Good morning and welcome to the February meeting of the Local Planning Agency Board for Pinellas County, Florida. Today's hearing by the Local Planning Agency or LPA is being held to review proposed amendments to the Pinellas County Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas and other items relative to the county's planning and growth management program. The LPA is an independent advisory board charged with reviewing and making recommendation to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on cases to be heard today. The Board of County Commissioners will make the final decision on each item at a separate public hearing currently scheduled to be held on March the 24th, 2026 at 6 p.m. The BOCC 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. The applicant will then 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'll 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 also will be given 10 minutes. Similarly, speakers must be present and waive their time in order to get the 10 minutes. Finally, the applicant will be given an opportunity to close, answer any questions, or respond to any concerns raised by the opponents or proponents for a period of time not to exceed five minutes. Before your presentation, please give your name and address for the record. All testimony needs to be under oath, so if you have not been sworn in today and you plan to testify, please rise now and be sworn. There will not be continuing rebuttal. Also, please fill out the paper 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 are here at this 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 Commissioner's meeting in order to be included with the record that will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. And so with that, we will now move into the agenda. All right, our next item is the quasi-judicial statement. 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, etc., may be considered competent as substantial evidence. Also, if anyone has visited the site, please, that is the subject of at least two cases, please disclose that prior to the cases being heard. I think we're hearing them together. So if you hear them, disclose that when the case is called, that would be helpful. Thank you. Okay. We'll now move on to approval of the minutes for January 14th, 2026. Move approval of the minutes as submitted. Motion by Hamilton. Second. Second by Larry Johnson. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The motion passes unanimously. We'll now move to 4A1, 2026-06. Does the applicant intend to present FLU 26-06 in a combined presentation with ZON 25-04? Yes, that's correct. Okay. We'll be presenting them together. And does the applicant intend to give their presentation combined? All right. Thank you. I'd like to disclose that I have visited the property. All right. Thank you. I've also did a drive-by. Not a detailed get out and walk the site, but I have done a drive-by. And that's enough. It's just, it gives both sides the opportunity to ask what you saw and how your opinions were formed or whatever. So it helps a due process. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the local planning agency, I'm Scott Swearingen. I'm the long-range planning manager for Pinellas County. It's a pleasure to be before you and I appreciate your time. So I will jump right into both cases, one presentation, FLU 25-06 and ZON 25-04. Subject property is approximately 1.87 acres. It's located at 6201 150th Avenue North and 15097 63rd Street North in unincorporated Largo and unincorporated Pinellas County. The future land use map amendment portion of this, it involves two parcels. The southeast parcel, which is 1.8, acres and a request on that parcel is to change the land use from commercial neighborhood to commercial general. And the adjacent northwest 0.69 acre parcel is a request to change the land use from employment to industrial general. The companion zoning atlas amendment follows that same acreage and those same parcels in the change. And that change in the southeast parcel, the 1.18 acre parcel is from neighborhood commercial to employment to. And then on the adjacent northwest 0.69 acre parcel is from employment to heavy industry. The proposed use is a transfer station with accessory outdoor sales. As part of the zoning atlas amendment, there is also a development agreement that is proposed for approval. That agreement contains generally the following restrictions. So the property shall be developed substantially in conformance with a conceptual site plan. And you can see that conceptual site plan on the slide on the right side of the slide. It is also a part of your agenda packet. The property shall be limited to solid waste transfer station and outdoor sales and parking. So regardless of the variety of uses that are within each of the zoning districts, the actual uses that could be built are those uses and those uses only per the development agreement. The operation shall include asbestos prevention and particulate matter controls. We heard a little bit about this last month and I would leave it to the applicant to describe furthermore if you have any more questions as to how that would apply and actually what that might mean. All associated truck queuing will take place on site. So no more trucks maneuvering and queuing and staging off site that would all be per that development agreement that would occur now on the property if that development agreement and the associated zoning and land use were approved. Those would be some of, kind of the bulk of the changes that would occur and that would be approved and they would have to abide by if this were to be approved. This is kind of a 20,000 foot level shot of the property outlined in blue. You can see kind of the character of that neighborhood, of the area around it. It's a combination of heavy commercial and industrial, mostly with some sort of public, quasi-public uses. And there are some residential as well scattered throughout, mostly in the southwest and the southeast. There's a slight bit of residential within this area, this kind of industrial park-like area. So if we zoom in a little bit, you can see the subject property again. And this time it's outlined in red. And we have a lot of, kind of, heavy commercial industrial type uses. But we also do have four residential properties, two of them which are directly adjacent to the subject property, directly to the northeast. And then you can see we've got a convenience store on the, at the intersection on our northwest corner. P-TEX across the street to the east. Truck sale, recycling, wholesale warehousing, those types of uses right around that same area. Just to give you a sense of, kind of, the use character of the area. The current future land use map is on the left side of your slide. And so then on the right side would be where you can see that, how that change would occur. So you would have from, to CG, kind of the southeast. And then to IG and then northwest. And then likewise with the zoning, the map on your right shows how the zoning would change to where you would have, you would go to the E2 on the southeast and then to the I on the northwest. It's a little bit difficult to read, I apologize for that. So, site photos, character there. So this is facing north from the subject property along 158th Avenue North. You can get a sense of the character there. And then facing west from the subject property, again along 150th Avenue North. Just surrounding heavy industrial uses, as I mentioned. And then facing east toward P-TEX, you know, across that 66th street north there, kind of splitting the photograph and P-TEX would be, is on the opposite side of that. So it's facing east from the subject property. Potential traffic impacts per the change in future land use are low, anticipated to be low. And to note, Roosevelt Road operates at about 47% of capacity in the PM peak hour. And Olmerton Road operates at about 95% capacity in the PM peak hour. And the project per the future land use change, this is a future land use level traffic analysis, not at the site plan level traffic analysis. At the future land use level, an additional 12 vehicular trips in the PM peak hour will be anticipated for the property. Low flood risk as well. The property is not in the coastal storm area. It's not in the coastal high hazard area. And it lies in the flood zoning. In conclusion, we find a proposed land use, zoning, and the development agreement per those. Staff finds the proposed amendments with that associated development agreement appropriate, especially considering the site's long-term use. The amendments will allow the site, the amendments including that development agreement, will allow the site to be redeveloped to the county's development regulations in a more appropriate manner. So as a site plan comes in in the future, if this were to be developed, the county, you know, they would be subject to the county's development regulations in total, and the development agreement as well with those limitations that were in the development agreement and some of those assurances that are in the development agreement. We find the proposal consistent with the surrounding context and compatible with the area's heavy commercial and industrial mixed-use character, and we find this consistent with our comprehensive plan as well. Staff recommends approval of the two applications and the development agreement, and a Board of County Commissioner's public hearing is scheduled for March 24th. That's our evening agenda at 6 p.m. That concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to try and answer any questions should you have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Swearingen. Board members, do you have any questions for staff at this time? All right. Seeing none. The applicant may come up and give their name and address and speak when ready. Thank you for the presentation. Good morning. Craig Taraski for the applicant. Just another map showing what we're proposing here. Subject properties and the proposed zoning and land use going to CGE2 on the southeast parcel and IGEI on the northwest parcel. The whole purpose of this is to accommodate the proposed redevelopment of the southeast site into outdoor sales. This will be like landscape material, and this is my third time here, so I know some of you or all of you have heard a lot of this before, but just to get it on the record one more time. This material is not being recycled out of the transfer station operation. This comes in separately from separate wholesale vendors to be sold on this site. Small office parking, and then we have some additional parking here to stage trailers to pick up and drop off this material, and parking for trailers staging for the transfer station. As Steph mentioned, this is an aerial of the industrial park. If anyone has been there, those of you who have had, if you come in on 63rd, this very much has a heavy industrial park feel to it. You have metal recycling, you have a sanitation company, and then this is the subject property. This is the existing transfer station and the vacant lot that's proposed to be turned into the outdoor sales area. As Steph mentioned, we have a development agreement associated with the zoning and land use change. Based on feedback that we heard at our earlier hearings, we did amend the development agreement to add in some additional mitigating measures to address the concerns raised. We did add in into the development agreement that the solid waste transfer station shall include controls to prevent asbestos from entering the waste stream. We also included that the GET property, which is the transfer station property, shall comply with the requirements of the state regulations that are applicable to the solid waste facility. Again, that's a solid waste facility that's permitted from the state, so it has to comply with their permit and the state regs. But we're cross-referencing those in the development agreement that the transportation shall comply with the rule 62-71.315, which prohibits the unconfined emission of particular matter in violation of paragraph 62-296-324C. So this will give the county some additional enforcement leverage on the property to ensure that it's operating within the code and these state regulations as well. Now, the state regulations that are cited in the development agreement reference this provision, which talks about the prohibition on pollutant emissions. And for any permit issued to a facility with emissions of unconfined particulate metals shall specify the regional precautions taken to control those emissions. Those reasonable precautions include paving and maintenance of roads, parking areas, and yards. We're doing this on the site. We're proposed to pave all vehicular areas. That should make a big difference on dust coming off the site. Application of water or chemicals to control those emissions. There is going to be, and there is currently, and they continue to be spray down of the loading and unloading areas. And the application of water to unpaved roads, yards, open stockpiles, and similar activity, again, application of water to spray down. While we're on that topic, I'll let the applicant's representative talk about kind of the mitigating, the dust mitigation measures that are being employed. And introduce yourself, too, for the record. I'm John King with the applicant. Right now, we have seven sprinklers that we are using currently to spray down the areas, as Craig mentioned. We have also increased our water usage and the sprinkler usage almost twofold year-over-year since we came before you the first time. Thank you. Mr. King, is your address the same as the site? The business address is fine. I just use the business address. Okay. All right. We typically, so it's 6201 1 50th Avenue? The 63rd, right. The 63rd. Okay. Excuse me. Okay. The 63rd address on the corner. Yeah. And to supplement the record, these are the water bills showing the significant increase of water usage for their spray downs from December of 2024 to April 2025. You can see we're even more than twofold to the record. I think we need to be, when we're looking at what we're requesting, I think there's a tendency to look at the transfer station. It seems like the transfer station is kind of what's causing the friction because of the innate dirtiness of that industry, its waste handling. So as you've seen, you've heard complaints and you've seen some of the photographs of the dust. There's been additional spray down. They'll continue the additional spray down. The assumption shouldn't be that the operation will be in violation of the code. I think that would be improper. Some of these, you know, the operation issues, you know, don't really come into play with a zoning and land use change. That's what we're in here for today. We've opened it up with a development agreement to limit the development of this property to what's in the development, the transfer station and the outdoor sales. So this isn't just a general rezoning that just opens it up to the wide range of uses that are available under that zoning. So it's specific to this development plan. And then in addition, we've added operational controls and restrictions in the development agreement, making sure that we're following the state permit requirements on dust mitigation, making sure that we have controls on asbestos entering the site. To hold this user, this operator to standards beyond that really would be, you know, unjustified and unreasonable. Those are the standards that – these standards are more stringent than the other similar transfer stations that are in the county. They don't have these additional development agreement restrictions on them. They have the general code provisions on nuisances, and then they have their permit requirements with the state. And because this is an innately dirty industry, that's why they are permitted by the state, and that's why there are the state regulations that address air pollution and water pollution, and they have to stay in compliance with the state regs to operate. Now we've given – in the development agreement, not only, you know, is there just the county's code with respect to zoning issues, with respect to – there's some nuisance provisions in the county code. We've given extra teeth by – if they were in violation of the state regulation on prohibition of emissions, that the county can leverage that for additional enforcement measures against this operator should they be in violation. So I think the assumption should be that this operator is going to operate within the code and within their permit, and that will include mitigating the dust and other issues that could potentially impact the surrounding properties. You've heard from staff this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. I have a few other provisions that I'll read into the record once again. In the future land use element, there's future land use strategy 4.1.2.1, that we – the county provides siting opportunities for employers by maintaining and enhancing industrial and employment center lands within Pinellas County. That the size, configuration, and characteristics of the site, including potential for expansion and consolidation with adjoining properties in relationship to its potential utility support and employment opportunities. That the location of the property in relation to adjoining similarly classified property is compatibility with adjoining and nearby uses and planned classifications that would be similar to serve the site. Here, you know, this is – the transfer station has been in existence for decades. It's within an established heavy industrial park with other heavy industrial users despite the zoning. You know, to the north we have the sanitation company. Here's a photograph of their site. They have unpaved roads and they have large trucks coming in and out all day. You know, we've heard complaints from neighbors pointing at the transfer station to be contributing to dust in the area. I mean, we have another heavy industrial user within that development that's probably likely contributing to it as well. If this zoning and land use and development agreement are approved and this development goes through, you'll have the transfer station site all paved and you'll have the site brought up to current county requirements, including water quality and surface water controls, which don't exist on some of these other heavy industrial users. Within the economic prosperity element of your comprehensive plan, you have objective 1.3 to promote economic growth through land use and development patterns that meet the county's business and workforce needs. Strategy 1.3.2.1 to provide siting opportunities for primary employers by maintaining and enhancing industrial employment center lands. The comprehensive plan, there's an overriding theme, is to protect and enhance industrial property within the county. I come before this board and Board of County Commissioners on industrial land where there's pressure to change those to other uses. Here we're trying to solidify this industrial use, so that definitely is consistent with the objectives in the comprehensive plan. I think that pretty much covers it for me. We're here to answer any questions you may have, so I'll leave it with that for now. All right, one moment. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant? I do. All right, come back up. Board member Hendricks. You knew I was going to have a question, right? Sure. I spoke about and asked about lead-based paint, and it was going to be put in here, and I don't see it put in here anywhere. I apologize. I don't recall us deciding to put a lead-based paint in, but okay. What type of control are you looking to put in with lead-based paint? Well, my concern is the wash-down area where this dust is being knocked down. There's a lot of lead-based paint in that dust, and I say that because I know for a fact that residential demolition is not monitored. There are nine vacant lots on my street alone where they've knocked down houses. These houses were built in the 50s. All of them had lead-based paint. I've got to jump in here. There was, at the conclusion where this item was continued, there was motions hung. There was no motion made to amend the development agreement draft, no agreement of any such thing. So I'm not speaking to the quality one way or the other or to the speculative nature one way or the other of your comments, but I am saying that the applicant was not instructed by anyone, this board or staff or legal, to amend that development agreement in the last meeting. Well, I brought it up, and this gentleman said they would put it in there. If you look back at the video, you'll see. There was no motion. There was no vote. Okay, fine. You are not a single, this is not a single-member board. Okay. Also, where is that affluent going to? Is it going to a sanitary sewer? Is it going to a storm sewer? So if this is redeveloped, we're not at site plan, so that will be addressed per the code. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Do any other board members have any questions for the applicant? I guess I do. Since the last time that you're before us, have you had any attempts at outreach with your neighbors? Yes. We have reached out to the neighbors, and we have committed to increasing the use of sprinklers and potentially adding additional spray down. Okay. Just to clarify, does that include any additional equipment? Yes. Your use is currently non-conforming, correct? Legal non-conforming, yes. Approval of this would make it conforming, correct? Correct. What you've committed to is the state standards, correct? Yes. In the development agreement? Yes. And those state standards currently apply to you, correct? Yes. Those are required under the permit. They hold with the state. One last thing. Those water usage bills that you put into the record, can you put them up in front of us again? Sure. So we come along August 24, October, December, February, and then we get to April. That's my understanding in the record there's code enforcement. It goes to April, June, August, October 25, and then all the way to December 25. It's my turn to talk. Sure. Go ahead. I admit that your water increase has gone from there. That's what I was getting to. Okay. When did your code enforcement case take place? Oh, I think that was in, you have to forgive me, I don't have the exact date, but I believe it was maybe June or July. I can ask that. Okay. When did it start? I see, what trips do you increase in water in April? You can answer. I'm not sure. It might have just been a dry season or dry part of the season. Okay. And then can you show me the usage after, can you show me the usage after April? I can't see that portion of the screen. This is April, June, August, October, December of 2025. Okay. And the reason I ask this is because this goes to just dust generation. And we cannot, to be clear, just to make sure that I'm not running afoul of Council McAteer's advice, we can't regulate what's in any dust or runoff, but dust is a question of compatibility, dust generation period, your dust generation. So that's why this is important to me. Okay. For clarifying that. Do you have any, you're going to have rebuttals, so let's go ahead and hear from the public. At this time, do we have any members of the public in the room who wish to speak in support of applications FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04? All right. We have one person who has their hand raised. I'm calling for persons in support of the application. Is that your intent to speak in support? Yes. All right. Come forwards. Please state your name and address. Also state whether you've taken an oath because, Madam Clerk, I don't know if we got an oath from this gentleman, from this citizen. Yeah, I did take the oath. Okay. We're good? All right. Steve K. Wall, 6280 150th Avenue North. I'm straight south of the suspect property. I'm happy to say that whatever they're doing with their water control system, it's working. And I'm happy with the dust control now. And I talked to Eric Cash and he said he has other things that he wants to do to ensure that that's going to be handled in the future with everything. I like the plan that they have going because they are going to asphalt everything. And that'll help keep the dust down also. So, at this point, I'm happy with the dust. It's way down. So, if they can continue that and, you know, move forward, I'm totally fine with their expansion or whatever. I was never against that. But my whole thing was the dust control. And so, now they finally are keeping the dust down. So, I'm fine with it. So, I have no problems with them expanding. All right. Thank you. Okay. Board members, do you have any questions for this member of the public? Do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak in support of applications FLU 25-06 and ZON 25-04? All right. Do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in support of either of these two applications? Good morning, Madam Chair. We have no participants online. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to applications FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04? I'm seeing none in the room. Do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in opposition to either of these applications? No changes online. All right. Applicant, do you have any closing remarks you wish to make? My only remark is that you have the gentleman that owns property to the south come up here and support. I think that tells on what this operator, this applicant, is trying to be a good neighbor and trying to do things to improve the situation. And they have, and that's your evidence that they have. So, thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant, the public, or staff? Okay. On that case, I will entertain a motion on FLU 25-06. A motion to approve. A motion by Brito. I'll second. Second by Oliveri. Any discussion? This would be for the future land use case with two separate motions. Yeah, they're good. Absolutely. All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Nay. All right. The motion passes with Hendricks and Cataldo dissenting. Voting in the negative. At this time, unless there's any additional discussion, I will entertain a motion on ZON 25-04. I move approval of ZON 25-04. Motion by Hamilton. I'll second. Second by Brito. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Nay. Motion passes with votes in the negative from Hendricks and Cataldo. All right. Well, that takes care of our two cases. Staff, do you have any announcements for us before we adjourn? I don't have any announcements. All right. We'll see you next month. See you next month. With that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion by Larry Johnson. Second. Second by Hamilton. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes unanimously.