I WANTED TO SAY THAT I AM TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS, AND I LOST MY LAST TRAIN OF THOUGHT ON THE LAST STATEMENT, BUT ANYWAY, I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT, AND I THINK YOU-ALL HAVE MADE A VALUABLE INPUT. YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH STAFF, AND I THINK YOUR VOICES AND YOUR CONCERNS -- THAT'S WHAT I WANTED. MR. NIEMANN, I DON'T KNOW, IS HE STILL HERE? THERE HE IS. YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO AGREE WITH YOU TOO ON ONE POINT, AND I DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH YOU EITHER, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHEN I AGREE AND WHEN I DON'T, BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE WATCHING US, WE'RE WATCHING THE COMMUNITY TOO BECAUSE WE WON'T ALWAYS AGREE, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE SEVEN OF US UP HERE, AND JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T SIDE WITH WHO IS STANDING AT THE PODIUM AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S AN ADVERSARIAL POSITION OR THAT THE PARTICULAR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE -- WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO YOU. MAYBE WE -- MAYBE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION, BUT I THINK IT'S OUR JOB TO RELATE OUR SIDE A LITTLE BETTER TO YOU OR IT MAY BE A BETTER EXPLANATION OF WHY WE'RE VOTING THE WAY WE'RE VOTING. THAT WAY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER, YOU CAN SAY, WELL, MAYBE THAT COMMISSIONER OR THOSE COMMISSIONERS DIDN'T DECIDE ON AN ISSUE THE WAY I WANTED IT DECIDED ON, BUT AT LEAST I SAW THE RATIONALE OR AT LEAST I COULD LOOK AT THE RATIONALE, SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH YOU, AND BOTH SIDES ARE WATCHING, AND I THINK EVERYONE UP HERE ON THE DAIS REALLY WANTS TO DO THE VERY BEST JOB WE CAN AND MAKE OUR COMMUNITY GROW IN A HEALTHY AND HAPPY WAY. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: I ACTUALLY STRUGGLE WITH A LOT OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT DOES IMPACT CITIZENS AND THE FOLKS THAT ARE FACING THIS TODAY, AND I GUESS WHAT KEPT TRIGGERING A LOT OF PEOPLE BEING DOWN HERE IS THE WAY WE HAVE MANAGED THE SITES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. I THINK IF -- ONE OF THE ELEMENTS, IF WE WOULD HAVE RESTRICTED IN ANY OF THE BUFFER ZONES NO TRUCKS, THEY CAN'T TRANSPORT, THEY CAN'T -- NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL -- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE CAUSING A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE'S REALLY UNCOMFORT IN THEIR LIFESTYLE IN THE WAY WE'RE APPROVING AND MANAGING THE APPROVAL OF SITES, AND A BIGGER PICTURE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EVER A POSSIBILITY, BUT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME TRADE-OFFS THAT THESE PEOPLE COULD NOT HAVE ANY ACTIVITY WITHIN, YOU KNOW -- IS IT 300 OR 500, WHATEVER FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL, OPERATE ALL YOUR STUFF AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SITES BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF -- IT SEEMS TO ME A LOT OF THE NIGHTMARE THAT'S BEING CAUSED HERE. MARCELLA, LET ME JUST SAY ABOUT THE NUMBERS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YES, THEY'RE COUNTY NUMBERS, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT -- THINKING ABOUT LONG-RANGE, YOU HEARD OUR -- IN THESE EARLIER PRESENTATIONS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A $6-BILLION INVESTMENT IN ROADS AROUND HERE. MY POINT IS IF -- YES, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT THE EQUATION OF THE TEN-YEAR THING AND WHATEVER, BUT LUTZ-LAKE FERN AS AN EXAMPLE AND THE NIGHTMARES THAT'S CAUSING AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE VETERANS EXPRESSWAY THERE AND ALL THAT, WHAT I -- WHAT I HOPE DOESN'T OCCUR -- AND I'M LEAVING THIS WITH STAFF BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN ALL THIS STUFF IS GOING TO START EXPLODING, I WON'T BE HERE, BUT WHAT I'M HOPING IS THERE'S JUST NOT A WHOLE LOT MORE SMALLER PITS BECAUSE WE COULDN'T -- SOONER OR LATER THE VOLUME'S GOING TO BE GONE, AND IF -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BIG COUNTY. I KNOW WE SAY THERE'S A LOT OF GROWTH. THERE'S A LOT OF OPEN SPACE TOO, AND IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS NOT A LOT OF US WILL BE HERE, MAYBE COMMISSIONER FERLITA, BUT OTHER THAN THAT -- [LAUGHTER] -- >>KEN HAGAN: IT'S GETTING LATE. >>JIM NORMAN: MY POINT IS HOW DO YOU MANAGE A LOT OF SMALLER PITS FOR THE SAME VOLUMES THAT YOU'LL NEED IN THE FUTURE, AND -- AND AGAIN, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM STAFF ON HOW THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SITE -- THAT I THINK IS 50% OF OUR PROBLEM BECAUSE IF YOU -- YOU CONTINUE -- SOMEBODY SAID IT VERY WELL. EVEN IF YOU HAVE A 500-FOOT BUFFER AND TRUCKS START GOING BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH IN THAT 500-FOOT BUFFER, YOU GOTTA GET THEM OUT OF THAT SOMEHOW. YOU GOTTA GET THEM MOVING -- IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, HUGE PARCELS, YOU'VE GOT TO GET IT AWAY FROM THAT CITIZENS' SIDE OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE AND MORE AND MORE ANGST OVER THESE THINGS, AND THIS 500 ISN'T GOING TO FIX IT. SO I HOPE YOUR NUMBERS ARE RIGHT. I HOPE OUR LAND -- OUR ROAD COSTS AND THINGS OF OUR BUILDING OUR ROADS AND EVERYTHING ARE NOT SKEWED NOW HOW WE MAY GO INTO THE FUTURE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, AND MY CONCERN IS THE SAME, THE TRUCKS AND THE OPERATIONAL SIDE OF THIS THAT CONCERN ME. I