Local Planning Agency meeting on 11/12/2025 - Nov 12, 2025

Good morning, and welcome to the November 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, Land Development Code, and other items relative to the county's planning and growth management program. The Local Planning Agency, or LPA, is an independent advisory board charged with reviewing and making recommendations to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners on cases to be heard today. The Board of County Commissioners will make the final decisions on each item at a separate public hearing, currently scheduled for December the 16th, 2025, at 6 p.m. 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. 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 to speak, unless representing a group of five or more, in which case they will receive 10 minutes to speak. Non-speakers must be present and waive their time in order to get the 10 minutes. Then we will hear from opponents, who will be given three minutes each, unless representing a group of five or more. Likewise, they will be given 10 minutes in that case. Non-speakers must be present and waive their time in order to receive the 10 minutes. Finally, the applicant will be given the opportunity to close, answer 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've not been sworn in already and you plan to testify, please rise now and be sworn. Do we have anyone who needs to speak, resident? Also, please fill out the slip on the table and present it to the clerk before you speak. There will not be continuing a rebuttal, so please try to present all information and concerns while you are 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 with the record that will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. So with that, we'll move into our agenda. 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 and substantial evidence. Thank you. Thank you, Council McAteer. All right. We'll now move into item 4A1, and that's FLU 25-06. And just a question for staff and the applicant. Are items... I apologize. I skipped my minutes. We'll now move to item 3, approval of the minutes for the October 8, 2025 LPA hearing. My apologies. Move for approval. Second. Motion by Coleman. Second by Laurie Johnson. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. The motion passes unanimously. Now we will move into item 4A1, and this is FLU 25-06. Question for staff and the applicants. I take it FLU 25-06 and ZON 25-04 companion cases, correct? That's correct, Madam Chair. Will they be given as a consolidated presentation? Yes, they will. All right. And we'll be taking two separate votes, correct, Council McAteer? Yes. All right, thank you. Two motions, two votes. When ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the local planning agency. I'm Scott Swearingen. I'm the long-range planning manager with Penelope County. It's a pleasure to be before you, and I respect your time this morning. Two companion cases, as the Chair mentioned, FLU 2506 and ZON 2504. The property subject to these cases is approximately 1.87 acres, located at 6201 150th Avenue North and 15097 63rd Street North in unincorporated Largo. The future land use map amendment case is a proposal to change the future land use from commercial neighborhood and employment to commercial general and industrial general. And the zoning, the companion zoning atlas amendment case is a proposal to change the zoning from C1 neighborhood commercial and E1 employment 1 to E2 employment 2 and I heavy industrial. And I'm going to walk through that and unpack that a little bit one by one so that this is a big slide. I understand that. The proposed use is a transfer station with accessory outdoor sales. In addition to the zoning case, there is a request for a development agreement to go along with this proposal. And through that development agreement, the applicant is looking to add some restrictions to the property, and I'll summarize these for you. First of all, the property shall be developed substantially in compliance with the concept site plan. And that concept site plan you can see on the slide before you. So that would go along with this proposal, and that would be part of the agreement, that it would be developed substantially in compliance with that plan. The use of the property would be limited to the use that the applicant has expressly desired that they would like to continue on the property, which is a solid waste transfer station and accessory outdoor sales and parking. And then finally, last but not least, all associated truck queuing would be required to take place on site. So not out in the public way, but all that queuing would be to take place on the property itself. And that's the development agreement that is tied along with the zoning. Subject property is located, surrounded in blue. So 150th Avenue North is on the south boundary, 63rd Street North to the west. And I'll give you a little bit better of a sense of the land use character. You can recognize US-19 to the far left of that aerial photograph. To kind of zoom in a little bit, so the subject property in this case is outlined in red. And you can see some of the land use character surrounding it, some vacant properties and some more kind of industrial metal recycling, solid waste recycling, truck scale, wholesale warehousing, a little bit of commercials, wealth, convenience store, neighborhood markets. And there are also four homes to the north and kind of north-northeast surrounding the subject property. And you can see P-TECH there to the east, just on the other side of, kind of between the roadway and a power line that runs along there. So it's kind of just on the other side, just east of the power line, just to give you a better sense of kind of the types of land uses surrounding the property right now. The current future land use is shown in the map on the left, which you see where we have employment and commercial neighborhood. That's kind of that fleshy, kind of pinkish color. I'm sorry, I'm a little colorblind, so I think it's kind of pinkish. And then the proposed change is a map on your right, which would make that change to industrial general and commercial general. And you can see this is really kind of an enclave in unincorporated pinellas. So the parcels in color are the ones that are in unincorporated pinellas, and the rest of the property around is in the city of Largo proper. So this is kind of an enclave there. And so you can see a lot of employment land use surrounding the property as well as commercial neighborhood. You've got commercial general just across the street, and you have three parcels that are residential urban on the future land use map. So let's look at the zoning. Again, the map on your left is the current zoning, and you can see the property is designated as E1 employment, as well as C1 neighborhood commercial on the zoning map. And then the proposal on the right is to change to I, heavy industrial, and E2 commercial general or general commercial. And then again, that zoning character surrounding the property, mostly E1 employment and C1 neighborhood commercial with a little bit of variance in there. You see a couple E2 parcels and a C2 parcel as well. And then three parcels just directly to the north, a residential medium, and that's the zoning. Just to give you some contextual photos of the site. So I apologize, the descriptions are a little off, so let me just, just got really in it. So this is along 150th Avenue North. This is looking north at the subject property off 150th Avenue. And this is, so the subject property in this case is to the right side of your photo, just to the right of the sidewalk. And so this is along 150th Avenue North as well, kind of facing in the westward direction. You can see kind of the land use context on the opposite side of 150th. This is kind of a sense of the surrounding character, surrounding a lot of heavy industrial uses. Obviously, you saw from the aerial and the description of the different properties. There is kind of, there is a, somewhat of a mix of types of uses around it. But generally speaking, there's a, there's a fairly heavy industrial character surrounding the property. And so this is facing, this is looking at, this is P-TECH in the far ground. And you can see the power line easement, which is running, which runs from north to south across 62nd Street North there. And so this is from, from kind of the, that intersection of the subject property there at 62nd Street North and 150th Avenue North. So, I'm going to kind of unpack all this, these changes now. Let's start with the future land use. A proposal to change from commercial neighborhoods, CN. It's on the 1.18 acre portion of the subject property. And that, that land use allows office, personal service, retail commercial, mostly even neighborhood scale, as well as institutional transportation utility, some light manufacturing, and recreation open space. And verbatim for the comprehensive plan, this category is generally appropriate to locations adjacent to and on the periphery or on the edge of large, definable residential neighborhoods. Residential is not permitted in this land use category. And a 0.3 floor area ratio for non-residential uses is permitted. And on that 1.18 acre portion of subject property, the proposal is to change from CN, commercial neighborhood, to CG, commercial general. And a commercial general, as you might, you know, as you might assume, allows kind of a wide range of commercial type uses. So personal service, office, retail commercial, commercial business service, those types of things, similar uses. And verbatim, again, per our comp plan, this category 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 offices and retail commercial uses, and in areas in proximity to and with good access to major transportation facilities. This allows residential in this category up to 24 dwelling units per acre and a non-residential FAR of 0.55. And now that is included, now that is a 1.18 portion of the subject property, the 1.18 acre portion of the subject property. The remainder is a subject property, it's 0.69 acres. And the current land use is E-employment, which allows research development, manufacturing, warehouse distribution, storage. And it also allows, in many cases, office, limited retail, personal services, and business support, transportation utility, generally appropriate to locations with sufficient size to encourage an industrial park-type arrangement with provision for internal service access into locations suitable for light industrial uses. Residential land uses are not permitted in this land use category. And a 0.65 floor area ratio for non-residential uses is the maximum that could be had in this category. And so the proposal on the 0.69 acre portion of the property and the land use is from employment to industrial general. Industrial general, again, kind of a wide range of industrial-type uses. So R&D, manufacturing, warehouse storage, vehicle salvage, and also could include solid waste, refuse disposal, transfer, recycling facilities, electric power generation plants, office, accessory retail, so on and so forth. And 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, or emissions. Residential uses are not permitted in the IG land use category. And a 0.75 FAR is permitted for non-residential uses. That's the land use. So two land use changes, two different, respectively, on each parcel. 1.18 acres and a 0.69 acre portion of the property. And respectively, the land use changes follow those same two properties. So on the 1.18 acre portion, you have C1 neighborhood commercial, neighborhood-scale commercial. So, you know, so limited commercial development, such as compact shopping areas, in and around neighborhoods where they serve, intended to conveniently meet the immediate needs of the neighbors, where the types of services rendered and the commodities sold are those which are needed often and purchased at frequent intervals. So your true kind of neighborhood, community type of retail. A maximum build height of 45 feet is permitted. And that parcel is proposed to change to E2 employment, so which allows pretty much general services, wholesale distribution, storage, light fabrication, per the land development code, should be conveniently located to arterial highways and transportation facilities, intended as distribution center for products sold, serviced, stored, and warehouse for retail or wholesale type of needs, wholesale sales to consumers, sales outlets, warehouses, that kind of thing. That would be kind of the E2 zoning district, the employment too. Maximum building height is 60 feet is permitted. However, within 45 feet, building height is limited to 45 feet within 50 feet of a residentially zoned property. So you can only have up to 45 feet within 50 feet of that property. And then you could go up to, you could potentially go up to 60. And then on the smaller property, the 0.69 acre parcel, if you will, of the subject property, employment one zoning. So employment uses, light manufacturing, industry, industry support, and some certain public service functions are allowed as well in the E1 zoning. And it's intended to provide for employment uses and lower intensity general industrial development, which will have limited impacts in the surrounding areas. And maximum height is 60 feet, and it's the same, the same limitation as well. If you're within 50 feet of a residentially zoned property, within that space, you can only have up to 45 feet of building height. Otherwise, it's 60. And that property is proposed to change zoning to I, which is our heavy industry category, 0.69 acres. Intended to permit general manufacturing industry, as you might imagine, less restrictive than the employment districts, as they provide a wider variety of uses. And the same restriction on height, 60 feet generally, 45 feet within 50 feet of a residentially zoned property. Those are the zoning, so that's the zoning portion of this request. I know that's a lot. So let's talk a little bit about traffic. We look at potential traffic impacts from a very high level at this point. It's part of the future land use map amendment. So it's really looking at the land use categories. Projects that move into the site planning level, they'll be looked at. They are scrutinized in more detail because, obviously, you have more detail of the use that's being proposed. And so any kind of measures that are required to mitigate traffic or to make improvements to serve traffic, those are dealt with at the site plan level. We just kind of give more of a broader sort of 20,000-foot level, as I like to say, you know what I mean, at nauseam say that, you know, look at traffic from a land use standpoint. And the delta of change in land use, in our calculations, amounts to about an additional 12 vehicular trips in the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour is assumed to be that time of the day where traffic is heaviest. So in the heaviest part of the day, about an additional 12 trips would be anticipated based on the land use change proposal. So Roosevelt Road and Almerton Road would be the two primary roadways impacted, the two major roadways impacted. Right now, Roosevelt Road operates at a 47% vehicle-to-capacity ratio, and Almerton at 95%. Sort of what that means. So if you take Roosevelt Road, for example, in the PM peak hour, in the highest peak of the day, it's considered that Roosevelt has X amount of capacity, and it's experiencing about 47% of traffic to that capacity. So it's about half full from a traffic capacity standpoint. And then Almerton Road is considered to be, based on traffic counts, about 95% capacity during that PM peak hour. So during that heaviest, highest volume time, which is what we typically will measure. With regard to flood risk, we see low flood risk. The property is not within the coastal storm area or the coastal high hazard area and is in the, it's in a flood zone X. So the property lies in the flood zone X. Okay, I'm going to land it here. So with regard to the land use and zoning amendments along, or the zoning amendment along with a development agreement, staff finds a proposed future land use map and zoning atlas amendments with that associated development agreement appropriate, especially when considering the site's long-term use on the property. The amendments will allow for the site to be redeveloped to the county's development regulations in a more appropriate manner. So our modern development regulations today, including zoning, stormwater, all those kinds of things, it would allow for the site to be improved and redeveloped under those current regulations that we have today. So we find it consistent and compatible with the areas, mostly industrial, heavy, commercial, and mixed-use character, and consistent with our comprehensive plan as well. And I'd like to stop right there and just kind of go back and mention for a second the development agreement. The development agreement does come into play in our findings and our recommendation. And recall that while I gave you this really long list of all the potential uses that could be built on the property with the changes currently and with the changes and all the various things that could happen, the development agreement that the applicant is proposing to attach to this would be required to substantially conform with the concept plan. So you do have a little bit of a sense, not a little bit, I would say a significant amount of sense as to how the property will develop. So it provides some assurances to that point, I would say. So it leaves the use, while the plethora of uses that could generally be permitted under landings and zoning, it has limited that proposed use to the use that the applicant has expressly desired for that property, the solid waste transfer station and outdoor sales and parking. And then finally, it also acknowledges and puts into that agreement that truck queuing would take place entirely on site. And not within the public way. So that development agreement being brought to that, it kind of boxes this a little bit differently than just the land use and zoning amendments. And so staff, in total, finds that this proposal is consistent with the conference plan and recommends approval. Board of County Commissioners public hearing is scheduled for December 16th at our 6 p.m. agenda. That's all I have for you. I know that's a lot to digest. I appreciate you hanging with me on that. And I'm here to try and answer any questions if I can. And, of course, the applicant's here as well, I believe you. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for staff? Madam Chair. Laura Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just curious about what, in the transfer station, what actually is being transferred? What sort of commodities are going to be coming in and out of there? Do we know that at this time? That's something that I would leave to the applicant to describe as it is their business. I don't want to, you know, misspeak to the, you know, to the details of what would be transferred. Thank you. You're welcome. Sorry. And then I have a follow-up question. Do we know what the future land use designations are for the surrounding properties in Largo since we're in Enclave? I don't have them in front of me. They're mostly employment type of, employment and commercial type of land uses, but I don't have them verbatim in front of me, which those are. And, of course, Largo doesn't have zoning, so. Yeah. And Largo, that area surrounding on the north side is in an activity center, so Largo-identified activity center, which means they have a, like, a master plan for that area. And then to the south, we have, you know, there's commercial right along the 150th, and then as you go into the neighborhood south of that is residential land use on both the counties and on the county-wide map. And what do you mean by activity center? Like, what are they, what do they have out there in the public record to say what they're doing with that? This is, it's, they identify, it's the, is it the Roosevelt Activity? I'm not, I don't, I want to butcher the name on it. I don't know. It's the Roosevelt Activity Center, which means that it's, it's like a master plan for more like a higher area for nodes where they will have, you know, allow for higher density intensities. So the gist of an activity center, and this is something that the allowance to have an activity center land use category comes from a county-wide plan that allows you to establish this in your own comprehensive plan. And it's intended to have more of a, take a regional or maybe a community-sized area and have much more focus on the type of land uses that are permitted. It generally, usually comes along with like a master plan that goes with it. I don't know the, what exact uses are all identified in that area, but I can tell you, you know, you can see from the uses on the ground as well, which are in, you know, are generally in compliance with, with the city of Largo, the types of uses around there. But I don't know what it is, but that is the intent of it. It's to allow more of a mixed-use environment that's followed by a master plan. We have an activity center, and we have one activity center in unincorporated Pinellas County up in downtown Palm Harbor, for example. All right. And this whole area, even on, so on the county-wide map, including the unincorporated parcels, have the activity center land use on it, because it's in Largo's annexation area, so if they were ever to annex, they would automatically become part of the activity center. Okay. Board members, any questions for staff? All right. We will hear from the applicant. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. And we've got some clock problems up here, but as best I can tell, staff ran around 25 minutes, so. Oh, I won't need nearly that long. You did a great job setting the base information, so I'll just supplement it. Craig Terraski for the applicant, 360 Central, Suite 500, St. Pete. To answer the question about the use, so how we got here, is Green Energy Transport, who owns the 0.69-acre currently industrial land use and zone property, call it the northwest portion of that, they've been operating on that transfer station already. And at that site, even before Green Energy Transport owned it, was operated as a transfer station for at least 30 years. So the use that is contemplated to continue has been in existence for at least three decades. So we're not – the land use change on that northwest portion is really just to match your current future land use and zoning designations with the operation that's historically been on that property. So we're not looking to change it. That Green Energy Transport is leased the 1.1-acre south portion, and they want to add an outdoor sales operation, an accessory outdoor sales, to supplement their existing business. So that's how we got here. And in order to do that, we need these zoning and land use changes to accommodate that outdoor sales. And then to make the site function better, the northern transfer station and the accessory outdoor sales, in the middle of that site – in fact, it probably worked just putting the site plan up – there's a parking area. In the middle, there's parking. And that, again, your codes already do not allow staging of vehicles in the public right away. But having that additional parking area in the center of the site will alleviate the concerns about stacking. And the outdoor sales is a very – it's not a very large operation. It has just a small office. So even though we talked about – our staff talked about the contemplated zoning on that site that would allow higher densities, intensities, and height, this is – we're not looking at some significant improvements or tall buildings on that site. The material that's being sold, outdoor sales, is like the landscaping material. This is not material that's generated on the transfer station. This is brought in from an off-site wholesaler and then sold retail on the site. The transfer station use is – the trucks come in. It's like construction debris. For example, the hurricanes we had, all the demo from all the houses and structures that had to be demolished as part of that effort. That raw material comes on, it gets sorted, and then it gets transferred off the site to its final destination, whether that's further recycling, disposal. So that's what happens on the site. As staff pointed out, with all beautiful photos and exhibits, the parcel that we're proposing to go IG and I, the heavy industrial zoning, is in the center of this existing industrial park. I mean, 63rd Avenue or Street, when you drive into it, it's a heavy industrial park setting. We're not trying to create a new park setting. This is existing again. And then the commercial parcel, it's currently vacant, and it's directly across from a parcel that has the exact same future land use and zoning designations, the commercial general and the C2. The development agreement, again, as staff pointed out, is going to limit this site to the proposed uses. So it's not the whole menu. It's just what's being proposed. It's just this plan. And if this applicant, this owner, or some future owner wanted to come in and expand and do something different, they'd have to come back through the county to modify the development agreement to accommodate some different use. So the county would have a say in that. And if the proposed future uses required mitigating, there would be an opportunity to do that in the future. So when looking at making the future land use changes, your comprehensive plan has some guiding language in the locational characteristics, and where we're proposing the CG, the locational characteristic set forth, is that the category is generally appropriate for locations in and adjacent to major employment centers where surrounding land uses support and are compatible with intensive commercial use in an area as a proximity to and with good access to transportation facilities, including mass transit. 150th Avenue North is a collector, and then 62nd is a collector. Those both take you to arterial roads. You have Roosevelt Avenue to the north, Route 19 to the west, and if you go south to Almerton. So you have good transportation facilities existing. Where we're proposing the industrial general future land use, the comp plan locational characteristics are that the category is generally appropriate to locations with sufficient size to encourage an industrial park-type arrangement, which we already have on 63rd, with provision for internal service access, which we already have, and adequate buffering for adverse noise, odor, emission, and good access to transportation and utility facilities. And again, the parcel that we're proposing to go to IG is right in the middle of that existing industrial park. So you have, just by nature of the park itself, you have buffering, you have the step-down of future land use designations to the E employment, to the west and to the north, and to the south, you have the commercial future land use designations. For our commercial site, south site, the code actually has some locational characteristics for E2 right in the code, which states that the E2 district provides areas for general services, wholesale distribution, storage, and light fabrication. These areas should be conveniently located to arterial highways and transportation facilities and so on. And again, 150th is a collector, and 62nd, they take you a short distance to arterial roadways. What we're asking for you today is also consistent with the comprehensive plan, future land use elements. I'll just hit those to put them in the record. Goal one is to provide a variety of land use character areas to meet the needs of a diverse population to support thriving, resilient, and quality communities. Objective 1.1, to establish future land use categories that respond to the unique challenges of infill and redevelopment within the unincorporated county. Objective 2, to maintain land development code that responds to the unique challenges of infill and redevelopment within unincorporated county. And then policy 1.2.1, to utilize the code to regulate the use, intensity, and design of redevelopment in a manner consistent with the future land use categories and map. For policy 4.1.2, to coordinate investments with desired land use patterns are more effectively planned for the interdependent housing, employment, commercial education, workforce training, and for public services. Strategy 4.1.2.1, provide quality siting opportunities for employers by maintaining and enhancing industrial and employment center lands within Pinellas County. Here, you know, we've got an existing industrial park, and we're looking to support this industrial employer and their desire to continue their operation and expand it. Site characteristics. The size, configuration, and physical characteristics of the site, potential of expansion and consolidation with adjoining properties in relationship with the potential utility and support for employment opportunities. Here we have a site that's within an existing industrial park. It's adjacent to other industrial, similar industrial uses. The location of the property in relationship to adjoining similarly classified property, the same thing. It's compatibility with adjoining and nearby uses in planned classifications. And again, the inclusion of the industrial general within the center of the site and allowing it to blend in with the existing uses and then allow those uses to buffer that heavy industrial to the uses beyond that. And then the transportation infrastructure features at the location of the property in relationship to arterial and major highways, transit, access, as well as other infrastructure. And we spoke before about the distance to the arterial roadways. Your economic prosperity element also contains some goals, objectives, and policies that this hits on. Objective 1.3, to promote economic growth through land use and development patterns that meet the county business and workforce needs. This use is an obvious need for the community. We've seen that with the storms. And this is a location that use has been existing for several decades, and we're just looking for it to continue. Strategy 1.3.2.1, to provide quality siting opportunities for employers by maintaining and enhancing industrial and employment center lands. We're just asking for essentially an enhancement of the existing industrial lands. And then strategy 1.3.2.2, assist the county's employment sector contributors to resolve redevelopment constraints so that they continue to grow, expand job opportunities, and provide a stable economic base. So what we're asking for you today is compatible and consistent with those comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies. If you have any other questions for me or for the applicant, I'm happy to answer them. All right. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant at this time? And I see Board Member Laurie Johnson shaking her head. And do I see any questions coming up on the other side? Okay, we'll start with you. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for being here. A couple of questions. The portion of the property that's going to be used for retail sales, would you mind putting the – thank you. That, I assume, is the portion in the front that has the racetrack-looking element? This is a stormwater retention basin. Okay. These are the bins for the landscape material. Okay. And we have just a few parking spaces and a small office. Okay. So that was my question. So people will drive in in their cars, pick up with the car. This isn't a walk around and I want one of these, one of those sort of a place. This is bulk landscaping? Okay. And so the need for more parking is probably not a need because they're just going to drive in, pick up their stuff, and pay and drive out? And any larger vehicles that will either be dropping off the materials or potentially you could have landscape companies with a truck and trailer. Sure. They can utilize the parking – the accessory parking in the center of the site. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That was one question. The other was what sort of increase in, say, noise or dust or debris, that sort of thing, that might filter out into the existing neighborhood, especially where the residential homes are located? Do you anticipate any of that? And if so, what are you going to do to mitigate that? The operations of the transfer station will continue. So that's an existing operation. So that's not proposed to change. None of these enhancements to the site are going to make any, you know, significant material changes to that operation. Okay. So then you're just talking about these very few landscape material bins that you'll have the, you know, they'll be coming to fill those occasionally and then the folks are picking them up. So it seems relatively, relatively minor. And note that those bins are set back away from the property pretty significantly. We have the stormwater facilities kind of buffering that. And you have the residential, this is residential here, which I don't want to speak incorrectly, but I believe that the resident up here may be the owner of the industrial use next to it. So I think their expectation, so to speak, of living next to the industrial park, and then you have the commercial uses across from 150th Avenue. Sure. So next question is, you say the landscaping materials are going to come from another source, not they won't be composted from whatever. No, they are not being processed on site and then sold retail. Okay. The materials that come in, construction materials and all of that currently, you anticipate it will be similar to what's happening now? Correct. Is there any environmental concern that will be, will arise from this change that you have not already dealt with? No, so it's regulated, the transfer station is regulated by the state, so they have their own regulations to follow to maintain that license. No, I don't. Because there's no change in that operation, what you're really talking about is, from an environmental standpoint, you're adding impervious, so you have stormwater regulations to deal with. So you're not anticipating, you haven't had any issues with neighbors in the past? I think, just on my knowledge, my client, the Green Energy Transport, originally sought to expand the transfer station use to the south, and that caused, I think, a complaint, and that has since been resolved. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Board members, any other questions for the applicant? I have a follow-up question. Since you were mentioned that there was a substantial setback from the southern property line to those bins, do you happen to have a distance for that? It's not dimensioned, but just knowing that the entrance drive is 24 feet wide, it's got to be at least 60. You can see here, this is dimensioned 24, that distance, so it looks like two or three times that. All right. Unless the board has any other questions for the applicant, I think now we will hear from proponents for these two cases. So does anybody in the room wish to speak in support of ZON 25-04 or FLU 25-06? I have one person coming up. Please state your name and address before proceeding. George Pappas, 1822 North Belter Road, Clearwater, Florida. I'm a representative also for the property owner of the 1.18-acre parcel. Can you just raise your voice just a little bit? I'm the representative of the owner of the 1.18-acre parcel that's part of this application. My client also owns the property immediately to the east, the gas station property. This, we believe, would actually be an enhancement and resolve the complaints that were addressed by the neighbors across the street that also have commercial uses. It's much more conducive to a retail use, which would be consistent with the convenience store, which is adjacent to the property. So we would obviously be in favor of it. Thank you. All right. Board members, any questions? Okay. Is there anybody else in the room who wishes to speak in support of either of these two cases? Please state your name and address. Michael Williams, 15090, 62nd Street. I am the owner of this property. My mom owns this property. Actually, before you get going, if you could please place the right over there. Okay. So he was saying that the owner of this property owns this property. This is actually Best Metals' property, which is adjacent to their scale. This is my mom's property, which I own. This is my property. This is a rental house that we own. My son owns this property, and then I own this property as well. It was shown in one of the other pictures. I assume this is going to be pavement, is the dark material here, which I am totally in favor of, because the only issue I have with the transfer station, which they mitigate it very well with sprinklers, is the dust. But if they're going to pave all this, I'm all for it. And the landscape material, I'll be using that as well. So I am not opposed to any way of this. The pond needs to be done there anyway because it holds water in the wet season in that property. So that's all I have for you. Thank you. Does anyone else in the room wish to speak in support of FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04? I'm not seeing anyone in the room. Does anyone online wish to speak in support of FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04? We don't have anybody online. All right. Then at that time we'll hear from opponents. So does anyone wish to speak in opposition to applications FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04? We have one person. Please come up to the podium, please. Yes, we've got two. Okay, we've got two. Then we'll start with you, sir, and then we'll have the next speaker come up. Please state your name and address before proceeding. Hi, how are you? I'm Steve K. Wall. I'm the one that owns the warehouses straight across the street from this site that they want to change. And I've been complaining a long time about the dust and stuff like that. And he said this stuff's been resolved. It has not been resolved. In fact, I wish that you could do something about moving the transfer station out of the area because of the dust and because there's a school there, it's residential, it gets in my warehouse units all over the place. I have to seal my doors. If I open up a garage door or whatever in any of the warehouses, it all comes in there. It goes into my offices and everything. We have to breathe this stuff. I've got some pictures that are very interesting, and he says everything's been resolved. It has not. I've been complaining for a long time about this. And, in fact, I called the county air team or whatever, and he came out. But they finally put a sprinkler or two out there on the piles. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. When we get the north winds, if we get a – during the summer, when we get the south winds and the rains and stuff like that, the dust is down. Okay? But now we're in winter again, you know, approaching winter. And we get the north winds, we get northeast winds, we get northwest winds. We get pelted with this dust and dirt. And I have pictures that I can show you of what actually happens there. This is on a daily basis. Okay, this is one of their debris piles. You know, this is a transfer station, so this is a debris pile that they're going to move, and they're going to put this in the semi-trucks and whatever. Well, I don't know what's in this debris pile, but there could be lead paint, mold, spores, asbestos, whatever have you, in there. It gets transferred, and the problem is that's when the dust kicks up. All right. And not to throw you off too much, can you wrap up in the next minute or so? Yes. Okay. Here's another picture of the dust and debris. Okay? Here's another picture. This is – the wind is coming from the west, so it's blowing that way. You see, these cars are on my property. When the wind comes from the north, all of this goes in my property. Okay? Here's a picture of my car sitting in the back by my – I swipe my finger on my car. This is after one day. This is during one day. Okay? Here's another picture. There's – back here are the residential houses. All this right here. This blew over my car. It's all over the residential area. It's disgusting. I mean, here's the car. Here's the car the next morning. After the dew, this car sat in my lot. Okay? If you look at the windshield, it's unbelievable what – I invite you to come over and come over and see my property. I'll – I'll meet with you. Just come – come during the day. And you can see this. Here's another picture. Big dust pile. Another big dust pile. This right here is a Mexican restaurant. They sell food, and they also have a restaurant. There's a little food truck right here, and there's a tent right here. They eat outside. This is where they do the dust and debris right here. This blows over. They're literally eating asbestos, sandwiches, and tacos. I mean, this stuff blows over so bad. It's disgusting. Okay. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Would you please give a copy of those pictures? Yes. I do have – I have a whole packet right here. Perfect. Would you please give them to our clerk? Okay. Can I just say one more thing? One last thing. Okay. Because I'm concerned about – there's kids walking across my sidewalk every day. It's going to school. They're breathing this crap in. There's two gas stations. Everybody's getting gas. They're breathing this stuff in. I have tenants that say that if this expands and whatever, they want to move out. So that's going to have an impact on me. We have reduced property values with this whole thing going on. It's unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable. And not only that, but in December, they illegally put up a fence around the whole property and started putting tiles down and cement crap all over the whole yard. All right. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Okay. We have gone – you've had a chance to say your piece. Please give your documents to the clerk. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. All right. We had a second speaker coming up. I'm Darlene Shirley. I live at 6290 150th Avenue. I am on the corner of 63rd and 150th. Across the street from me is the Mexican place. Behind that is a transfer station. And then the empty lot is on the opposite side to the south. My husband is having a lot of problems. He is on oxygen occasionally. When he goes outside, he can only be out there for a little while. And then he has to come back in and go on oxygen. Most of this happened within the last year, and that's when they did that expansion on the transfer area. They put the tiles and everything in. I'm concerned about his level of his oxygen. My cars are constantly dirty. Down the street behind the P-TECH area is going in a ballpark for the kids. This dust and dirt is flying all over the place. I'm concerned about them. I'm concerned about the fact that we have three places within the general area that are actually selling food. And these people that are coming into these gas stations and into the Mexican place and stuff, they're all breathing this stuff in. And plus, it's getting onto their food. So that's my concern. I've been there since 91, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. If we have anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition, I have a hand raised. Please come up to the lectern here. State your name and address before speaking. Good morning. My name is David Johnson. I live at 14894 63rd Street North. She's my neighbor. We live across the street from each other. And I have two daughters, three and five years old. They play in the street right there all the time. I'm outside all the time. I want to echo everything that the previous two speakers just said with regards to concern about air quality. That's my primary concern here because this is a residential neighborhood that has a legacy industrial component that has been there since before we got there, I suppose. But if you look at where the neighborhood's going, like she said, they're putting in a park down the street. There's a school directly next door to that. There are a number of, you know, residences. They're building new apartment complexes, and there's a lot more residential development happening in that area. And so when I saw that this facility that's been polluting our area, my car is filthy every day, my children are in, my pool is covered in dust, you know, just constantly. When I saw that they were going to expand their operation and make it more intense or more intensely industrial, you know, I'll admit that I didn't have all of the information with regards to the specific uses of this expansion property that they're describing. But the idea of taking what's currently an empty lot and expanding that extremely dirty operation onto that currently empty lot, which is, again, you know, this is where kids are walking by this empty lot every day to go to school. I was disgusted by that concept, and I'm deeply concerned that that is going to take place. I understand that the scope of this meeting is only with regards to that expansion property and not the entire operation that's kicking up the dust, but I just want to echo everything that they said. I do not want to see this business expand in my community. It's terrible for my community. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to cases FLU 25-06 or ZON 25-04? I am seeing none. Have we had anyone join us online? We have not. All right. At this time, we will hear from the applicant. Craig, to ask you for the applicant again. So we're clear on what's being asked for from you today, a vote on a recommendation of zoning and land use changes. This is all to accommodate that outdoor sales component. Some of the complaints that I heard today I think resulted from the expansion of the transfer station to that southern lot, and that has been removed. There is no proposal to have that transfer operation be on that southern site. It's parking and outdoor sales on that southern site. The existing transfer station has been in existence for over 30 years. It's been there. It's just the nature of the operation. It sounds like it's a dust generator. The concern about hazardous materials, so demolitions of structures have regulations on them to mitigate and contain any asbestos or other contaminated materials before they're hauled off site. This site does not accept contaminated materials. It's mostly concrete and roofing materials. State outlawed asbestos and roofing materials decades ago. And again, if an older structure is demolished, it has to go through an asbestos survey and then any mitigation for that asbestos before it's hauled to a transfer station like this. So while there sounds like there is dust emanating from the site, it should not have asbestos or hazardous materials in the dust. The site is regulated to the extent that it's not meeting standards for dust control on the site. It's kind of a separate issue from what we're asking for today, and there are avenues to address those concerns. The development agreement is limiting these sites to a continuation of the transfer station on the north 1.18 or 0.69 acre and only to the parking, accessory parking and outdoor sales on that southern site. Again, the operator of the transfer station is not going to be doing transfer operations on that southern site, bringing that operation closer to the properties to the south that we heard complaints from. All right. Thank you. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicant? Okay. No. All right. In that case, Vice Chair Coleman, what's your question for the county? In the development order, does it specifically include the expansion of the transfer operation? That's correct, yes. By the concept plan and in the development agreement language, it shows which parcels the transfer station will operate on, which are those northwest parcels, and then that southeast parcel will just be for the outdoor sales. Right. So they cannot, if approved, they cannot expand the transfer station further on. What is the process of enforcing the development order, any development order for that matter? So development agreement has to be, it's recorded, so it becomes a public record. As part of the site plan review, we require deed restrictions to be put in place on a property, so then that, it runs with the land as part of the, when the site plan gets approved. We have to have deed restrictions in before that. Any questions? All right. I guess I will, I will dovetail off of Vice Chair Coleman's questions about development orders. What happens when a development order expires? When it expires, we usually have in there is a reversion agreement. So if they do not do the development and file the deed restrictions and the development agreement expires, it has language in there. Well, Daryl can correct me on that, is if the county can bring it back to, revert back to the previous land use and zoning. Okay. And that's correct. It's on page 5 of the proposed agreement, sections 10.1, 10.2. It sets forth the restrictions where if the operation does not commence or otherwise fails to comply, there are reversionary requirements. Okay. It's back in enforcement on this. If, I know that we're, we've been asked to rezone and redesignate the parcel that the transfer station is on. I guess, why is that included? Is that at jeopardy a part of this? Is this, if this application were denied, what happens to that transfer station? It's presently non-conforming with the current zoning and land use. So they, they could not expand. They could only maintain with what they have. So if, if they came in with a, a site plan to, you know, redo, we're going to add a building, we're going to, you know, even just to clean up the operations you're, you're running into are non-conforming rules, which only allow for a limited expansion. Okay. If this, this area, this in a little enclave area has, has always been operated with more outdoor, there was a waste hauler who operated out of there for a long time and still does, metal recycling. So a lot of outdoor uses that are more of a, of a heavy industrial nature where, you know, right now a lot of those parcels are all, all non-conforming. All right. And then this question might be more for the applicant, but staff, you might be picking it up. Um, the actual unloading area for the commercial operation, is that going to be paved or is that going to be shell? What's, what's our, would our code trip that into being paved under site plan requirements? Yes, we would require our, the vehicle use areas to, to be paved. Uh, if they can request an, an alternate, you know, shell asphalt millings, uh, we still look at it as an impervious area and they still have to, you know, maintain that if it is one of those other, that it's not, you know, bringing up dust and, uh, you know, having materials wash out into the street. Okay. Um, does the applicant have anything they want to add at this point? Okay. Do you guys intend to pave that area or? We're going to follow the code. Um, there are options of different paving materials, um, that hasn't been determined yet. Okay. Madam Chair, I have a question or two. Member Hendricks, please. Uh, one, uh, the debris that's being brought in, how is it being monitored as far as what's in it? Go ahead, you want to come up? Yeah. We've got a gentleman from operations that'd be better suited for that type of question. Introduce yourself. Uh, Doug Diedemeyer, Director of Florida Operations for Cash Environmental Resources and Green Energy Transport. You repeat the question? How is the debris that's being brought in being monitored for asbestos and lead paint? Um, they have determined, the state has determined that asbestos has not been used since the 70s, and it's not really monitored as far as just a roofing, uh, job goes. But when it comes to demolition, then there is mitigation, uh, to evaluate the process so it doesn't end up in the wrong waste stream. So it's monitored at the demolition stage where it gets onto the truck to come to this facility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is true with commercial. That is not true with the residential. And since we had a hurricane, there are a ton of old houses being torn down that have both lead-based paint, asbestos siding, asbestos roofing. And those are not being monitored, so how is that, uh, how is that being addressed? Is the county addressing that at all? I don't know how to be environmental. I don't know. I don't want to speak to that. Yeah. Yeah, we're not in environmental enforcement. I was looking on here before on any environmental enforcement on this property. There was a couple of air quality complaints over the past couple of years, uh, that have all been closed. And that's all I've seen for enforcement on this property. We do have code requirements about having to deal with, uh, dust, waste, pollution. Uh, if you're dealing with hazardous materials, there's other restrictions that apply. And they are not a licensed hazardous material handler. There is not any regulation on residential, to my knowledge. Except any demo from, like, a home builder or a homeowner? Yeah. So that's just out there. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair, I have a question. All right. Board Member Cataldo. I have a question for applicant. Applicant, please come back. Uh, regarding the retail, uh, materials and aggregates, are brought in, how are they determined and separated from retail purposes and, uh, salvage or disposal? No, so two separate operations. So the stuff that's coming to the transfer station, none of that ends up on the retail site. Totally separate. Think of, like, your landscape supply company. That's the retail side. That's the southern piece. None of the material that's being sold on the southern piece is coming from the transfer station. And the materials and aggregate coming on to the retail site, that's coming, that's being taken from another location? Wholesale. It's landscape material. It's not, uh... And this landscape material, is that coming as waste? Does it come out of dumpsters? Does it... No, it's wholesale. Well, Doug, if you want to add to that. Yes, I also run a landfill up in Hudson, and this is where the debris, uh, goes to final rest or recycle, and we do crushing, grinding of, uh, tree debris, and that's the intent, is to bring that material back to 63rd Street and sell it as a recycled concrete material for a mulch, colored mulch, a landscape material. So a landscaper doing a job someplace and has some fairly decent material left over probably isn't going to be bringing it to this location. Um, like I say, I get the stuff that gets ripped up, and then I have to process it, and I haul it to Hudson, where our main recycling is. Okay. And then we crush it, screen it, size determine it into different products. Which is another regulated, you know, operation. Yes, that's under a state permit as well. No, I just was coming back on, on, uh, when asbestos is mitigated, there are, there are certificates for that, but if, I didn't know if there were distinctions between, uh, debris from, uh, storm damage as opposed to demolition just because of, uh, permitting. So I was just trying to get a clarification there, and I think that you addressed that. Thank you. All right, board members, any other questions for the applicant? Um, I guess I have a question for the applicant. Have you held any type of community meeting or workshops or anything? No, ma'am. Outreach with your neighbors? No, ma'am. Um, and how many people were noticed today for this rezoning? The number of people? Yeah. The radius, you have a minimum of 250 feet surrounding property, 25 property owners. Okay. All right. Board members, any other questions or thoughts? Just have one, uh, clarification, um, for county. Rie Johnson. Um, if this is currently non-conforming, and I believe you addressed this, but I'm not sure I, I, I got the answer I needed. If it's non-conforming now, will the changes that are being requested make this property conforming? And if that's the case, it sounds like there are some, some things that are not in place currently to monitor, um, uh, asbestos and other, um, uh, environmental issues. Will that be a requirement for the owner to put those, um, those monitoring, if, in fact, they are accepting these materials, and it sounds like they are, um, and they are unmonitored when they get there, do they then have to monitor and, and, and somehow mitigate these environmental, um, bad boys? So this will, if approved, um, this public hearing gets approved, their, their next step will be to submit for a site plan review. That site plan review will, will be reviewed, um, by appropriate agencies, uh, you know, including fire department, public works, uh, which, uh, you know, depending upon the use and their, their requirements, you know, they'll, those respective departments will look at, uh, any additional, you know, safeguards or stuff that are needed on there, um, that to be compliant with the code. I don't know the level of detail, uh, for that, uh, you know, not, it's not my expertise on that, that if there would be any kind of requirement or monitoring for kind of those materials, I'm not sure. As it stands right now, there is nothing in place that requires this company to monitor those, um, that debris that comes that may have asbestos or lead or eminence? To my knowledge, no, nothing from the county that I know of, and I, I don't know if the state license requires it or not. Thank you. Um, I guess I have a question about the development concept plan. I don't know if we can get that up on the screen as it relates to the nonconformity of the parent use. Yeah. The slide up with it. You got a slider? Yeah, we got the slide. If you could bring the slide up. It's a little. Right. So just so I understand the, the, we basically have a tale of two parcels here. We have one that's an open lot that they tried to go into, but it's a lot. And in the northwest corner, we have the waste transfer station that's been there for decades, but it's a nonconforming use. Right? Right. Okay. On that property, there's currently, they're showing a proposed one story class three receiving and tran, waste receiving and transfer building. Mm-hmm. And then a recycled material storage area. Do either of those currently exist on the property? There was a, a building there. Uh, they did have a, I believe it was a fire. There was damage at the building, uh, was, had to get, uh, demolished. There was a demolition permit that was applied for, for that building. And, uh, they proposed to replace that building in the same footprint. Would they be able to build it today? Yes, they would because it was existing. Okay. And then the reclaimed materials storage area to the south, would they be able to establish that today? No. If it was not established previously. Board members, any other questions or thoughts for staff or the applicant? Certainly commend the applicant for going through the development agreement process and providing some certainty for our neighbors. I would think that some additional certainty would be needed for this site. You know, it's the idea of the landscape business and everything. You know, the gentleman's just trying to grow his business and be a part of the county. But the neighbors have real concerns here. Um, and dust going onto other properties, whether it's contaminated or not, that's a zoning condition. So, you know, I would think that it would behoove the applicant to come back, maybe hold a community meeting, but come back with some updates. This development plan may be committing to a paved area in the landscape or the landscape business. Maybe committing to sprinklers. Um, you know, additional sprinklers or whatnot over the waste transfer station before turning this from a non-conforming use that's kind of, it has no choice but to either live as it is or sunset back into something that is going to expand, but support a business that's generating jobs and participating in our economy. So, for whatever the value of my thoughts are on this, that's what I think is that, um, I would like to see a little interaction with the neighbors and I would like to see a few more considerations for the neighbors as far as this dust and trying to control it before I'd be willing to recommend approval. We, we do have code regulations on, in, in our, in our zoning code regarding pollution, emissions, visible emissions, dust, dirt, odors, and fumes, uh, that they, they have to operate to prevent those from, from leaving the property. Uh, so they do have to demonstrate. And that's something that we looked at as it's looked at during site plan is if they're operating, uh, on any outdoor use, uh, that could do that, that they would have to demonstrate how they're, they're mitigating that from happening. Is that baked into the development agreement at all? So it jeopardizes their development agreement if they fail to abide by it? It's not baked into the development agreement, but it's baked into the code. So it is a code requirement. So that's, if they were failure to comply, that's a, if somebody makes a complaint, that's a, a code violation. Excuse me. And that exists now? That exists now. With the current business. So, so apparently it's not being enforced now. There was, I, I saw two previous, one from earlier this year and one from 2024 of, uh, two air quality complaints. Um, both when inspectors went out, uh, they did not find any evidence of air quality issues. So I, I can't speak to when they went out or more of the details of, of that. Yeah. The, because the photographs clearly showed quite a dust storm. I certainly believe in the, I certainly know the vigor with which our code enforcement does prosecute cases. It is known across the county and in different cities and stuff. Um, I do kind of wish that they would bake that into the development agreement as well to give it more teeth. But, um, I guess if we have no other, um, we have no other discussion on this or questions for the applicant or staff or anyone who spoke today, uh, and the applicant has no desire or, and the applicant chooses to bring this forward to a vote, which I assume you want it voted. I'm seeing a nod yes. Um, I will entertain a motion first on FLU 25-06. Does anyone wish to make a motion on FLU 25-06? Motion for Denial. Motion to Denial. Motion to Denial by Coleman. Is there a second? Second. Second by Laurie Johnson. I would remind the applicant that they are the master of their application and we have not voted yet. Come back up. Applicant requests a deferral. Okay. Is that a date certain? Is that continuous to a date certain? Is that what you're requesting? Continue to date certain. I just want to clarify his request, that's all. Yeah. Do we have the date certain that you're wishing to continue to? Go just, uh, one month. Staff, do you feel that's a workable time? Next, next week will, is the deadline for, then the following month. So, if you want to know if you want to go two months. Okay. Six, yeah, two months. Okay. January. That'll be January. January LPA. What is, do you know that date? That date? Staff. 14th. We're currently working on the calendar for next year. Yeah, we're not fringe time. Yeah. I was going to say the second. Okay. This should be the 14th, January 14th. Okay. All right. That would give you to, um, December 17th to get that in to us. All right. And just from a procedural standpoint, we have a, we do have a pending motion for denial, but the applicant has requested a continuance for 60 days, so I do suggest that we lay that on the table, or the motion to deny on the table, and then entertain a motion for, um, a motion on the continuance. So, do you retract your motion? Yes. I'll retract the motion and ask for a continuance. Okay. Okay. Motion to continue by Coleman. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Brito. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. The motion passes. Um, I assume you also want to continue application ZON 25-04 since it flows from 25-06, right? Yes. All right. And am I safe in assuming that you want a continuance, a 60-day continuance? Yes. I'll run them together. All right. Um, at this time I'll entertain a motion on ZON 25-04. The applicant has requested a 60-day continuance on that application. I move we continue the application for ZON 25-04. Motion to continue by Coleman. Second. Second by Larry Johnson. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. The motion passes. Okay. Thank you. We'll see you. Okay. And hopefully there will be season. Good developments. All right. That brings us down. And any members of the public who are here to discuss the waste transfer station, we're now done with that. So you don't need to give us any more of your morning unless you're excited about hearing about how we process plats and permit tree impacts. Can I just ask you a question? Um. Does this, does this mean that I should come back on January 14th or what is? Yeah. So I would suggest that you circle up with, um, our staff, um, you know, participate. You will have another opportunity to participate in the public area. Okay. Will I get notice or? There's no additional notice because we're continuing to date certain. So the notice of this meeting serves as a notice to the next one. And you're, and you're here fear on notice now, but you, to your, to the chair's point, you should communicate with staff and submit anything you'd like to submit in that time. And. Okay. Well, I already gave the panclet of all the pictures and everything and all that stuff. And that will stay on record. Okay. It's just a continuance of this, of this event. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Have a good end of year. All right. Um, board members, we are at 10 27 AM. Do we wish to push through to our last two items or take a short break? Quick restroom break. All right. So, um, then let's go ahead and take a, uh, 10 minute break. Uh, make it 13. We'll be back at 10 40. Good morning. And welcome back to the November meeting of the local planning agency board for Pinellas County, Florida. At this point, we're going to pick up at agenda item four B one LDR 25 dash zero one staff. Are you ready to give your presentation? Yes. We're going to have public work staff is going to come up in and provide a brief presentation on this amendments to chapter 138 and chapter 154 of the land development code relating to flatting. All right. Good morning. Um, Paula Gabriel, division director for capital improvement, survey and mapping. Um, and can we, um, can we increase the gain on the antennas or something? We're, I'm sorry. We're just having a hard time hearing you. No problem. Is that better? Yes. All right. I'm on a Gabriel, division director for capital improvement, survey and mapping, uh, division public works. Um, have with me duration, uh, is, uh, professional survey and mapper and, uh, survey and mapping division public works. We're here to present to you, uh, proposed changes to the land development code. Uh, specifically chapters, uh, 138 and chapter 154. The proposed changes are to bring the land development code into compliance with, um, chapter 177, uh, the Florida statute. And, um, just briefly, um, Trey is going to walk us through all the details, but just wanted to mention that those proposed changes are a result of, um, recent Senate bills, specifically bills one, um, sorry, 812 and 784. Um, and Trey is going to walk us through the details. Good morning. So periodic updates are necessary to respond to changes in state legislation and also make other improvements to the code. And these proposed amendments seek to bring the land development code into compliance with recent legislative changes made. The chapter 177 floor statutes can provide cleanup with consistent language. So, um, so chapter 138 zoning, our proposed changes are going to be to include preliminary plats as a type of one path a review. And that's a department level review revised a final plat from a type five review, which was required, which required board of county commissioner approval to a type one path B review, which is county administrator or designee approval. We're going to redefine minor plat as a minor subdivision and provide cleanup and consistency with chapter 154 of the land development code. Proposed changes to chapter 154 as they relate to subdivisions and platting. Define an administrative authority to receive review and process plat or replat submittals. Define an administrative official to approve plats or replats. Update definitions for preliminary and final plat. And create a two step review process for the adoption of a preliminary plat in order to expedite issuing residential building permits before a final plat is recorded. Also, amend the approval process for plat and replat submittals to be administratively approved with no further action or approval required by the governing body, the board of county commissioners. Revise final plat from type five review or a county commissioner approval to a type one path B review. County administrator or designee approval. Redefine minor plat to a minor subdivision and clean up language to better define when a site plan is required. And provide cleanup and consistency with chapter 138. Recommendation, the proposed amendments were reviewed by both internal and external stakeholders. They were vetted by county attorney for consistency with state law. And they're consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval. And the meeting is scheduled with the board of county commissioners on December 16th, 2025. And I can take any questions that you guys have. All right. Thank you. Board members, do you have any questions for staff? All right. Seeing none. Do we have anybody in the room who wishes to speak in support of application LDR 25-01? I'm seeing none. Do we have anyone online who wishes to speak in support of application 25-01? Nobody online to speak. All right. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to application LDR 25-01? I'm seeing none in the room. And I assume no one's popped in online, Mr. Schroederbach? No. All right. Staff, do you have any final remarks before we go into our decision making? I do not. All right. Board members, any final questions for staff before we go into our decision making? All right. In that case, unless there's any discussion on LDR 25-01, I'll entertain a motion on it. I just have one question, just a clarification question. It seems as if the intent of this change is to remove the governing bodies or the Board of County Commissioners from the decision process and make this an administrative decision. Am I reading that right? That's part of it, yes. That's what the legislature did. Some of it was purportedly in response to jurisdictions pulling otherwise reviewed and compliant plats off and voting against them as a political statement. Unfortunately, if one jurisdiction does something unfortunate, it hits 67 or more jurisdictions. And my understanding is that's what happened here. And so now they are administratively reviewed and not reviewed by the county commissions. So the administrative review is under the auspices of one person or will that be? It's the county administrator or his or her designee. I would, I would, it's, it's up to the county administrator is. My guests and staff can speak to this. It would be, you know, either the director of public works or the director of BDRS. That's, that's not for me to say. So with no public input? Uh, there would not be, and there, well, plats generally go on the consent agenda. Um, so there's rarely public input, but they have to be go through the same review process by staff and the same statutory compliance process, including typically me, uh, or, or someone or my designee if I'm out of town. But so they will still go through the same process on the fact they won't go on a county commission agenda, which is typically the consent agenda, 99.9% of cases. Thank you. Um, and actually staff, I do have one thing just to bring to your attention for you to check on a Scrivener's level. We don't need to discuss it, um, with any detail, but on page 125 of the PDF packet, the big PDF that we have for the board book, section 154-264 sub E sub 1. It discusses the board of county commissioners placing conditions of approval. Um, I don't know if that's supposed to be the approval authority instead, but just take a second look at it before you get it to BOCC, please. What sectionals are they again? I believe my citation was 154-264 sub E sub 1. Second to the last paragraph. Yeah. Yeah. Board of county commissioners, as a condition of approval, the plat shall require developers seeking plat per plat. Yeah, that would not be, um, it is reading it now. That, that could be the designated, the county administrator's designee, so we can make up language changes. So, that's just my inner writing nerd unfortunately paying you a visit this morning. So, anyways, um, any other questions or comments from the board? Okay. In that case, I will entertain a motion on LDR 25-01. I make a motion that we approve the changes, um, that we approve the changes and amendments to the general review and approval process as stated. Um, do I need to read the whole thing? I'm sorry. Should I read the whole thing? You don't have to read the whole thing. You can just, as stated is fine. As stated. And, uh, with the noted, um, amendment by the chair. So, is that your motion? That's it. Okay. As stated with the, with the change noted. Okay. Motion by Larry Johnson. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Vice Chair Coleman. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. Motion passes unanimously. Brings us to our last substantive item of the day. 4B2 LDR 25-02. Staff, you may proceed when ready. Good morning, Madam Chair. Uh, board members, Kevin McAndrew, Director, Building and Development Review Services. Um, I'm going to, uh, start by making some introductory and contextual remarks with regard to this ordinance update. And then turn over the presentation to Stacy Tippins, who is our Development Review Services Environmental Division Manager. Stacy and her staff administer, uh, this part of our Land Development Code on a, on a daily basis. And she'll take you through some of the finer details. Um, our County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, they lay out the goals and benefits of, uh, tree protection, tree preservation, as well as natural, uh, habitat protection. The current ordinance that we're proposing to be updated was adopted in 2018. That was at the time that there was a major overhaul of the entire Land Development Code here in, uh, in Pinellas County. And since that, that ordinance was adopted and in place, um, there's been consistent challenges, if not on a daily basis, on a weekly, on a weekly basis, in effectively managing, uh, this ordinance. From the complexity of the ordinance, both from professionals, certified arborists, registered landscape architects struggling with the code, to a homeowner. A homeowner, a homeowner looking to take out, uh, a tree needing to go into the Land Development Code, uh, many, many challenges in navigating, uh, this, this ordinance. Um, the code flat out lacks practical application and a methodology for the replacement of trees when trees are removed. There just is no correlation to lot size. You'll learn more about what the challenges of the current code, um, as well as when there's constraints on a property, if there's no place to plant trees. And beyond that, um, we do have an option for what's referred to as a payment in lieu. If you cannot replace the number of trees, the formula that is currently in place has proven to be incredibly cost burdensome to the point where many of the property owners just walk away and either proceed without a permit at all, or they choose to use the state statute, which has a purpose for when there is a, uh, a tree that has a moderate risk, safety risk, you can remove it. But quite frankly, um, that, uh, that state statute has been used in many cases to circumvent our code. Uh, so we just are not getting the, the results that we want from this code. So, you know, simply put, um, this update is about an approved outcome. We, we want a simpler code. It's easier to use. We want a practical application for tree replacement. Uh, one that's going to incentivize tree protection and one that, uh, gets buy-in, uh, to get a greater utilization of the code. But I, I'd like to just characterize this as basically we're looking to right size our tree regulations, uh, and our landscape regulations moving forward. So with that, I'm going to have Stacy pick up now and take you through the, the finer details. Good morning, board members. Uh, Stacy Tippins, environmental manager of development review services. And, um, the first slide Kevin covered, so I'm going to skip past that for you guys. Uh, just to keep it interesting, these proposed changes span three different chapters. So to kind of give you the overall picture of what's happening, we're taking the tree only aspects of chapters 166 and 138 and moving those into a separate stand only tree ordinance. And what that'll leave us is these three chapters with clearly defined subject matters. So we'll have chapter 166, which is our habitat protection, wetland protection, conservation easements, that kind of thing. And that is applied at the land development within the land development code during development review. Uh, similarly we'll have chapter 138 and it's a subsection of that article 10 division three, which is our landscaping for residential and commercial properties also in the land development code. And that's applied during development review process. Um, and then we'll have this standalone tree ordinance that'll apply during development and also during tree only applications, which about one third of our applications for tree removal are unrelated to development. Um, so as Kevin mentioned, we're having folks go into the land development code to learn about how to remove trees with the permit. So to give a visual example of some of these challenges that we are facing and that the community is facing, we have these two examples here. These are residential examples. Um, we have a smaller site on the left and a larger site on the right. And what you can see is there's these two requirements that is difficult for staff and difficult for the community to kind of, to understand how they interrelate. So when a tree removal is being proposed, there's mitigation required in some cases. In addition to that, there's this landscaping requirement that is also applied. So in our example on the left, you'll see that, uh, our current system requires inch for inch replacement. And since you can't exactly plant back a 26 inch tree, you're usually planting back a lot of smaller trees. And, um, as you can see in this example, that's not very practical. There's very little plantable area in there. So what normally happens is, um, property owners will plant what they can fit, usually one or two trees. And then they're making a contribution in lieu of replanting for the remaining amount. Um, and currently the way that's calculated in both of these cases, you can see that would add up to about $10,000. So as you can imagine, that is prohibitively expensive for, um, certain property owners. And so that's part of what we're, um, trying to work to make a little bit more doable. Um, in addition, we do have that statutory exemption that was adopted in 2019, where trees that pose an unacceptable risk can be removed without a permit. Um, there are some nuances to that that are sometimes ignored or, um, misapplied. And so we're getting a lot of tree removal that is not permitted. And we have really no way of tracking how many trees are being removed under that exemption. So our first key change here that we're proposing to try to alleviate some of these challenges is changing our tree rating system. And this rating system is how staff and the public determine which trees require mitigation and how much mitigation is required. Uh, like I stated, the current system is inch for inch replacement. And essentially trees that are fair quality and trees that are good quality require the same amount of mitigation. There's really no, um, um, metering it based on the quality and size and health of the tree other than obviously inch for inch. Um, so this system reduces the number of categories, which is going to make it much easier for not only staff, but the public to apply and easier, um, to get consistent ratings from the development community arborists and staff ratings. Um, this will also meter that required mitigation so that the higher quality, uh, trees are require more mitigation than the lower quality trees. So trees that are kind of on their way out or might be a nuisance or invasive species won't require mitigation in some cases, or will require less mitigation than trees that are very healthy. Another key change that we're making here is, um, moving away from that inch for inch and adopting this more simple streamlined table approach to tree mitigation. Um, so this is pretty much what this table will look like. You have your sizes down the left hand side and your grades across the top. So as you can see your G zeros or your dead dying or undesirable trees do not require mitigation. And then mitigation increases as you go up in health of tree and size of tree. And this is really to support, um, our goals in the county of preserving urban canopy. Uh, there's a comp plan policy to that effect as well. And so this is really incentivizing the retention of these larger, healthier trees. All right. So the third key change here is, um, making some minor tweaks to the number of required trees per developed lot. Now this is a landscaping requirement. So this is independent of mitigation for tree removal. Um, and this represents the number of trees that are required per developed lot to be planted either after development, um, and then maintained in perpetuity on the lot. So every time we review something, some development on a particular lot, we're looking to make sure that this lot requirement is being met. So we reworked these, the changes are pretty, um, minor, except when you get up to the larger lot sizes, which we see more in the North County area. Uh, the current system, there's no cap for property sizes. So it just keeps adding trees. The larger the lots are. And, um, we've had some pretty, pretty shocking numbers come up when we do these calculations. Uh, so the major change here is setting a cap for these larger properties of 15 required landscape trees. Again, that's completely separate from required mitigation trees. And we'll see when we circle back to the, um, examples how that affects that larger example on the, on the right hand side. Um, the table on the bottom here shows some examples of various property sizes. So you can see the changes not very drastic until you get to those two acre sites and larger. So looking back at our examples with these proposed changes, you see that in both examples, we have substantially reduced replant. So mitigation tree numbers. Um, and then because of that, we also have lower, uh, payment in lieu dollar amounts as well. Um, one key thing I want to point out, especially in this example on the left hand side is there's still only enough room on this site to plant two trees. So we were only ever going to get two trees on this site, right? What we have now are some additional options for credits where, um, property owners can remove nuisance invasive species to get credit towards their required mitigation. They can plant some native understory and ground cover. So they're creating more of a community of plants to get credits towards their mitigation. And so in the end, we have a better environmental outcome because we were always getting two trees. Now we're getting two trees plus some understory, maybe some removal of nuisance invasive and maybe a smaller contribution to the tree bank. But ultimately trees in the ground is what we're hoping to accomplish with this code. And for our larger example on the right, um, same kind of reductions in required trees and the tree bank contribution. But the key thing here is that because this is a larger site, the lot minimum would have been 44 trees with the current code and is now capped out at 15 trees. And so that landscaping requirement is met. So if this property owner came in to remove their tree as shown here, they wouldn't have to plant all of the required mitigation trees and their lot minimum, which as you can imagine, um, can be a difficult message to relay to some property owners. And we do have some other minor changes. So we have added some revisions that will allow staff flexibility with complying with previous site plans. Uh, so these are usually for commercial sites. Um, sometimes the site plan is, you know, a decade or two old and things have changed since it was approved. So when they come in and we're reviewing some minor modifications to that, um, we're looking for compliance with that previous site plan. This, these changes allow staff to look at the existing landscaping, whether it meets the intent of the code and the feasibility of requiring additional landscaping without impacting the landscaping that's already there. Um, we're also proposing some changes to a couple of species lists that we have. We have the nice list and the naughty list. We have the improved species list and the nuisance invasive list. Um, we've updated both of those because there have been some, uh, updates to, um, just the science of, of horticulture. So we know that some species that have previously been allowed are now becoming a little problematic and getting a little out of control. So we don't want those necessarily to be planted anymore. Um, we really want to focus on helping developers and property owners select trees that are well adapted for our area, um, that are drought resistant, that aren't going to require a lot of water, that are going to be storm resistant and not be a problem when, you know, we get hurricanes. Hopefully not anytime soon. And, um, and we also want to, um, promote this Florida friendly landscaping, which again is a comprehensive plan policy. And that, that premise can really be summed up in right tree, right place. So making sure that you're looking at the site and picking trees and locations that make sense for that site. Uh, the, the last change is just, um, cleanup. If you look at the red line version, it may seem a little shocking. A lot of that is just, um, taking something that was said in a lot of words and saying it in fewer words. And I think that's really going to help not only staff with figuring out what the intent is and applying it with the intent. Um, but also the, the, the property owners that we get that are reading the code and they may just read one line and not what comes above, you know, before and after it. And, um, you know, maybe not getting the whole picture. So we did take these proposed changes before the board of county commissioners out of work session earlier this year and received some pretty positive feedback. Um, we've worked a little bit with some internal staff, some colleagues, and also some external stakeholders with some of our, um, development community and the regulated community and received positive feedback there. Um, staff does find that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommends approval of these proposed changes. Now we'll take any questions that you have. Question. I'm sorry. Larry tells me. Um, does this supersede any regulations or ordinances that are in place in the cities? So is this the overarching plan? Excellent question. So the code itself does apply countywide. However, where there is a municipal code that conflicts and is more stringent, the municipal code takes precedent. So in most cases, the cities have adopted their own tree regulations and then those would be the tree regulations that are used. I think there's only two municipalities that still use our code. Thank you. Okay. Board member Hendricks. Is there anything in here? I didn't see anything on setbacks from a structure because you don't want to get people planting trees or building so close to a hundred year old oak. That's going to end up coming down on their house. Yes, sir. Um, we're not making any changes. There is a requirement that trees can't be planted within five feet of any structure or impervious surface. But this really comes into play with the Florida friendly landscaping, which does make recommendations for, um, where to plant things and also how to perform construction in a manner that preserves tree health. So that it's kind of wrapped in through incorporating some of these other, like in Florida friendly landscaping, that's IFAS. They're really the specialists in that. Um, so it's incorporated, but not written strictly in the code. Yeah. Cause I couldn't imagine planting an oak tree or having an oak tree within five feet of my house. Yeah. But they're small when you plant them. Yeah. That's the problem. Or tear everything up. Yeah. Yeah. They try to tear up driveways and everything else. Not to mention covers. Yep. So, um, I ask that because I know of areas where oaks have come down onto people's property. Yet the people had been denied the ability to take them down before the storm. So, uh, and same way on construction, particularly on the smaller lot, you've got to give people the ability to, to, uh, make their property safe for their structure. Absolutely. And with the approved species list changes, um, one of the things I didn't mention is that we're kind of moving away from this accent tree, shade tree, um, paradigm. And, uh, we have trees categorized as either small, medium or large, and we're going to let people plant what makes sense for their property. So we, we may not be asking them to plant a live oak. That's going to get 80 feet tall on a smaller lot. They will have options to plant trees. That'll stay of reasonable, manageable size. Will they be easier to remove if they're already there, if they go to mill? So we're not changing any of the approval criteria. Um, the, the mitigation is changing in such a way that it should be less burdensome for folks to remove trees that will require mitigation. Obviously, if a tree meets the statutory exemption for, um, posing an unacceptable risk, they are fully able to use that statutory exemption. And then no mitigation is required and no permit is required. Um, if the tree is, um, damaged or declining and comes in low on that rating system, uh, that we talked about, then they may get a permit to remove it and they may have to plant a couple of trees to replace it. I saw that the street tree section went away. Are you just doing away with street trees? What's the story there? So that's a, uh, public works, urban forestry, um, managed program. And I don't, I can't speak to all of the details, all of our public works stuff. Um, it was really that it creates a burden on the county to then maintain trees that are planted in the street. And, um, it, it was something that was added in the previous code revisions and, um, in our talks with public works, they asked for it to be removed. And maybe just at the highest level to clarify is that, um, everything that Stacy has covered is the regulation of trees and habitat protection on private property, not within the public right of way. Board members, any other questions for staff? All right, seeing none, we will hear from the public. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to speak in support of application LDR 25-02? And I am seeing none. Is there anybody online, Mr. Schroederbach? No, no, we have nobody online. All right. Um, is there anyone in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to application LDR 25-02? And I am seeing none. And Mr. Schroederbach, I assume nobody's popped in since my last time I asked. No, we do not have anybody. All right. Uh, does staff wish to make any final remarks before we go into our decision making? All right. Board, do you have any questions or comments on that case? I would just like to commend staff for recognizing the issue and correcting it. It's very positive. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, the last time I heard a market rate on live oaks, it was like $700 a tree. So, what, 44 trees is like $30,000 plus you've got your payments to take that one tree down. What was that, $40,000, $45,000 or something in that example? Just to take down a tree that might fall on the house. So, that's a good point. All right. All right. Um, in that case, I will entertain a motion on application LDR 25-02. I'll make a motion. We approve LDR 25-02 as written. Motion to approve by Hendricks. No, second. Second by Vice Chair Coleman. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed like sign. The motion passes unanimously. Uh, before we adjourn, staff, do you have any other housekeeping business or anything to bring to our attention? Uh, yes. So, we do have items on next month's agenda. So, we're having a meeting next month. We have items on here. And, and I also would, uh, just like to, uh, wish one of our board members a happy birthday today from all of us. Uh, we're not going to sing for you. Thank you for that as well. Yes. Per us before, huh? That's all they have today. Thank you very much. So, well, with that, um, I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving and stay safe over the holiday. Um, and thank you to our veterans. We observed Veterans Day yesterday, so thank you for your service. Um, at this time, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion by Larry Johnson. Second. Second by Brito. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Seeing a like sign, the motion passes unanimously. Have a wonderful day, everyone. Thank you all for the lovely card as well. Thank you. Thank you, thank you.