Local Planning Agency meeting on 01/14/2026 - Jan 14, 2026

Good morning, and welcome to the January 2026 meeting of the Local Planning Agency Board for Pinellas County, Florida. Today's public hearing by the Local Planning Agency is being held to review proposed amendments to the Pinellas County Future Land Use Map, Zoning Atlas, and other items relative to the county's planning and growth management program. The Local Planning Agency is an independent advisory board charged with reviewing and making a recommendation to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on the cases to be heard today. The Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision on each item at a separate public hearing currently scheduled to be held on February the 17th, 2026. The Board of County Commissioners' meeting will be held at 333 Chestnut Street in the Palm Room. The procedure for today will be as follows. Staff will make a brief presentation, not to exceed 20 minutes. Then the applicant will present their case, again, not to exceed 20 minutes. We will then hear from proponents who will be given three minutes each, unless representing a group of five or more, in which case they will be given 10 minutes. Non-speakers must be present and waive their time in order to get the 10 minutes. We will then hear from opponents who likewise will be given three minutes each, unless representing a group of five or more, in which case they will also be given 10 minutes to speak. Again, non-speakers must be present and waive their time. Finally, the applicant will be given the opportunity to close, answer questions, respond to any concerns raised by the opponents or proponents for a period of time not to exceed five minutes. Before your presentation, please state your name and your address for the record. All testimony needs to be under oath, so if you have not been sworn in and you plan to testify, please rise now and be sworn. And for our IT folk, or Madam Clerk, how do you want to handle swearing in anyone online?

We'll take it case by case.

Also, please fill out the slip on the table and present it to the clerk before you speak. There will not be continuing rebuttal, so please try to present all information and concerns while you're at the podium. If you plan to provide letters, written comments, studies, or other documents in response to the LPA's findings and recommendations, those must be received by the zoning section seven days prior to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting in order to be included in the record that will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. So with that, we will move into our agenda. Our next step is going to be the quasi-judicial statement by Council McAteer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The zoning matters heard by the local planning agency are quasi-judicial in nature. Please note that only competent, substantial, fact-based testimony or evidence may be considered by the Board in deciding the matters before it. Pure speculation or opinion, not based on competent facts, cannot be legally considered by the Board. Lay testimony with fact-based support, including but not limited to meeting minutes, surveys, engineering reports, et cetera, may be considered competent and substantial evidence. Thank you.

Thank you, Council McAteer. All right, we will now move on to item three, approval of the minutes. Have the Board members had the chance to review the minutes? Yes. All right. In that case, unless there's any discussion, I will entertain a motion. I move to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion to approve by Hoyt.

Second.

Second by Laurie Johnson. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign, and I recuse, Madam Clerk. Or I abstain. All right. Moving on to item 4A1 is going to be Z-O-N 25-06. Staff, you may proceed before we do get going. Just to clarify the record, I did at one point in time work with Mr. Gahovey. It has been a couple of years since then. We currently have no business dealings.

And you would have no pecuniary gain or loss depending on the outcome of the cases? That is correct. Thank you.

All right. Staff, you may proceed.

Thank you. On this case, Z-O-N-25-06 is a request. Can we get the PowerPoint up, please? This is a request to amend a portion of a property. So it's a .5-acre portion of a 2.56-acre parcel that's located at 620 County Road 1 in Palm Harbor. The request is to amend this portion from residential agriculture to R2, single-family residential. And the purpose is to build one single-family home on this 5-acre portion. You can see the site outlined here. In red and blue is both the entire parcel. The blue area is the proposed amendment area. It's on the east side of County Road 1 for location, major intersections, Tampa Road to the north, Curlew Road to the south. It's currently a 1,300-foot-depth property. It's a really long, narrow piece of property surrounded by single-family or detached residential neighborhoods to the north, to the east, and to the south. Across County Road 1 to the west is a mobile home park. As you can see by the area, it's made up of mostly single-family detached residential or mobile homes off to the west. And the current future land use map designation, the property has a designation of RL, residential low, which allows up to 5 units per acre. And so does the surrounding area. The majority is RL, including the adjacent properties across County Road 1 to the west is RLM, which allows 10 units an acre. And then as you go further to the east, the lighter color, tan color is RS, which is 2.5 units an acre. And the current zoning, again, it's RA on the property, and their request is to rezone to R2 on that portion, which is the same zoning as the majority of the surrounding area that have single-family detached dwellings on it are R2. Again, off to the west is the mobile home park is RMH, which is residential mobile home. There's some residential plan development down to the south and a mix of some larger lots with residential agriculture, residential rural, off to the east. And then just an aerial overlook of the property. As you can see, the nature of the property is it's not very wide, but very long, deep property. It's a remnant doing some, you know, historical look into it as properties neighborhoods were developed subdivision. This never became part of subdivisions as they were developed, and so it's just a remnant piece. This is looking at the property from County Road 1. These are examples of some of the adjacent single-family residential. And then this is looking south at the east end of the property, which is, this is unimproved. It's called Wexford Lane. It's right-of-way, but it's not improved. This would be the access point to the proposed single-family home if this amendment was approved. So residential agriculture, the zoning category, it allows for single-family residential lots with a minimum of two acres in size. It also allows ancillary agricultural activities as keeping of various farm animals. This property, though, given it's a narrow width and the code requiring a 100-foot separation requirement between residential properties and the keeping of farm animals, this property would not be allowed to be used for farm animals. There's no residential home that I found that's not within a 100-foot point. And the maximum building height is 35 feet. That's allowed. The proposed R2 single-family residential allows for single-family residential lots, single-family detached homes, 7,500-square-foot minimum lot size. Maximum building height is still 35 feet. And the purpose of the R2 zoning district provides for areas of single-family residential development located where moderate-density single-family uses are desirable. So staff finds that the proposed zoning change is consistent. It's compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood developments, the same zoning, R2, same density of RL. It's appropriate location. It's consistent, again, with the adjacent zoning designation. It's consistent with our comprehensive plan and future land use designation of residential low. They're not seeking any requests for future land use change. Again, staff recommends approval. And if this goes forward, the Board of County Commissioners would hear this item on February 17th. With that, I will take any questions the Board may have.

All right. Board members, do you have any questions for staff at this time?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Laurie Johnson.

Mr. Shutterbach, hello. Happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

Right now, you said that this piece of property is that if you built residential units on it, there was a certain standard of size and such. On the new proposed zoning under R2, how many residential units can be built on this half acre?

One.

Just one? Yes. Okay. You said 7,500 feet, so is that actually 7,500? The shape of it just is in a third.

Yeah, it has to do with the shape of it on the property. Again, it's a very unique property. Right now, the RA zoning would allow for one unit to be built right now as the property stands. If you look at the density, that's based on the acreage at five units an acre, the density would allow up to 13 units. Of course, they would have to change the zoning. Back in 2021, there was a request for R5 zoning on this property and a 10-unit subdivision, which was denied. So now that they've come back in for this request, and they're looking just to split it one time to build a single home.

And just leave the rest of the property vacant?

They still would retain enough acreage of two acres to allow for a single-family home to be built on that RA portion.

Under current zoning?

Under current zoning, yes.

Thank you for the clarification.

Board members, any other questions for staff?

I have a question. All right. So the access to this site, the access to this site is unimproved right now, the road access? Who is going to be responsible to improve that access?

The applicant or, you know, the builder, whoever is building the property would be required to improve that access. For one home, they usually don't require them to improve the road to entire width, county standards, a complete road, since it would just be access for a single house, but they would have to improve it to whatever the fire department minimum standard, which is usually a minimum of 20-foot width. It's got to be stabilized to be able to handle, you know, like large fire apparatus vehicles.

So would it be considered like a private drive then?

Yes, it would still be in that portion of the right-of-way. It would be public, so it's still part of the public road, but it wouldn't be full county right-of-way standards. But the applicant would be required to build it to the county standards? Yes, to other standards are needed, yes. Okay.

All right. Board members, any other questions for staff? All right. Paul? Well, at this time, we will hear from the applicant.

Sandra Bradbury with Northside Engineering. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them, but we do believe that Michael Schatterbacher's staff has presented accurately for what we are asking.

All right. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Well, I would have one. Senator, as we're hearing he can build, this allows for one single, stand-alone residential unit.

That is correct.

Some of the opposition we've received says that they're hearing that they want it to build multi-unit apartments.

Can you state that the intention or, you know, the intention is to build one single-family home? He was, at one point in time, interested in taking the whole thing and putting single-family homes to match up with the lines of the property to the north of it. At this time, he's just interested in building the one single-family home. That's the reason why he asked for the split.

Okay.

And leave the rest of it as RA.

All right.

The zoning district, the proposed zoning district, does not allow multi-family residential.

Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Well, in that case, we will hear from the public. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support of case ZON 25-06? All right. Okay. Just for the sake of me going through my process, are you intending to talk in support or for Oregon? Yes, I should. Okay. Let me just grab the people online, and then I'll bring you right up. All right. Is there anybody online who wishes to speak in support of ZON 25-06? Good morning, Madam Chair.

There are two participants online who have not been sworn in. I do not know if they are here to speak for or against.

Okay. In that case, we'll move on to opponents in the room. Please come up.

Hello. My name is Barbara Sundberg. I live at 1446 Stonehenge Way. If this home is put on, put up, it affects 11 homes in that area, and who's to say that they won't come forward and request that other homes are built on that narrow piece of land? That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your time. Is there anybody else in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to application ZON 25-06? I see two more hands. We'll start. We'll just have, ma'am, if you, all right, please state your name and address for the record.

Kelly Clark, 700 Glengarry Lane, Palm Harbor. They're stating that they want one single family home. Once they put that on there, are they able to add ADUs to that, which a lot of people are doing the small houses in the back? Also, from the fire department, if it's a dead-end road, it has to be 26 foot for a turnaround from the fire department. So if it's a 26-foot turnaround, 20-foot setback for the front to build, it leaves it very small, which would be they would have to go up, basically. And if they go up, that puts them looking into everyone else's backyards because 99.9% of the homes there are all one-story. There's only two homes out of 177 that are two-story that are in the HOA. And would this become part of our HOA, or does it stay separate because we have an HOA there? And then the other question is, they're going to build all this road and do all this for one home? Also, there's gopher turtles, which are protected on the land. So I'd like to know what's going to be done to protect the gopher turtles. I got a letter from Mr. Schroederbacher, Schroederbacher, I'm sorry, that it does state specifically that they can get one single-family home. But if they're trying for this and they do get this single-family home, then they're obviously going to come back and ask for the rest of the land. I don't see someone just wanting a 0.56 out of 2 1⁄2 acres. Also, a lot of the people, you know, they went around knocking on doors. I'm not sure who it was, telling everyone they're putting farm animals, land animals. People were harassed. They went through and did that. This is their second time around. The first time around, there was a deceased person who signed the application. So I don't understand why they're going to do all this and build a road that costs that much money and put in a 26-foot turnaround for a fire truck for one house. So I would really like to see the emergency vehicles, their take on this. Okay. Thank you.

All right. I had two more hands that I saw in the audience. So if we could have the next speaker, please come up.

I'm DeAngelo. I live at 1426 Saddle Court, and I've owned and lived at that house for 27 years. Many of my neighbors have also been there more than 20 years, so we're well-vested in that neighborhood. And a couple of things come to mind is one is we would like to know who wants this change. We've not seen full disclosure of the interested parties in this land. We don't really know who's requesting this because the bulk of the neighborhood would prefer not to have this happen, primarily because of safety issues. Saddle Court is one single street between Wexford and Country Meadows, and there are no four-way intersections in any of these surrounding neighborhoods at all. So putting a public road there does create the first and only four-way intersection in that neighborhood. I don't know why we would do that on Saddle Court, which is one single street, 15 houses maybe on each side. It also eliminates by blocking off that east end what we call the remnant is the easement also for the utilities and the safety vehicles. So it would eliminate access for any safety vehicles to come up the remainder of the 87-foot-wide field, and there's a lot of fences back there. So you do eliminate access for safety vehicles to support or take care of any of our homes. Curious as to what the address would be of this house if you're creating a new street in there. There's been no new streets in our neighborhood. That development was made in the early 1980s. There have been no additional intersections, no four-way streets. There's 17 cul-de-sacs, and this one wouldn't qualify for a cul-de-sac because it's too narrow. And the other houses on County Road 1 that are multiple acres, like 450 County Road 1, actually have a County Road 1 address. So would this street remain a County Road 1 address, meaning, therefore, that its driveway would go to County Road 1? Are we actually creating new addresses in this neighborhood? So for the concerns of that, as well as there's no open space in our neighborhoods, when we widened County Road 1, you eliminated all the green space that's available to those surrounding communities. There have been no opportunities to explore should we have green space, open space there, or are there opportunities to extend the yards because it's such a short, narrow field, extend the properties of the existing owners there. There have been no opportunities to talk about selling off to the adjacent people or developing a park or open space there. So the primary concerns are this is a County Road 1 property and really should remain a County Road 1 property like the other acreage homes on County Road 1, as well as, excuse me, eliminating the creating of a four-way intersection and cutting off the access for safety to the existing homes. So for those reasons, until those questions could be asked and addressed by you, I would ask that you not support this application going forward at this time. And I thank you very much.

Thank you for your time. All right. And I know we have at least one more speaker in the audience. Please come up and state your name.

I'm Melanie Harvey. I represent 1414 Saddle Court. I'm also a native Floridian, so 60 years in Florida. I'm deeply invested in Florida. And thank you for what you do and your discernment in making the right decisions. I'm hoping that our goal is to figure out the best use of this land. I think Kelly and Lori both spoke to you. We feel a little burned. There's been misrepresentation during our times through this. We've been through this one time and here we are the second time. I know that you said we had to be fact-based. For fact, we overheard the representative saying to someone else when we were at the last gathering that this was going to be a build-out of Key West-style apartments. So our concern, we have a lack of trust. We know that they went door-to-door and harassed us and spoke mistruths. Then we hear something in the hallway. They come inside and talk to you and say something different. I understand that the zoning change, what it affords them, but why do they need the zoning change if it's only one house? I feel like there's more to come. And so I would appreciate if you could clarify what is possible with the remaining land. That might help us calm down if you can give us some guardrails of what's possible or not because we're living in fear, to be honest. And maybe you could give us more facts to help us understand what could happen to the remaining parcel and then we could go forward. The other piece is when you showed the pictures of the neighborhood, I hope you noticed that what Lori said is true. There is zero green space. If you come down Saddle Court, you will see kids trying to play in the street and running back and running back and running back. We have a lot of speeding. We don't have any speed bumps in the neighborhood. It's not a particularly safe street these days, unfortunately. We have no green space for anyone to go and have recreation or to even safely walk. So I just, I'm hoping that we have discernment about what's the best use for this land. Many of us are willing to put up money to buy the parcel. Many of the owners are willing to come together and put up money so that we could each buy our piece back. Perhaps we could look at green space. We just really need your help for discernment and the best use of this land and help us understand what our future could look like or not look like so we don't live in fear. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Do we have anybody else in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to ZON 25-06? All right. We, I know we have two speakers online, so are either of those here for ZON 25-06?

They should both be, and I'd probably recommend, I don't know if both are going to be speaking. We could probably put them both in and have them raise their hand if they're going to speak and then do the swearing in is probably what I would recommend.

Madam Clerk, would you please come up to the, thank you.

Please raise your virtual right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give the board today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Please say I do. Please take yourself off mute if that is the case.

And Sherry, you might have to unmute yourselves and click the microphone button if you're wishing to speak. I'm seeing no hands raised and they're not unmuting.

All right. Well, we'll just proceed in. I'll just ask them if they took the oath when they start to speak. Let's hear from our first speaker, please.

Nobody is unmuting at this time. And they may be just listening in. All right.

In that case, let's have the applicant come back up and address what was said.

Thank you. Sandra Bradbury, Northside Engineering. I'm going to just touch on a few of these. The first one is that they are interested in building one single-family home. And the interest is to have it, the driveway access onto the unimproved portion of Wexford, Wexford Lane. And as far as gopher turtles and things of that nature, they would have to follow the procedures, which we all do here, Pinellas County as well as Pasco County, to mitigate the gopher turtles. They actually hire a person to capture them and then take them to lands that are public so that they won't be, you know, hurt in any way. And we have dealt with those types of companies at Northside Engineering for years. All right.

Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Yes. Larry Johnson.

Have you had any meetings with the homeowners and anything where the homeowners were all brought together and had a chance to ask you the questions we're hearing today?

We were hired by this client last year, and no, we have not had any meetings with the homeowners. At this point in time in our process with Pinellas County, we have not been asked to do so. So that might have been a prior firm that had done that.

Okay. So when they refer to someone coming around door to door and asking questions?

It was not Northside Engineering, and it was not any of our employees.

Do you have any plans to meet with the owners since there are obviously some considerable concerns?

I will absolutely ask the client if they would like to do that. And as we go through the process and have architectural designs for the home and everything, then they can see it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board for the applicant?

I guess the other question I have would be we keep hearing about the improvements to the roadway. The roadway on this parcel is technically just a glorified driveway, correct? I mean, because that road will –

It's actually Pinellas County unimproved. Nothing ever has been done to it.

So it's basically – it is a driveway to a single-family home, but it's going to have to be –

It is dirt that goes out to the neighborhood right now.

And it's going to have to be built to county specifications for emergency operations and things of that nature. That is correct. But it is technically just a glorified driveway.

That is correct. In fact, we would have to – as one of the opponents spoke, we would have to have the fire department approve the plans along with the other departments as well.

I have one question. Board Member Brito. It was brought up by one of the speakers about the HOA. Since this house, if it gets approved and it gets built, will have access to that road. How does that work with the HOA?

That I cannot answer because it is not part of the HOA. It's a single piece of property that they're asking to be divided into two so that a single-family home could be built on that portion.

And the roads within the HOA, are they owned by the HOA or are they for the county?

The roads are public. Public? Okay. County road.

Thank you.

Board members, any other questions for the applicant? Any questions for staff or anybody in the room? All right.

I can clarify a couple of things that were brought up. Like the question about the accessory dwelling unit, ADUs, those are allowed for any residential home. If any single-family residential property, if you have the room, you can add an ADU on your property. So that would be allowed on there. Single ADU? Single, yes. Maximum height allowable is 35 feet. In its current district, in the proposed district, in the neighborhood where they're at, 35 feet is the maximum height for everybody on there. Again, order 8, they can't not build apartments. It's not multifamily. The property right now, RA does not allow multifamily and the proposed R2 does not allow multifamily. So only single-family on that. And then the remainder of the property, the remainder RA portion, would still retain two acres, so would be allowed to build a single-family home on that remainder portion. If anybody in the future wanted to build anything different, additional homes, they would have to come back through this process, request a change like they're doing today.

Any follow-up questions from the board? All right. So if I understand correctly, they could build a house that is the same height as what they're asking for right now on that property? Yes, correct. And right now you're looking at going from one house and one ADU on the property to ultimately two in a similar space because it would be split into two lots? Correct. Okay. Okay. Do we know of anything that would prevent them from building a house at the east end of the property and accessing that Wexford right-of-way at this point in time?

They would be required to access there at the Wexford Lane because you're required to access at the lowest designation, County Road 1 being, I believe it's an arterial road, single-family homes. If you can access to a road of lesser designation, which would be Wexford, is the required access.

All right. So our code, as it stands today, if they said tomorrow we're withdrawing this application and building a house, our code would say go access off of Wexford?

It would be the preferred access. I mean, right now the property, as it sits today, as, you know, fronts County Road 1, there is a curb cut there. They could use that today as it sits, but once you split it, then that new parcel is adjacent to the Wexford, and its access is cut off by another parcel from County Road 1, so they would be required to go to Wexford.

Okay. All right. I do remember the rezone to R5 back in 21. I know they were trying to plat the property. Could the R2 portion be platted into additional lots, or would they run into any type of a challenge dimensionally?

Yeah. The dimensions are the challenge. So R2 requires 7,500 square feet, and this is a minimum of a lot width of 70 feet, and it's lot depth by 80 feet. This property is only 87 feet wide. So where, you know, if you do the math at 0.5 acres, you can get two units out of that, or two lots. However, having to put in infrastructure, because it then becomes a platted subdivision, so you're building road, you know, I'm going to put in water, sewer, all that infrastructure. There's not enough space to meet the minimum lot size requirements and the road size requirements, because we do not allow roadways to be in an easement as part of, you know, part of a lot, cross a lot. It has to be in its own separate as part of a subdivision.

Okay. And just thinking, because just for the benefit of the public, because there's fears of taking the rest of the property, turning it into R2 and chopping it up into parcels, would they run into that same dimensional problem with a roadway going to any secondary lots?

It would run into that same dimensional problem. That was the reason for when they requested the rezoning years ago to the R5, because R5 is a smaller lot size, so it could be more compact, which gave them enough room to have a road go through on their concept plan. So the narrowness of this property is going to make it difficult, because you would have requirements of that, putting in a road for the subdivision, fire access, all that has to fit in that very small width, which is difficult.

Okay. So just because there's community injury, right, or there's bad, there's a history there. Yes. This seems like it's a very different animal than what they tried with the R5 basically sticking an entire subdivision in that sliver of land.

Yeah, that was a request for 10 units. It had a development agreement. They put in a lot of different restrictions on there. Staff was not supportive of that request, and the LPA denied the request, and then it was withdrawn before it went to the county commission.

Just trying to, because there's all, I know this parcel's storied, just trying to work through the questions that float in the air when everyone is worried about what's going to happen.

Yeah.

Okay. Any additional questions from the board?

I guess my question is, and I mean, I'm not going to play developer here, but I'm trying to understand the way they're going about this. They're taking a two-and-a-half-acre parcel, taking off a half an acre to build one house, going to leave two acres who, at this, if this gets done, the two-acre parcel, the only access at that point will be directly off of county road one. Right. And they'll only have the ability to build one unit there as well. So, I mean, if I'm a developer, I would look and say, well, if I got two-and-a-half acres, why don't I split it into two one-and-a-quarter acres and, you know, build two houses, and one comes off county road one, one comes off of Wexford, but that's not what we're here to decide. But I'm just, you know, as I'm going through the process, if we approve this item today, the two-acre parcel that's left still will only be allowed to have one residential unit on it, correct? That's correct, yes. Okay.

Any other follow-up questions or comments from the board? All right. With that, I will entertain a motion on ZON 25-06.

I make a motion to approve ZON 25-06.

Motion to approve by Cataldo.

I'll second.

Second by Brito. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone, for taking time out of your January morning to come in and talk with us about this. All right. At this time, we're going to be moving on to application FLU 25-06. And it's my understanding that this is a companion with ZON 25-04. Are these going to be heard? Is it the intention of the staff and of the applicant to have these heard together?

Yes, we're going to be presenting, staff's going to be presenting them together, one presentation. It would be two motions for two separate cases for the future land use and zoning, but we'll present these together. And I will turn it over to Scott, who's going to present this to you.

And before we turn it over to Scott, is the applicant here? Is it your intention to give one presentation? Okay. Thank you. Staff, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the local planning agency, Happy New Year. My name is Scott Swearingen. I'm the long-range planning manager for Pinellas County. It's a pleasure to be before you again. And I respect your time, so I'll jump right in. In this case, the two. Madam Chair.

And just for everyone's edification, if we could, for the benefit of the people who are still here in the room to have their matter heard, if we could take conversations outside, please. All right. Please proceed, Mr. Swearingen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The two cases before you, FLU 25-06 and ZON 25-04, may sound familiar, as they are. They came before you in November, and this board granted a continuance to a date certain, which is today, for both of those cases, respectively. This gave the direction that was provided to the applicant, let's say the applicant, was to go back and look at the development agreement and consider that development agreement when coming back to this board for review and recommendation. Let's go back and talk about where the property is at and what the request is. The subject property is approximately 1.87 acres. It's an unincorporated largo at 6201 150th Avenue North and 15097 63rd Street North. The future land use on the property, so it's split into two different future land uses, and so currently today, there's commercial neighborhood, and that's on the northern, northwestern 1.18 acres of the property, and I'll show you a map in just a moment to kind of give you a little more context. And the remainder of the property is employment 0.69 acres, and the request is a change to commercial general on that 1.18 acre portion of the property and industrial general on the remainder 0.69 acres of the property. And corresponding to that, respectively, is a change, or is a neighborhood commercial zoning is on the 1.1 acre portion, and E1 employment is on the 0.69 portion of the property, and a request to E2 employment and heavy industry I, respectively. The proposed use is a transfer station and accessory outdoor sales. The current use on the smaller, that 0.69 acre portion of the property is a solid waste transfer station, and there's some accessory uses as well. And so the proposal is to expand into that 1.18 acre portion of the property. As part of the zoning portion of the request, there's a development agreement that is included, and that is a part of your packet, so I hope you've got a chance to overlook that. Just generally speaking, kind of highlights that development agreement when it comes to the restrictions that the applicant is willing to impose upon themselves moving forward, is that the property shall be developed substantially in conformance with the conceptual site plan. So the applicant has a conceptual site plan in place, and that conceptual site plan should give you a general sense of how the property would be developed moving forward. It needs to be in substantial compliance with that. The property is limited in use to a solid waste transfer station and outdoor sales and parking. So regardless of the additional, kind of the plethora of uses that you might find in the proposed land use and zoning categories, the actual use of that property would be limited to this one specific use, this package of use here. So what is new to the development agreement, sort of the delta from when you last reviewed this in November to today, is the inclusion of a restriction that the operation shall include asbestos prevention and particulate matter controls. So that has been included now as a part of the development agreement. And then finally, that the associated truck queuing will take place on site. So that would not be allowed to happen sort of on the neighborhood streets there. That's the gist of the development agreement. The location of the subject property is highlighted in blue. And you can see 150th Avenue North there directly to the south. You can make out US-19 to the west and then 62nd Street north, slightly close to the eastern border of the property there. So it's generally at that intersection. It's within that northwest quadrant of the property. And zooming in a little bit on the subject property, it gives you a sense of some of the land uses surrounding. It is mostly comprised of heavy commercial and industrial-type land uses with some warehousing and whatnot. You have Pinellas Technical College across the street to the east. And there are existing four homes in that neighborhood, if you will. It's kind of an industrial park. You have four existing homes that are located within there. The current future land use map is on your left, and you can see where you have the commercial neighborhood. It's kind of that fleshy kind of pink color. I'm a little colorblind, so I think it's kind of a pinkish color. And then you have the employment at the north end. And then that change would be respectively going to commercial general, which is a darker red, and then the industrial general. That would be the change as proposed. You can see the surrounding land use for unincorporated is primarily employment, and you do have three properties where three of those homes are located that is residential urban. The property that is not shown in the future land use is within the city of Largo, and that is the P-TECH is to the right, on the right side of both of those maps, and to the north and to the west of that incorporated Largo area is warehousing, wholesale warehousing. The zoning, kind of pretty much the same story. You have the C-1, which is like neighborhood commercial type of zoning, and the E-1 zoning as well. And then that change would be to E-2 and I, which is our heavier general industrial zoning category that's shown on the map to the east. And it's really kind of the same story when it comes to the zoning as it is with the land use, with the types of uses that are currently allowable. This is facing north from the subject property. So you're looking across the street, across 150th Avenue north. This is facing west, sort of looking toward U.S. 19, again along 150th Avenue north from the subject property. Here's some surrounding heavy industrial uses that you see across the street. And then looking in the opposite direction, looking toward the east, toward P-TECH, Pinellas Technical College. And you can make out, kind of running from left to right, in your photo, 62nd Street north.

Mr. Swingon, do we know what they're teaching over at that P-TECH campus? I know that's a little... I don't.

I know it's barber school, cosmetology, A.C., mechanical, trades.

Auto repair. All right.

My apologies for... No apologies, Mr. Swingon.

Okay. So let me just kind of unpack this by land use, by land use. So currently, on the 1.1 acre portion of the property, you have commercial neighborhood. And that allows office profession... The type of uses you'd expect in a commercial neighborhood. More than neighborhood scale, office, commercial retail type uses, office support, commercial businesses. And in some instances, institutional transportation, utility, manufacturing, light, recreation type uses could be permitted. Verbatim of the comprehensive plan, this land use is generally appropriate to locations adjacent to and on the periphery of large, definable residential neighborhoods. Residential land uses are not permitted in this land use category. And a 0.3 FAR is permitted for non-residential uses. And the change on that 1.1 acre portion of property would go from the CN to CG, which is commercial general. And that allows some similar uses, but at a larger scale. So it's not necessarily limited to that neighborhood scale, but just more of a kind of a general scale. And verbatim, again, for the comprehensive plan, this is generally appropriate in areas of the county that are now developed or appropriate to be developed in a manner designed to provide the community or region with commercial goods and services, to provide for employment uses that have off-site impacts comparable to office and retail commercial uses, and in areas in proximity to and with good access to major transportation facilities. This category actually allows up to 24 residential units per acre and has 0.55 floor area ratio for non-residential uses. And I'll note per the development agreement, again, while I just read to you that all these land uses, per the development agreement, the land use would be limited to what they're proposed or what they intend to do on the property, that one single package of use. On the 0.69 acre portion of the property, we have E, employment feature land use category, which allows kind of R&D, manufacturing, warehouse distribution, storage type uses. And in a limited instances, you can do office retail, personal services, business support. Generally appropriate to locations with sufficient size to encourage an industrial park type arrangement with provision for internal service access and locations suitable for light industrial uses. And in this category as well, residential land uses are not permitted, except for accessory dwelling units, and the 0.65 floor area ratio for non-residential uses. And the change from that E, employment category, would be to IG, industrial general. And that's, again, on that 0.69 acre portion, which allows many of the same types of uses, however, a little broader storage, vehicle salvage, so a little more broader into the general industrial types of uses. And in some instances, solid waste, refuse disposal, transfer, recycling, power generation, office accessory, retail, commercial business services, et cetera. And then to note, though, that actual land use per the development agreement would be limited. Generally appropriate to locations with sufficient size to encourage an industrial park type arrangement with provision for internal service access and adequate buffering of adverse noise, odor, and emissions. Residential land uses are not permitted as well within this land use designation. And a 0.75 FAR for non-residential uses. Okay, I'm going to buzz right through this one. I'm going to land this plane pretty soon. With the zoning, so we have C1, again, on the 1.1 acre portion of the property, C1 commercial, it's like a neighborhood commercial type of zoning. So limited commercial development, compact shopping areas, inner and near neighborhoods that they serve. It's intended to meet the convenience needs of the community, pretty much, of the neighborhoods providing the services and whatnot. Maximum building height in this district is 45 feet. And the change from that category from the C1 would be to E2, so general services, wholesale distribution, storage, light fabrication. It's intended to be conveniently located to arterial highways and transportation facilities. Intended as distribution center for products sold, served, stored in warehouse for retail or wholesale sales to consumer sales outlet, wholesaler. Maximum building height is 60 feet. However, that's limited near residentially zoned property. So residentially zoned properties, if you're within 50 feet, the building height is limited to 45 feet instead of 60 feet. And then that, on the remaining 0.69 acre portion, we have the E1 zoning category that's currently in place. So employment type uses, light manufacturing, industrial support, public service functions. It's intended for employment uses, lower intensities, and so limited impacts on neighborhood areas for the E1. Again, the maximum building height applies to this district as well. So 60 feet overall, within 50 feet of a residentially zoned property. The maximum height is 45 feet. In the E1 zoning category, intended to permit general manufacturing and industry, that would be the change to the E1, less restricted than the employment districts, okay? It's more generally, general industrial nature that district is, and a wide variety of industrial uses are generally permitted for that zoning district. And the maximum height limitation is still the same with 60 feet, but 45 feet, within 50 feet of a residentially zoned property. And that's a lot to take in. I'm trying to get through it clearly as I can. So we looked at, from a land use perspective, kind of that higher, kind of as I always say, like a 20,000 foot level of potential traffic impacts. And sort of when you take that delta from what's there today in land use and what's being proposed, you're looking at a minimum addition of trips that would be shed throughout the transportation network. And to note, on Roosevelt Road, you've got a vehicle-to-capacity ratio there today, about 47%, which means that in the p.m. peak hour of traffic, the road's being utilized at about half of its capacity on Roosevelt Road. Conversely, on Almerton Road, you've got a 95% vehicle-to-capacity rate today in the p.m. peak hour of traffic. Property's not in a coastal storm area. It's not in a coastal high hazard area. And it lies within flood zone X. So flooding risk is quite low, considering the layers of information that we take into account when looking at flood risk. In summary, staff finds the proposed land use and zoning amendments, including the development agreement. We find those consistent with our comprehensive plan and appropriate for this location, especially considering the site's long-term use. And also, when considering we find it consistent and compatible with the other properties in the surrounding area, there's really kind of an industrial, primarily industrial, heavy, commercial, and mixed-use character generally around the subject property in this area. And this amendment would allow, these amendments would allow the site to be redeveloped to the county's development regulations in a more appropriate manner. So, new proposed development coming in, changes coming in, would be required to go through our county code and have to abide by our redevelopment requirements. So we see that as a good positive as well in our recommendation. Therefore, staff recommends approval. There's a Board of County Commissioners public hearing scheduled on this item for February 17th at 6 p.m. for the evening agenda. That's all I have for you on this case, presentation-wise, and I would be happy to try and answer any questions, should you have any. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Swearingen. And I see Board Member Larry Johnson's hand up, so I assume she'll be the first of our...

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. I am thinking back to November when we had this presentation the first time. And it was very clearly stated that the transfer station would remain the same, but the additional property, and I'm... The 6.9 is the transfer station, correct? Correct. The 1.18 is the new piece of property, and that was going to be used only for resale of gardening supplies, mulch, basically, that they had from another site they were going to bring to that area to sell the mulch. There was not going to be any transfer station activities on that piece of property. So what I'm hearing from you is that's changed. It sounds like it's changed, that that 1.1-acre piece of property will also be used for transfer station activities?

I apologize if it sounds a little different. What I'm looking at, I'm looking at the subject properties, which is the property in its entirety, the 1.18 and the 0.69 acres. And so what I've... There shouldn't be math, not this time of day. There shouldn't. It's too much math. When we get down to the hundredth of an acre, I mean, what are we doing? But anyway, so the entire subject property, you know, combined would have that transfer station, and it would have that outdoor sales, the parking area, and whatnot. The actual expansion per the concept plan, which would be binding by the development agreement, that shows that this additional area, which is currently vacant, would include that sales, would include that outdoor sales. So per the concept plan, I do not see the transfer facility being expanded, that portion of the development being expanded in that 1.18 acres. Having said that, I would prefer that when the applicant approaches you all, that maybe you would ask that question to the applicant, just to be clear. I don't want to speak for the applicant, but that is my understanding of the request it has.

And it also says in the documents that the zoning as it stands now does not allow manufacturing heavy or for the intended use of solid waste, transportation, or outdoor sales. Have they been in violation of the code all of this time, and is that what this special magistrate, Penelope County Code Enforcement case, refers to?

So this area out there, a lot of this kind of corner, previously there was a heavy industry use at some point, I don't know exactly when, the 90s or early 2000s, that area went through a rezoning to this E1. It made a lot of these properties nonconforming, so we do have a number of nonconforming uses out in that area that it's largely, this pocket is a heavy industry uses in there. The reason why they went to the magistrate was they expanded onto this adjacent property. This 1.18 acres was not part of the original established nonconforming use, so they expanded onto that property without going through proper permitting, rezoning, et cetera, the approval process. That's where it came in. They've since stopped those uses, have come talk to staff, and are now going through the proper development process.

Is it not then possible that they will again, once this zoning has changed, expand those transfer or heavy industry transfer, however we were going to, sorry, into that new piece of property?

If approved, I mean, they have the zonings in place if this is approved. The development agreement, which clearly states how they can use the property. If it's approved, they go through the proper channels, get it, and then they expand afterward. If it's approved, that goes back to code enforcement for a violation.

They would be in violation of their development agreement.

So, if I understand this correctly, they're showing on the portion that wasn't the transfer station that is nonconforming and has been there. They're showing outdoor bins, some type of small office or whatnot, but parking spaces, it looks like. If that became a pile of rubble for the transfer station, they go back to the magistrate.

Correct.

Scott, but if I'm looking at the concept site plan that's proposed, a lot of that parcel is retention, stormwater retention. So, we can't even put paid surfaces or anything on that, correct?

I can't speak to whether they can put paid on it. From my interpretation of the concept plan is similar to your interpretation.

So, a lot of that parcel is just going to be green space because it's a stormwater pond. They really can't do anything to it.

Stormwater. Within it, probably. I guess what the question is, our code doesn't allow us, whether the code allows us to pave stormwater ponds, right? I think that's what you're trying to get at.

Well, I'm just stating that, based on my experience, when you have retention on a site, it's green space. It's for retaining of stormwater in case of an event. So, therefore, they're not going to be able to actively use that portion of the land. And that's a good portion of this parcel.

That's my understanding as well. But just for the sake of the record, does our code allow us to pave stormwater ponds?

No, you can't pave a stormwater pond. There are provisions if you need to put, instead of a natural bank, if you had to put in a wall on it due to the slope and stuff, we do have provisions where that's allowable. But it's just that side wall. It's not going to be the bottom. It has to be able to percolate into the ground.

Okay.

I think, if I recall, we discussed whether that would be dirt, just left dirt, or would there be some kind of shell or something on it because of the amount of dust and everything that was created there that then went on to some of the residential properties that were adjacent to this.

The county requires paved surfaces for driving surfaces. The applicant, if they're going through site plan, can request a different, it has to be a hardened surface because it's drived on, and it can't have dust and debris leave the site. So, they can make a request if they wanted to do a different surface besides a paved surface, but then that's the discretion of the staff. Is there a hardship? Is there the reason why they would need to use a different surface?

Board Member Hendricks.

So, during the last discussion of this, it was brought up about asbestos and lead paints, and again, I want to go back to that. There is a drainage ditch running along 150th, plus you're talking about all the vacant land for drainage. I worry about a lot of that going into our groundwater. Is the county doing any tests on that property? I know where those trucks are turning around is all the dirt. It's not improved. And what they have got for knocking the dust down, one, in my opinion, is not adequate because it consists of a sprinkler on top of a hole hooked up to PVC pipe, one sprinkler. And that's knocking all this dust that contains asbestos and lead paint onto the ground, and it's seeping into the groundwater. And I have a real problem with that. Does the county monitor that at all?

I can't answer that question. I don't know what monitoring has been done out there or what monitoring the county does. That would be with our public work department, which would look at that. If approved, anything, any water leaving the site would have to, they have to direct all their runoff into their pond, and there's filtration requirements before it's discharged into the county's system. And then any, like, even outdoor storage of materials, the outdoor sales, if they have outdoor storage bins, mulch, and all that, they have to, again, meet the requirements so there's no pollution that leaves the site. It's in our code that you have to meet the state DEP's requirements of you can't have any pollution leaving the site, including dust, runoff, et cetera.

It's on dirt. There is no way for it to run off. It's seeping into the ground.

Again, we require that paved. It needs to be paved. They would have to request, if they want to have a surface that's not a hardened paved surface for the vehicle use areas, and that would be through the site plan process, if allowed. Sometimes because of the use, you know, if there's an issue with pollutants running into the ground, that we would not allow a non-hardened surface.

Well, it's been going on, and the trucks are not on hard surface. They're on dirt. There's no paving there for these 18-wheelers.

Now, one thing I just, if I may, there are, I think, a number of issues that, and I'm just, you know, I'm reviewing the land use and zoning along with Michael. I'm not looking at, you know, what may be happening on the site today, if there's enforcement issues, if there are those types of violations. We're just kind of giving you an evaluation and a recommendation based on the zoning and the land use with regard to the context, and then having a development agreement as well to go along with that, which kind of helps box them in and help through some of these questions. But a lot of those issues, I believe, are really kind of enforcement issues. And one thing that I had mentioned kind of at last is one thing that we like to see is when a property can be brought to a point to where they need to come in for a site plan because now we can really look at those types of requirements. You know, like Michael was saying, we require paved surface for vehicular areas. If you're making changes and you come in, you're coming in with a site plan, you're going to have to meet those requirements. And a number of other requirements as well. You've got a lot of existing uses and developments that have been throughout the county for many, many years. Some don't have, you know, there are no site plans, approved site plans to be found. Some are not conforming because zoning has been changed over the years. This kind of helps, we see it as kind of a cleanup measure to be able to clean things up a little bit. Having a concept plan that's binding also, we like to see that as well because that gives, with the question of, you know, well, what if they expand over to this part of the property? Well, you'd be in violation of your development agreement because your development agreement includes a concept plan that shows you're not going to be over there doing any of those things. And it also, you know, some of the rules of that development agreement say that as well. So a number of these things do end up being the things that we look forward to being able to remedy when we get to a site plan process. Absent of that, it really just comes down to code enforcement coming out and issuing violations and citations and going through that process. That's a very long-winded way of saying, I apologize for that, but I hope that helps.

So if I understand correctly, and the applicant's going to have, you're going to have a chance to come up and talk. But when this gets approved, they're subject to the concept plan. Once they become subject to the concept plan, that restricts what they can do where. You then, they have to come through site plan, which means unless staff were to grant some type of relief from the paving requirement, those dirt vehicular movement areas that those trucks are going over right now would become asphalt that would be forced to drain into some type of a dry pond, which, according to the concept plan, is shown to the south and east. And then our code requires that any discharge from that meet the Florida Department environmental protection requirements.

And our own stormwater manual as well.

Okay. I know some jurisdictions, and famously I can think of Safety Harbor. The only thing you can discharge from your land is clear, clean water. Is that our, are we in some type of similar situation?

Yes, and as of the end of December 2025, the state's new stormwater requirements have gone into effect, which in some cases are even more restrictive than the counties of what pollutants need to be cleaned up. So they may trigger those state requirements would, would require a lot more cleanup than what the county currently loves.

Okay. And just to make sure that we're staying within the realm of what we can do as a board, because asbestos and lead is things that keep me up at night too. We can regulate water discharge, as in we have a code for that. You can't be dumping muddy water or whatnot. We can regulate whether dust comes off the property. Does state law allow us to regulate what's in that dust? Because if I remember correctly, there was some type of, and this might be more of a question for Council McAteer, but if I remember correctly, there was some type of state law preemption in that that's haunting my memory right now.

Well, I think where, there's a field preemption where the state DEP regulates. We do have an air quality division within Public Works, and they can be called out and tested for air quality, but it's the state standards. So where we have to be careful with this board, with it being a local planning agency land use board, is creeping too far afield from the mission. And that's what you were saying. But, you know, I think that we can say you have to abide by the state and county stormwater regulations, air quality regulations, but those are in place. We can't make new ones. We can't make new restrictions.

Okay. All right. Larry Johnson.

Mr. McAteer, the fact that it is stated in the development agreement that the foregoing the operation of solid waste transfer station shall include controls to prevent asbestos from entering the waste stream, and the GET property shall comply with requirements of Rule 62-701.300, which prohibits the unconfined emissions of particulate matter in violation of paragraph CSAF. Those were added, obviously, they're redlined. They were added into the development agreement. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And so does that allow us to discuss them because it's part of the development agreement that we'll be considering?

Yes. These were part of conversations with the applicant's representative. Right. So they have consented to this language, and so it can become part of the discussion of this board, and I'm sure that the applicant's attorney is chewing at the bit to do so. But those were part of discussions with the applicant's attorney to put that language in to try to assess and address some of the board concerns from the last meeting in November.

Thank you.

All right. Board members, do we have any other board members with questions for staff right now?

Just a point of clarification. I was not here for the November meeting, but in last month's meeting, we had a – it had never been done before, but we're talking about potential ex parte communication. So we had to declare that basically we've done a drive-by of the site. And so I don't know if that's still in effect, but, you know, as I said before, I think we're not doing our job if we don't drive by and know the site personally and take a look at it. But so for the record, I want it to be known that I did drive by and I looked at this site, and also the previous item, I looked at that property as well as for public information.

Yes, and the visitation disclosure just allows the applicant to, if you had certain suppositions based on what you observed or clear observations, that they can address those that basically it's a due process. And the Board of County Commissioners has the same requirement. They disclose whether or not they visited the site.

At the risk of delaying the applicant's presentation further, can we perhaps add that to the agenda at some point so that way it's in there to force us to go through it?

Yeah, I can add that to the opening statement every meeting. That wouldn't be very hard to do. But basically, it's you know, I mean, those who have noted and commented, if you've seen the site, just note that you've seen the site. If you've seen specific things that concern you, note that. And it just improves the due process. All right. Action of the Board.

I also buy the property.

Thank you, Board Member Hendricks. Anybody else go buy the property?

I have a question, Madam Chair.

Board Member Cataldo.

Back in November, there was a question that was asked regarding asbestos. And in looking at the development agreement, and I see the red, maybe I missed something this morning, but it's making reference to controls to prevent asbestos from entering the water system, the waste stream. When they refer to the waste stream, they're just talking about the transfer of debris that's coming in. They're not talking about any type of runoff, are they? Because I was under the understanding that during the abatement process, there would be no asbestos. So I just want to make sure that there isn't asbestos now coming onto the property.

That's something that the applicant would need to be asked. I can't say what their intent was. Okay.

And the red, can you just explain to me the red now in the agreement, is that a change or an addition?

Those are additions. Yeah, the red underline are additions.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

You're welcome. Board Members, any other questions for staff at this time? All right. Seeing none, let's have the applicant come up and give their presentation.

Thank you. Madam Chair.

Yes, absolutely. Do we wish to take a five-minute break before applicant gets into their presentation? So, all right. I'm sorry, applicant. If we could just take a five-minute break. All right. It's the January meeting, 2026 meeting of the Local Planning Agency Board. We are on cases 0N25-04 and FLU25-06, and the applicant may proceed with their presentation when ready.

Okay. I'm ready. Craig Taraski, representative for the applicant. I have been sworn. Staff did a great job on kind of the big picture of what's happening on the site. And just to hammer home, the northwest corner, the 0.6-whatever-acres is an existing legal non-conforming transfer station. And what we're asking for today with respect to that property is to make it legal conforming to establish the correct zoning and future land use designations for that use to continue. So, it's a transfer station today. It's been that way for decades. The proposal is to continue using that as a transfer station. The southwest, the 1.1, or southeast, 1.1 acres, currently vacant, is proposed to be an outdoor sales and parking area. Those are the uses that will be allowable, restricted by the development agreement. There was a concern raised about, well, what happens if this is approved, and the applicant then expands the transfer station down into the 1.18 acres. Not only is it prohibited under the development agreement, it's also prohibited under the zoning that we're asking for. A transfer station, the reason we're asking for the land use and zoning designations on that northwest is to make that legal conforming. We're asking for a kind of step down in zoning and land use for that southeast 1.1 acre site. It was also brought up, you know, we have a legal non-conforming operation. There's been concerns raised about pollutants and the possibility of asbestos and lead getting into the water system or the water supply. We heard the concerns about the asbestos. We did do some random samplings and sent those in last month to a lab. Those lab results came back clean. With any demo, the county has a requirement for asbestos surveys. There are exemptions from that requirement, but there are not exemptions from allowing those asbestos to get into the demo material. So anyone who did demo and that maybe is not as exempted from the survey requirement, they're still not allowed to put it into the waste stream. It's still a pollutant and they would still be a violator. We added, as was noted, you know, we were looking at what can we do within the confines of these applications to address some of the concerns that were raised. Some of them are really not zoning or even site plan considerations. They're more of an operations issue. The transfer station, which is the GET property in the development agreement, it is a state-regulated operation. It has to comply to maintain its permits for operation, has to maintain its state compliance. We added into the development restrictions, the 6.1.3 in the development agreement, that the transfer station will include controls to prevent asbestos from entering the waste stream. Waste stream being the internal processing of the materials, not stream as in water stream. Just the, if that, the, as the materials come in, the, the primary way to identify asbestos is by observation. It's a fibrous material. And education and having policies up front for the, the employees that are working on the intake of this materials are going to be, they've already started this implemented training and education on how to identify asbestos if it's on a load coming in, and to reject those loads from entering the internal waste stream of this, this transfer station. The other additional restriction is that, that the, the transfer station, the GET property, shall comply with the requirements of Rule 62-701-315 FAC, which prohibits the unconfined emissions of particular matter, matter. For reference, this is the state code, and this is applicable to this as a, as a waste handler, a solid waste management facility. So, the owner of, or operator of a solid waste management facility shall not allow the unconfined emissions of particular matter in violation of paragraph 62-296.324C, the code. If we go to that provision, this is the, this part of the code, this 62-296.320, it contains the general particular emissions limiting standards. So, these apply to this operation, and this, this facility cannot allow the unconfined emissions of particular matter. This is a permitted facility, and the, the state code identifies, identifies reasonable precautions to prevent those emissions to be, the first one, right off the back, paving and maintenance of roads, parking areas, and yards. We're proposing that the parking areas and drive aisles are all paved. The site plan was revised since, or last time we were here in November, to add a note that requires paving of all drive aisles and parking areas in conformance with the county's code. And the second precaution in the, in the state reg is the application of water or chemicals to control those emissions. This operation has a spray down facility for loads coming in, and for the, when they're unloaded. I think there was a reference to those, those spray operations, and that is an industry standard to control dust. Should also hammer home that because we're coming in with a, a new site plan that's attached to the development agreement, and this new zoning, these improvements will have to go through, um, the county for permitting, and, uh, you know, at that time, there'll be checks on paving, make sure that's included, and the, uh, the, the site will have to comply with the new county and state water, uh, surface water management, which includes a water quality component. That water quality component is meant to, to capture that initial small storm runoff and to, uh, to prevent pollutants from entering the, um, the discharge of that stormwater. Um, asbestos and lead are generally not water soluble, so these water quality components of the requirements will help mitigate that concern. Um, so that's, uh, that's my main focus is to show, you know, what we've done since we've been here in November. To address the concerns raised, um, I hope that we've, we've, you know, are, the tools are somewhat limited in this, you know, these are zoning and land use applications, development agreement, uh, as staff expressed, there are enforcement mechanisms for the county on nuisance pollutants, um, on illegal uses. There's a state regulation on the emissions of particulate matter. Inclusion of the cross-reference of the state regs into your development agreement now gives the county a tool for enforcement. Should there be a violation of that state regulation, it would also be a violation of the development agreement, giving the, the, the county some, some extra leverage to make sure that this facility is operating correctly. Um, if you have any questions, I also have the operator here to answer questions. And I'm happy to, happy to answer anything you may have. Okay. Board Member Hendricks.

Uh, Section 6, uh, 6.1.3.2. Yes. I would like to see lead added to that. You have asbestos in there, but there's no mention of the lead.

Yes.

Members, any other questions for the applicant?

I have a question. No, Chair.

Board Member Cataldo.

Regarding the, uh, the asbestos, you, you had mentioned that, um, when it comes in, it would be observed and whatever can be seen would be kind of addressed. But doesn't, uh, asbestos, when it goes through the abatement process, don't they mark it and bag it and it gets treated separately?

It wouldn't come to this site. This site is not licensed to handle that type of material.

So, what would, what would be a control to prevent the asbestos? Just making sure that when the containers come in with debris that, um, a visual check, they look for asbestos? That's right.

Okay.

So, how do they check for lead?

Uh, that would be what lead paint is the main concern with, with lead. Yeah.

And residential is not tested by the county. Is, uh, Mr. Schatterbach, is that correct? That's, to my knowledge, residential is not checked for lead or asbestos when they demo an old house.

I don't know the answer to that question.

Any follow-up questions from the board?

Just curious, Madam Chair, why the, um, why there's a five-year limit on the development agreement? What happens at the end of five years? Does the development agreement disappear?

So, in the, the county, in our land development code, we have that, uh, five-year, uh, limit on it. Uh, I know the state requirement has changed. It can, it can be longer. Uh, so, we're, we're looking at that the development will take place, if approved, will take place before five years. Uh, and as part of the site plan process, they're required to record a, uh, development restrictions and covenants on the property, which then ties those development agreement restrictions to the property. Um, if circumstances, which we've had before, where it's coming up on that five-year, they can request an extension. That extension will come back through this process. Uh, we've, we've had that previously. Occasionally, we'll have development agreements. Um, one I can think of was, uh, um, a housing one that they didn't get the funding, so they needed to apply for an extension, so they have to come back through this process.

Thank you.

Um, just to follow up on Board Member Larry Johnson's question, because I imagine one of the things that just popped into the minds of our citizens is, if they don't build and it expires, what happens if they don't extend it? What do we do then? Do they just have unrestricted zoning classifications?

Have a reversion.

10.1.

Yep. Absolutely. We'll, we'll bring a, staff can bring back, uh, through the process to revert the zoning and land use back to the original.

Okay, so they can either build it according to the development agreement within five years, and then covenants are put into the title of the land, and they're there, covenants are hard to remove, right? Yes. Yes, correct. Or, they hit five years, they haven't built it out, they have to request an extension, which brings them back to us.

Correct.

Or, they don't request, they don't build it out, they don't request an extension, and the county reverts the zoning back, so there's...

Yes, the county would bring a land use and zoning case back through this process to change back to the previous land use and zoning designation.

It'd be a staff-initiated case. They would come through in the same way that the applicant-initiated case would come through. Just trying... It would be the applicant.

Just trying to make sure that there's no, like, free passes to get out of obligations that were undertaken in this process, and run around the process. Question for you, applicant. You said that you amended your site plan to call out the vehicular movement areas as paved. Yes. I know Board Member Hendricks is concerned about dust. I know that dust generation is, despite any state preemptions, dust generation is an area that is within classical zoning factors of compatibility. Are you waiving the right to request relief from that paving?

Yes, it'll be paved. The note was added that... All right. So, that we'd have to come back through. Not only will we need to address the relief at the staff level, which I believe is only for parking areas, not for actual drive aisle areas. That's correct. But we'd have to come back through and amend our development agreement, which would put us back in front of this group, this board, and the BOCC. Okay.

If it's part of the concept plan, that's part of the exhibit of the development agreement, staff could not override that. That would require it coming back through the process.

So, staff looking at this development agreement that's before us, you couldn't give that administrative waiver from paving? Okay. Just wanting to make sure. I know there's a lot of moving parts. There's a lot of history. Just wanting to make sure I have it boiled down. All right. Any other remarks at this time, applicant? Okay. We will now hear from members of the public who wish to speak in support of application FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04. Do we have anyone in the room who wishes to speak in support of either application? All right. Seeing none, do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in support of applications FLU 25-06 or ZON? No participants online, Madam Chair. Okay. Do we have anyone in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to application FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04? I see a hand raised. Please come up. State your name and address for the record before speaking.

Hi, Steve K. Well, I'm the owner, the warehouse owner at the 6280 150th Avenue North, and it's straight south of the subject property. I'll just take a picture again here of this. You know, they talked about the stream, the waste, and stuff like that going in the stream or water, whatever. There's really nothing that was said too much about the airborne waste, and we're still getting that. Nothing has been done about the airborne waste. So my comment is green energy has not been a good neighbor. They knew 12 months ago during a zone violation hearing that there was a problem with the dust. They have done nothing since that for 12 months. Okay. So I called out after that last meeting that we had, I called out Colin Walford from Pinellas County Air Quality. He came out and said they need more sprinklers. He went over to the property and checked it out and came back to me and talked to me. Green Energy said, the employee from Green Energy said, they can't because they don't have enough water pressure. Well, maybe they should get a bigger water line or get another supply line. They're not going to do that. So Green Energy is non-conforming, okay? Have them conform to current standards or sunset the business. New standards are to tip in an enclosed building for this waste, okay? Tip in an enclosed building. That means dumped inside the building, okay? There's no building, okay? Separate Green Energy and the new landscaping business. Putting them together, it's harder to sunset green energy if they don't conform to any of the regulations that they're saying they're going to conform to. Why do they need a heavy industry permit for gravel and wood chips? You know, I don't know. But anyhow, and here are still the pictures. That's one right there. That's a debris pile. Well, that's another debris pile, which who knows what's in there. There's, again, a picture of my car, my finger swipe on there. This is after one day. That's what my car looks like right here. I literally, anybody that's on our property or whatever, at the end of the day, you've got to go and get your car washed. It's full of dust. Nothing is being, what are they going to do for the airborne dust that I have to breathe, that I've been breathing in for how many years now? It's going on every day. All this dust, breathe in. The water to run off or whatever is one thing. This is a whole other ballgame with airborne dust. I did talk to the owner, Eric Cash, and he said he was going to deploy some kind of these air water cannons or whatever.

Okay. Can you wrap up in 30 seconds? Yeah.

Okay. And so nothing was said about the air water cannons or whatever to alleviate the dust. So that's my comment right there. Okay. Just, my vote is, I hope you vote no on this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody else in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to cases FLU, and I see a second hand raised. Please come forward, state your name and address for the record.

I'm Darlene Shirley. I live at 6290 150th Avenue. I want to know whether they're going to put a retention pond on that little piece of property, because out in front of that whole property is a ditch. When the rain comes down and it's heavy, that place floods. Them ditches fill to the top. They're not only 150th, but 62nd also has ditches. Now, same way with P-TECH. P-TECH has a place in the front where all the water, when it rains, it actually lays in there. And that's what this property does the same thing. So either they need to put some kind of retention pond in there or something so that we don't flood. These ditches actually do fill almost to the top. So that's one of the things. Also, I have to agree with Steve. The dust. My husband, he has COPD, actually literally has to go in the house, get oxygen, so that he can breathe. So this dust problem, it is, I mean, it's for everybody. Behind me, another keeps saying this, this is an industrial area. Behind my street, between 62nd and 63rd, there is 25 houses between houses, duplexes, and trailers. On 63rd Way, there's about 15 houses between duplexes and houses over there. So it is not strictly commercial. There's actually people living there that have been there for years, and a lot of it is rental property. Now, do the landlords have to tell the people you're living in an area where you might breathe in bad oxygen? So I think we need to, we have to think of this as not only as a commercial place. Okay, yeah, we might employ a couple people, but what about the people that live there and have lived there? I've been there almost 30 years. So for me, I'm 73, so maybe I don't have as long to live, but there's a lot of little kids in the area, and a lot of them walk to school. Behind P-TECH is going to be a sports complex. Behind that is an elementary school. On the opposite side, there's trailers, there's houses, there's everything. So we have to look at this as a whole picture and not just one, and that's what I have to say.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to these two applications? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Has anybody joined us online to speak in opposition?

No change in participation online.

All right. That brings us back to the applicant.

Craig Terasky for the applicant again. Just to address the comment about surface water management, yeah, the significant portion of that southeast 1.1 acres is taken up by a stormwater facility, stormwater retention. As you can see on the site plan, that's, again, attached to the development agreement. And, again, the new development would all have to meet current county code with respect to surface water management. With respect to the dust issues, I'm going to defer to the representative of the operator, so if you can introduce yourself.

I'm John King. I represent the operator.

I'm sorry. Could you please speak up? We're having a hard time hearing you. Sorry.

Can you hear me now?

Good. Okay. Thank you.

I'm John King. I represent the operator. The operator. Green Energy Transport. In terms of dust and dust control, we do have sprinklers. We have improved our sprinkler implementation. As soon as we get to the site, 5.30 in the morning, we're turning on the sprinklers. There are other options that we actually discussed with Mr. K. Wall in terms of water cannons, misters that can be implemented to address dust issues as well.

And those operational measures are not really site plan measures. They're not zoning measures. They're an operational. This equipment is kind of temporary in nature, sort of. This is equipment that's off-the-shelf equipment that's brought into the site and then assembled where the unloading is taking place to douse those materials with water. So, there's been a commitment from the operator. There has been ongoing dialogue with the neighbor. There's a commitment to try to continue looking at operational changes that will improve the dust situation. Paving is number one. So, as part of this process and with the new improvements, all those areas will be paved. That will cut down the dust significantly. So, we're hoping to see some improvement. But there is a commitment to continue improving until that dust issue has been mitigated. The dialogue is open. We are now under a microscope as part of this process. We would expect that if we're not compliant that we're going to be interfacing with code enforcement again. So, I don't think there's anything more that we can insert into this application to address those concerns.

Okay. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time?

Question, and that is water supply. To supply these water cannons, have you all talked to the county about larger water line coming into your facility?

Yeah, there has been internal discussion. And what it would probably consist of would be some supplemental water tanks on site rather than any type of main, you know, enlargement. That's a major undertaking. But there's the possibility of having supplemental water tanks on site to give the supply and pressure needed to improve and enhance the spray downs.

Is there more than one spray down? Because I only saw one sprinkler head.

We have spray downs over the tile area and then spray downs over the construction and demolition waste as well.

I saw one. Is that what you've got is one or have you installed one?

There's more than one.

Is there? Okay.

All right. Larry Johnson.

Thank you. I just wanted to close a circle on something that we heard earlier from Mr. Oliveri, is it? Welcome, by the way. You mentioned something about paving over retention pond area. Now we're talking about paving over the driving, the parking area, and also the truck aisles, I believe you call them. Is that the same area? Are we talking about paving over?

There is currently no retention on the site.

No, I'm sorry. My previous comment was that there's a post-stormwater pond in the southeast. I'm the spoke, okay. So, all right. So there is no proposed stormwater retention pond? Oh, there is. It's significant.

It's on the site plan.

Got you. Here. But that isn't part of the paving area that you're talking about? No.

The paving is the dark on the site plan. It may be hard to see, but this whole area, which is approximately a third of that 1.1 acres, is a retention area.

Okay. I thought that was a racetrack. I thought that's why the trucks came in. Thank you for clarifying it.

Um, circling, uh, just while we're closing loops with staff, um, my understanding is Pinellas County requires retention of stormwater runoff from things like impervious surfaces, because I know there was a concern about causing some type of flooding.

So, correct, you have to, you have to maintain all of your, so if you increase impervious on a site, you have to capture that on the site. You can't increase your discharge off of the site. So, as, as they pave more areas, more impervious, if you put a building up, uh, that needs to be captured on the site, so you're not adding to, uh, the system if there's, if there's already, uh, flooding occurring out there in the right-of-way. You, you can't add to increase that to flood your neighbors, flood the right-of-way.

Okay, and I assume that's something where they can calculate the runoff based on whether it's grass or asphalt and-

Correct, yes, that's, uh, that's a professional engineer who does his calculations and, uh, puts that application together.

Okay. Board members, any other questions for the applicant at this time? All right, not seeing any. Um, so, we're going to have two motions on this, um, before we do the motions, any final questions for anyone in the room, any final questions for staff? All right, in that case, I'm, I'm, I'm sorry, if you're going to speak, you're going to need to come up. I'll give you a chance to come back.

Uh, where the retention, if they put one in, is it going to be fenced? Because there's kids walking up and down the street. We have a lot of kids. There's an elementary school right down the street. So, we'll have to be fenced in.

All right.

And we will, the applicant will address that, um, and just to keep everyone's expectations clear, we are past the public hearing point, so this dialogue is the last step before the board votes. Applicant.

Craig Terasky for applicant again. Uh, yes, the site will be fenced. Um, we'll meet the, the county's requirements, uh, for fencing. Um, it's in our best interest. But, uh, the applicant's and operator's best interest to keep the site secure. Thanks. Okay.

All right. Do the board members have any questions for anybody in the room or for staff? Seeing none. At this time, I will entertain a motion on FLU 25-06.

I will move approval for, uh, FLU-25-06. Motion by Hoyt.

I will second. Second by Oliveri. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign.

Nay. Nay.

Nay. Day three. Okay. That's a split vote. Um, Council McAteer for a split vote. It fails. It fails. All right. So, the table's back open. Do we have any other motions on FLU 25-06? Anyone else care to make a motion on this application?

You might have to help me a little bit here. I move that we deny. Is that the proper?

We would be recommending denial.

Okay. I move that we recommend denial of FLU 25-06 and ZON 25-04.

You can only do one at a time.

One at a time. Sorry.

We're doing FLU. I apologize if I'm jumping too far into your lane.

You're fine. And one thing we need to remember, and I think it would come along at the zoning level, which we have to vote on no matter how this goes, because it's a recommending body, is that there was an offered amendment to the development agreement regarding lead. So, let's just remember that whenever we get to the next case, because the DA ties to the zoning.

Yeah. Okay. And in that DA, the applicant also clarified that they would be paving instead of having dirt on their like now.

Yeah. I don't know if that was offered as an amendment or not to the textual amendment to the development agreement, if that's what the board wants.

It was added before it came to us here. Okay. Yeah.

So, it's already in there. So, it wouldn't need to be in the motion.

Okay.

All right.

Do I need to restate?

You do. And we need to take these separately. So, one motion per case number.

Okay.

I move that we recommend denial of FLU 2506.

Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second. Motion by Larry Johnson. Second by Cataldo. All in favor of...

Do I have a discussion? Absolutely. I'm just trying to, again, since I wasn't here in November, you all heard this case in November. It went back for further discussion. My understanding is the concerns of the board were addressed, and that's where the red line, everything else came through that I've seen. With those being addressed, apparently, if they weren't addressed to your approval, then that's fine. But I'm uncomfortable sitting here trying to dictate operation. That's not our job. This agreement says they will, and we don't do site plan, but the proposal addresses stormwater. It addresses the impervious surface. It addresses the continued operation with the sprinkler system and increased. Madam Chair, I disagree with this conversation.

Maybe I'm out of line, but I disagree. I don't feel this is the appropriate time to have this conversation.

I'm just stating what took place between the November meeting and today. So I'm, you know, this is, and staff recommends the approval. I'm under the impression the questions that you all were raised in November have been discussed.

All right, so just to address this point of order, Council McAteer, it's my understanding that once a motion's on the table, it can be discussed by the board members. Absolutely, it can. Okay. Do we have some type of limitation on, what are our guardrails for discussion? Is there some type of, like, state boundary on that?

Well, this is a land use board. So, I mean, we've already bumped into the guardrails a few times today.

Yeah, yeah, the asbestos thing. Yeah.

So we, I have been trying to bite my tongue, but this is a land use board. You're making, within the land development code, you're making recommendations that are consistent. If this is found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code, you make a recommendation that it should be approved. If it is not consistent with the comp plan, or if you find it's not consistent with the land development code, you make a recommendation for denial. That's it. We are not an environmental or permitting board or a contaminant board. No scientists sitting up here. So I've tried to stay in my lane as well, but we have run far afield. Understood.

Are we not also, though, voting on the development agreement?

We are, but those are negotiated points which have been addressed by the applicant, and the applicant has agreed to step out of the lane to put that, to try to address the board's concerns, as was noted. And so a development agreement, I mean, we can't write it to infinity, but we did try to address, work with the applicant to address the concerns. I don't care which way the vote goes. That's not my job. But it has to stay within the mission statement of this board, which is to find whether or not something is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code. That's it.

Thank you, Council McAteer. One more thing, since on the grounds of closing loops, and this might be for staff. There's currently a non-conforming business there, right? Correct. And I know there was some mention of sunsetting, but this board can't make that existing business just go away. Is that correct?

That's correct. There's requirements in the code for non-conforming uses. Non-conforming uses, as long as you're in operation, you can continue. You can't expand unless you would have to come in for a request. That would go to the Board of Adjustments. There's limited expansion you could do where you could make a request at a public hearing and provide the reasons why you need to expand your non-conforming use. If the use is abandoned more than 180 days, they lose that non-conformity, and then the site must be used for a conforming use. Otherwise, they are allowed to maintain, and they're allowed to continue the activity.

Okay. All right. You know, I keep saying that I'm, as a human being, I'm very sensitive to the ideas of asbestos and lead contamination, you know. But as someone who is bound within the law, all I can think about is things like water runoff and actual dust generation in the context of compatibility. I'm currently looking at a use that is grandfathered, generating dust, and has no stormwater system to control any type of runoff from it at this time. And what I'm looking at here is a very specific proposal, not even going into steps to incorporate state law into that agreement, but I see controls for water runoff, and I see controls to the extent that we can control dust emission, which is basically the drive aisles, moving vehicles, moving around. It looks like it reduces that and enhances the compatibility. The actual activity, I can't make go away. I can't really say anything on it unless they were to try to zone it on the south parcel. Then all of a sudden we have a different compatibility question. So I still think that this should be returned as a recommendation of approval, but we will not give our board a failure to recommend. I don't know if the applicant will, after a couple rounds of voting, want to continue to when we have a full board. But it's my intention that we will, one way or the other, issue a recommendation to our board of county commissioners in the service of our citizens. All right. With that, I will entertain a motion on application FLU 25-06.

I move for approval of FLU 25-06.

Hold on just a second. We had a motion on the floor. I apologize.

We had a motion for the denial. My apologies. You are correct, and my apologies. All right. So we have a motion to recommend denial. All in favor of that motion, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? No. No. No. Madam Clerk, do you need a roll call? Okay. Please call the roll. Aye.

Aye.

No.

Nay.

Nay. I do see the applicant raising their hand, so if you could come forwards.

Craig Trasky for applicant again. In light of the split voting applicant, agreeable to a continuance, or I guess I'll request a continuance for a month to see if we can get a full board with that extra voter. Okay.

All right. Board members, I don't know how you feel about this, but the way I feel is that the applicant is the person who crafts their application and has the final say on how it goes forwards. They've asked to come back before us when we have a full board, and it seems like we are at a bit of an impasse. So is there an interest in making a motion to continue for one month? I'll make a motion to continue. Motion to continue by Oliveri. Second. Second by Catalda. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. The motion passes unanimously. That brings us, since we have two matters, let's... That brings us to ZON 25-04.

Since, Madam Chair, since these are intertwined, should the motion now just be to continue? I do believe a motion to continue. I have no choice. Would that be the proper motion?

It can't go to the county commission without a future land use.

Motion to continue ZON-25-04 to the February meeting.

Motion by Hoyt. Second. Second by Larry Johnson. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. Motion passes unanimously.

And that date will be, so for the record, that date is February 11th.

Okay. Okay. All right. At this time, that concludes our cases for today. At this time, does staff have any final remarks, updates for us before we adjourn?

Just welcome our newest member, Alvary. Welcome to the board. Awful first day.

Came to a good one. It did.

We're starting you off running. Yeah. Right into the lava. Hopefully not running away. Sure. Yeah, I would imagine. All right. So with that, if staff has no other updates, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Go move.

Motion by Larry Johnson. Second by Hoyt. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. The motion passes unanimously. We are adjourned. All in favor, say aye.

All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, say aye.