[9.b) First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2374 FLUM: Amendment for 6506 Meadowbrook Lane, Lot 110 of the Meadows Subdivision, from LMDR-10 to LDR-5]

[9.c) First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2375 FLUM: Amendment for a portion of the Meadows Subdivision adjacent to 6506 Meadowbrook Lane, from CON to LDR-5]

FAVOR SIGNIFY BY I. I. IT'S FIVE. NOTHING. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2020 623. 74.

[00:40:05]

AMENDMENT TO 6507 MEADOWLARK LANE. THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2374 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEADOW BROOK LANE, APPROXIMATELY 220FT WEST OF SHERRY LANE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERE AS EXHIBIT A AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SAID PROPERTY FROM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TEN TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FIVE PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE, AS INDICATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. THIS IS A RECOMMENDED CHANGE IN YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND IT'S ONE OF SEVERAL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING THAT RELATE TO THE SAME PROPERTY. AND MISTER HALL IS PREPARED TO REPRESENT THEM ALL TO YOU THIS EVENING. THANK YOU, MISS MANSON. I'VE BEEN QUIET FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, BUT SAVED IT ALL UP FOR TONIGHT.

SO YOU'LL HEAR ME ON A MULTITUDE OF ITEMS. AS IS INDICATED BY MISS MANN'S ITEMS. NINE B, NINE C, NINE D, AND NINE E ARE ALL OF SIMILAR SIMILAR NATURE. THIS POWERPOINT DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH NINE B AND NINE C. THERE WILL BE TWO ORDINANCES THAT WILL BE READ.

THE FIRST ONE WAS READ BY ATTORNEY MR. DRISCOLL FOR NINE B. THIS POWERPOINT PERTAINS TO THOSE TWO. THEY ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. SO AFTER THE VOTE OF THE FIRST ORDINANCE, THERE'LL BE A READING OF THE SECOND ORDINANCE AND A VOTE OF THAT. THAT BEING SAID, LET ME GET THROUGH THIS POWERPOINT. OKAY. LAND USE AMENDMENT, AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS FOR 6506 MEADOWBROOK LANE. THERE ARE TWO PARCELS PERTAINING TO THIS PROPERTY, AND IT'LL MAKE MORE SENSE AS I GET THROUGH THE PRESENTATION. IT IS OWNED BY MICHAEL MCCALL AND IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK LANE. THE. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT LAND USE EXISTING OR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES FOR THIS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM ALL INTO ONE CATEGORY.

MISTER MICHAEL HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY THROUGH ADVERSE POSSESSION PART OF THE PROPERTIES, AND HE ASKED TO UNIFY THE PROPERTIES. SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO MAKE THEM ALL THE FUTURE LAND USE SO HE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. THIS IS THE REQUEST AS READ BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE. THERE'S PARCEL NUMBER ONE WHERE THE RESIDENCE IT'S PLATTED AS LOT NUMBER 110 OF THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. IT HAS AN UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE OF LDR TEN. THE ADJACENT PARCEL, PARCEL NUMBER TWO WAS PLATTED AS A LARGER DRAINAGE POND AND ACCESS AREA FOR THE SUBDIVISION, AND IT WAS OWNED BY THE HOA AND HAS AN UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE MAP. DESIGNATION OF CONSERVATION. OBVIOUSLY, LDR AND CONSERVATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THE MEADOWS HOA HAS SINCE BECOME DEFUNCT, AND THE APPLICANT AND OWNER ACQUIRED PARCEL NUMBER TWO THROUGH ADVERSE POSSESSION. HE WANTED TO UNIFY UNIFY PARCELS ONE AND TWO TOGETHER AND FOR.

IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO BE THE SAME FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION. THAT'S THE THE PLAT OF THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S A PARTIAL TWO IS PART OF THAT CONSERVATION AREA. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I JUST READ TO YOU. SO WE'LL MOVE ON. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND YOU SEE THAT THE YELLOW ON THIS IS THE IS CURRENTLY LMD WHICH IS A LOW MEDIUM DENSITY CATEGORY. THIS LOW MEDIUM DENSITY IS ADJACENT TO THE BLUE WHICH IS CONSERVATION. TO. THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKY HERE. THE LMDR TEN IS LIMITED TO PROPERTIES THAT ARE ANNEXED FROM THE FROM THE COUNTY. SO IT'S IN. OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS AN OLDER CATEGORY IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED TO THAT ANYMORE. SO IN ORDER TO MAKE THESE SIMILAR, WE HAVE THE CLOSEST CATEGORY FOR FUTURE LAND USE IN THIS CATEGORY IS A L, D, R FIVE. AND THAT IS THE CATEGORY THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IT MOVE

[00:45:07]

INTO. AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE. SO WE'RE ASKING TO MOVE BOTH OF THOSE PARCELS ONE AND TWO FROM THEIR EXISTING PARCEL DESIGNATIONS TO THE LDR5. THIS IS WHAT THE ZONING MAP SHOWS.

AND THE THE YELLOW IS R-2 ZONING. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT. THE ZONING OF THIS, JUST THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE GRAY THAT YOU SHOW THERE. WE SHOWED THAT IN GRAY TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE IN PARCELS. THAT IS ALSO R TWO. AND WE ARE HAVING NO CHANGES TO THE ZONING.

SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS PROPOSING AN LDR FIVE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE PARCELS, WHICH IS IN WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE R-2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

NOW THE DRC HEARD ALL OF THIS IN JUNE, AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CITY'S ADOPTED COMP PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE L DRB ALSO HEARD THIS AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONFUSING. I HOPE IT MADE SENSE, BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THIS. THIS IS AGAIN, THE FIRST ORDINANCE THAT WE HEARD IS FOR PARCEL NUMBER ONE. AFTER THE VOTE ON THAT, THERE'LL BE A ORDINANCE WILL BE READ FOR PARCEL NUMBER TWO, AND THERE'LL BE A VOTE ON THAT. I WON'T GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION ON THAT BECAUSE YOU JUST HEARD IT. BUT PARCEL.

BUT THE ADJACENT PARCELS ARE GOING TO BE ANOTHER POWERPOINT. AND I'LL SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE, WHICH IS THE SAME THING THAT YOU JUST HEARD. PUBLIC COMMENT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY. COME ON DOWN. OKAY. THIS. YOU'RE THE OWNER, RIGHT? YOU ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT NOW? WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE. I HAVE A QUESTION IF I MIGHT ASK.

NO, NOT OF THE OWNER, BUT IT WAS, COMMENTED, MR. HALL, THAT YOU SAID THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR.

SO YOU ARE ASKING. WHO'S THE APPLICANT? THE APPLICANT IS MR. MONACO, THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT WAS IN LOT 110, PARCEL NUMBER ONE. SO HE'S ASKING FOR CHANGE BECAUSE HE WANTED TO. YES. THIS IS AN APPLICANT BROUGHT ON THIS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO UNIFY THE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE. AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME DESIGNATION. SO MY QUESTION IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE MAP WHERE YOU SHOWED THE CONSERVATION ASPECT OF IT, AND THE PICTURE LOOKS AS IF IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED IN PART OF A STORMWATER, THAT BLUE ONE BACK THERE. BUT THAT ONE'S OKAY AS WELL. SO MY QUESTION IS THOSE LOT LINES FOR ALL THE PROPERTIES AROUND THE LAKE THAT THE LAKE I WOULD HAVE ASSUMED USED TO ALSO BE A. WELL, WHEN I'VE LOOKED AT MAPS BEFORE, I'VE SEEN ALL OF THOSE LOTS GO TO THAT CENTRAL LAKE AND THAT THE LAKE ITSELF IS OWNED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS. HERE I'M SEEING PARCELS, SO. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE LAKE. OKAY. AND I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE DRAWING WHICH SHOWS THE SPACE THERE AS IF IT COULD BE USED IN SOME KIND OF VULNERABILITY OR ACCESS OR WATER EXIT. SO I'M HESITANT TO ALLOW PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED. I'M NOT I'M ASSUMING IT COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED. BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR US TO CHANGE THE LAND USE, AND ITS FUTURE USE IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL. FOR IT TO BE ABLE TO BECOME A YARD OR SOME KIND OF SPACE THAT WOULD BE UTILIZED, OR WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE CHANGE? THAT WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS. LET ME LET ME ANSWER THEM ONE BY ONE AS I RECALL THEM. THE PROPERTY THAT YOU SEE ON PARCEL NUMBER TWO WAS PART OF AN HOA PROPERTY. THE HOA IS NOW BECOME DEFUNCT, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS GONE THROUGH THE COURTS TO GAIN ADVERSE POSSESSION TO OWN THAT PROPERTY. NOW HE OWNS PARCEL NUMBER TWO. WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS UNIFY IT INTO PARCEL NUMBER ONE SO HE CAN I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S IT'S THE DETENTION AREA. HE CAN'T BUILD ON IT. HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT A FENCE OR SOMETHING WORK ON THE WALL, BUT OR ON THE SEA WALL OR ANYTHING THAT HE NEEDS TO DO, BUT HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THAT NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY. SO HE WANTS TO UNIFY IT ALL INTO HIS PARCEL THAT HE HAS RIGHT NOW TO A SINGLE LOT, INTO ONE LOT. MY QUESTION WAS TO THE LAKE. YOU ACT AS IF THAT WAS OWNED BY THE HOA AND IT'S A PIECE OF EXTRA PROPERTY. I'M I'M QUESTIONING

[00:50:01]

THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAKE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A DRAWING WHERE ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS OWN ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE CENTER POINT OF THE LAKE. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE, BUT ONE I'D LIKE TO BRING UP AT A DIFFERENT TIME, WHICH IS IF THAT'S A STORMWATER PIECE OF THE STORMWATER PROCESS AND THE STORMWATER FROM OUR CITY WHERE THERE WAS FLOODING ON THE BACK END BY THE RIVER, HAS A CHANNEL FROM THE RIVER TO THE LAKE AND FROM THE LAKE UNDER CECILIA AND UNDER CECILIA, UNDER OUR CONDOMINIUMS, AND FROM THERE ALL THE WAY OUT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE COMPLETED THE VULNERABILITY STUDY OR NOT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH OUR ABILITY TO TO WORK AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE. TO STOPPING THE RIVER AT THE BRIDGE ON HIGHWAY 19. FRANKLY, THAT WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT MAY BE MORE FEASIBLE TO DO IF THEY ARE. THAT'S PART OF OUR THAT'S PART OF A SYSTEM THAT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND INTO PASCO COUNTY FROM WHICH THEY TORE UP THE ROAD. SO I'D LIKE SOME ASSURANCES THAT WHATEVER WE'RE DOING ISN'T GOING TO INHIBIT OUR ABILITY TO USE WHAT'S A PRETTY BROAD SPACE THERE IN CASE THERE'S A NEED FOR US TO WORK? THAT ACCESS? SO I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. IF IF HE OWNS IT, HE OWNS IT. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE NEED FOR US TO CHANGE ANYTHING. IT IS HIS PROPERTY. PARCEL NUMBER TWO IS HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY. HE OWNS THAT. RIGHT. SO WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO AGAIN IS COMBINE THE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY. THAT WAS HIS REQUEST. AND FOR HIM TO DO THAT, HE HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. SO IF HE LEAVES IT LIKE IT IS, THEN I MEAN, MAYBE, MAYBE WE CAN HEAR FROM HIM AND FIND OUT WHAT IT IS THAT HE INTENDS TO DO. I CAN'T ANSWER MANY QUESTIONS.

YOU'D HAVE TO COME UP. THANK YOU. OKAY. HELLO. OKAY, HERE'S THE SHORT VERSION. THE PEOPLE AT HOME. OKAY, HERE'S HERE'S THE SHORT VERSION. 30 YEARS AGO, THIS LAND WAS ABANDONED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. OKAY? AND FOR 30 YEARS, THE CITY HAS CONVENIENTLY NOT HAD TO DO ONE STITCH OF ANYTHING TO PREVENT ANY TYPE OF LAND EROSION IN THIS WHOLE ENTIRE AREA. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE LAKE IS WAS OWNED BY THE ABANDONED HOA OKAY. BUT BECAUSE, I MEAN, I ALWAYS THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING SHADY GOING ON THERE BECAUSE THE CLUBHOUSE, WHEN THE GOT, YOU KNOW, LEVELED AND SOLD AND IS NOW A NEW HOUSE THERE AND STUFF LIKE THAT. NOBODY EVER DECIDED WHAT TO DO WITH THE LAND THAT CONNECTED OUR LAND TO SHORELINE, YOU KNOW, TO THE SHORELINE. THERE IS SO MUCH LAND EROSION THERE NOW FOR THAT WAS 30 YEARS. SO FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN ASKING THE CITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. CITY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT'S NOT THEIR LAND. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY LAND. IT WAS A STALEMATE FOR 30 YEARS. SO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM DEBBIE MANS AND ROBERT RIVERA, I WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ADVERSE POSSESSION. OKAY, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. OKAY.

NOW. OUR GOAL IS SIMPLY TO PUT UP A FENCE ALONG, YOU KNOW, THE FRONT PART OF THAT, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER CULVERT IN THE CITY HAS A FENCE, A GIANT TALL FENCE. SO WE ASKED THE CITY TO DO THIS AND YOU KNOW, IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. SO NOW WE'RE IN THE POSITION WHERE I OWN THE LAND, AND ALL WE WANT TO DO IS BE ABLE TO PUT SEAWALL RIPRAP AROUND MY SIDE. MY NEIGHBOR, HE'S IN THE PROCESS AND SIGNED A CONTRACT FOR $95,000 SEAWALL, WHICH MEANS THAT ALL THE WATER IS GOING TO GO ON MY SIDE. SO I JUST NEED PERMITS TO BE ABLE TO PUT MY SEAWALL IN. AND I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS MANY TIMES. SO THAT'S THE GOAL. A SEAWALL AND A FENCE. OKAY. AND AND THAT'S IT. THIS AREA HAS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL. OKAY. WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, BACK WHEN THE 30 YEARS AGO. BUT IT'S MY LAND NOW. AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS UNITY OF TITLE AMENDMENT FOR LAND USE CHANGE. SO I CAN SIMPLY PUT RIPRAP GOING AROUND AND A FENCE GOING ACROSS. NOW, RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK, IF SOMEBODY WALKED FROM THE STREET RIGHT OVER TO THAT CULVERT SINKHOLE THIS BIG, OKAY, I WATCH SOME KID WITH A CAST NET GO LIKE THIS LEG WENT

[00:55:03]

RIGHT INTO THE HOLE. OKAY? IT'S A GIANT LIABILITY. I OWN THAT LAND NOW. I DON'T HAVE INSURANCE ON IT. CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT UNITY OF TITLE. SO I'VE GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE ENTIRE PROCESS HERE, RIGHT FROM THE VERY, VERY BEGINNING. THE WAY I WAS TOLD TO. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR SOMEBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK OR ASK QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND BAKER. NO, I HEARD A GREAT EXPLANATION. SECOND, NO, I'M GOOD WITH IT.

ANYBODY ELSE? YEAH. I HAVE A FEW THINGS ON THE. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SHARE SOME INSIGHT ON WHAT PLANS TO TAKE PLACE THERE. MY QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS CITY STAFF.

THE CONSERVATION UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE THAT THAT IS CHANGING FOR THIS TO LDR5 BECAUSE THE CURRENT ZONING THAT WE SEE AROUND THAT AREA DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE STATING? IT EXISTS, BUT IT IS. IT IS SET AS A CLASSIFICATION IN THE ZONE OR IN OUR COMP PLAN THAT YOU CAN'T ZONE PROPERTY TO THAT ANYMORE. THAT'S ONE OF THE CRITERIA.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. SO IT'S BECAUSE IT'S, IT WOULDN'T FIT TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. THE. THE IMPACT OF THIS FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE. IS THIS GOING TO EXTEND OVER TO ZONING? BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE THE CURRENT MAP WE HAVE FOR ZONING, THERE'S JUST X'S FOR THOSE TWO SPOTS. THERE'S NO R-2, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO NOTHING FOR THAT, RIGHT. IT WILL THOSE THOSE ARE R-2, THE X, AND THE MAP IS AN ERROR IN THE MAP. IT'S AN R-2 ZONING ALL THROUGH OUT THAT AREA, THAT ENTIRE AREA. AND I HAD IT ON THE THE THE ONE MAP SHOWED THAT. BUT THE X IS AN ERROR IN THAT MAP. SO CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE WOULD UNLOCK THE ABILITY FOR THIS GENTLEMAN TO DO WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO WITHOUT FUTURE, ADDITIONAL FUTURE OR EXCUSE ME, ADDITIONAL ZONING CHANGES. THERE IS NO ZONING CHANGE ON THIS. ALL WE'RE DOING IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND MAP, AND THEN YOU DISCUSS THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP. SO YOU COVERED THAT. IF YOU COULD JUST MOMENTARILY FOR THE SAKE OF IT, THE LMD VERSUS THE LDR FIVE, COULD YOU JUST GO A LITTLE BIT INTO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN. SURE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO IS ONE. THE LMDR TEN SAYS TEN UNITS PER ACRE. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE.

AND IT'S A CLASSIFICATION THAT YOU NO LONGER CAN. CAN YOU. YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING TO THAT.

THE LDR5 IS FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, AND IT IS ALLOWABLE TO CHANGE TO. SO IT'S IT IS I'M SORRY.

YOU CAN CHANGE PROPERTY TO LDR5. YOU CAN WRITE IN LAND USE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE. SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS THING MORE CONFUSING IS WE HAVE CLASSIFICATIONS IN OUR COMP PLAN THAT WE CAN'T USE ANYMORE. SO OUR UPDATE OF OUR COMP PLAN WILL ADDRESS ALL OF THESE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE. SO THEN I GUESS MY FINAL QUESTION, AND THIS IS MORE OR LESS TOWARDS THE THIS APPLICANT AND THE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN IDENTICAL STRUCTURE. I MEAN, IT'S LIKE SYMMETRICAL TO THE TO THE WEST. AND SO I KNOW THIS IS PROMPTED BY AN APPLICANT, BUT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE COMP PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO CONSERVATIONS AND 1LDR5. NOW. SO IN MY MIND, IF WE'RE NOT, IF WE'RE PLANNING AROUND WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS COMMUNITY VERSUS WHAT THIS INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT WANTS, WHAT ARE WE, WHAT'S THE, WHAT IS THE, WHAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO US GOING FORWARD IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NORTH OF THERE IS CONSERVATION AND WEST OF THERE IS CONSERVATION, RIGHT? WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ARE TWO BLOCKS OF L D THE THE LDR52 BLOCKS IN THERE. AND THAT'S MOST COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING USES BECAUSE THE OTHER IS NOT ACCESSIBLE. IT'S NOT AN OPTION. SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT ABOUT THE WE WILL STILL HAVE LIKE BY DOING THIS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER LDR5 BUT AN IDENTICAL STRUCTURE TO THE WEST THAT ISN'T LDR5. SO IN MY MIND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT QUESTION. THERE'S ON THE. CAN YOU PULL UP THE MAP? I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. YOU HAVE THE MAP AGAIN. NOW KEEP IN MIND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A

[01:00:04]

IS THAT WHAT. SO IF YOU GO TO THE SO THE ZONING ONE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER PARCEL RIGHT HERE THAT'S GOING TO MIRROR THIS. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE HEARING THIS PARCEL. WHEN YOU AFTER YOU VOTE ON THAT, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE ON THIS PARCEL. AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS. AND THEN UNDER ONE POWER OR UNDER ONE POWER POINT, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THAT. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS PARCEL AND THEN THIS PARCEL, AND AT THE END POTENTIALLY HAVE ONE BIG BLOCK OF LDR5. OKAY, THAT THAT CLARIFIES IT FOR ME. AND THEN SO THEN MY FINAL QUESTION IS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE WE STILL HAVE CONSERVATION TO THE NORTH OF THAT, RIGHT? YEAH. FROM THIS SIDE. SO THAT THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND IF AN APPLICANT WERE TO COME BACK BEFORE US, THEY ARE CLEARLY TONIGHT. BUT IF THEY WERE TO FOR THE ONE TO THE LEFT, WE ARE STAYING CONSISTENT BECAUSE WE SHOULD BECAUSE IT'S QUITE LITERALLY SYMMETRICAL. BUT THEN WHAT ABOUT NORTH? I'M ASSUMING WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH THE NORTH PIECE I'M GETTING. ARE WE DOING SOMETHING WITH NORTH ON THE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK LANE, LIKE WE'RE ELIMINATING.

WE ARE, BUT IT'S NOT ON COMPLETE CONSERVATION FOR THAT FOR THAT SPOT, WHICH IS TO ME A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAN BUILDING OF A SEAWALL, BECAUSE THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I MEAN, WHERE DOES THE ZONING OF CONSERVATION STOP FOR THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE? THIS REQUEST IS ONLY FOR WHAT YOU SEE IN OUTLINED IN I UNDERSTAND, BUT AND I'M GOING TO IT'S KIND OF LIKE MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN HELP ME HERE. IT'S I GET WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE AN APPLICATION IS BEFORE US, BUT I'M THINKING OF THIS WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN MIND AND THAT, THAT, THAT NORTH PIECE IS GOING TO BE A FUTURE LIKE THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY. YOU ESTABLISH THOSE TWO, THE SYMMETRY RIGHT THERE. BUT NOW WHAT ABOUT THE CONSERVATION TO THE NORTH? IS THAT GOING TO BE COMING UP TOO? YES. IN WHICH CASE WE'RE KIND OF I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS WE ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE WANT TO REMOVE THE CONSERVATION FROM THAT AREA IS WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING. I'M ONLY SPEAKING TO THE REQUEST THAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. ANYTHING THAT'S DEALING WITH THIS SIDE OF THE STREET IS ANOTHER ITEM, ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER REQUEST IN ITS ENTIRETY. AND WE SHOULDN'T. THAT'S NOT A FACTOR. WELL, YOU CAN ALWAYS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SURROUNDING LAND USE. SO THIS IS A LAND USE DECISION. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION IN TERMS OF GRANTING OR DENYING A LAND USE DECISION. I WOULD NOTE THAT WHEN THE THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SHOWED THAT MAP, THAT TO THE NORTH IS ZONED R TWO. SO APPARENTLY THAT MUST NOT BE. I ASSUME THAT'S DRY UPLAND OR IS THAT. I'M GUESSING IT MUST BE BECAUSE IT'S R TWO. SO THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO CHANGE AWAY FROM CONSERVATION. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT CONSERVATION.

YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE DISCRETION TO DO THAT. THIS IS A LAND USE DECISION. SO YOU HAVE WIDER LATITUDE AT THIS LEVEL THAN YOU DO AT THE ZONING LEVEL. SO BUT YOU CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA, INCLUDING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE WATERWAY AND THE POND AND WHO OWNS THAT POND AND ALL OF THAT. SO YOU CAN CONSIDER ALL OF THAT. THE STAFF HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THE CONSERVATION PIECE? ANY COMMENTS ON NOT AT THIS TIME.

OKAY. THAT'S ALL I GOT. SO CAN I ADD SOMETHING, PLEASE? OKAY. THE SAME EXACT THING IS GOING TO COME UP IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I'M SORRY. YEAH, WE'RE JUST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW. OH, THAT'S NOT MOVE ON TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THE OTHER OH, OKAY. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. I ALSO OWN BOTH THOSE HOUSES. AND I DID THE SAME THING WITH ADVERSE POSSESSION BECAUSE WE ARE FORCED. FORCED TO. OKAY. SO MY FIRST THING IS I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU, SIR. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR YOU FOR THE LACK OF OF SUPPORT AND EFFORT TO TRY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM OVER THE MANY YEARS. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO SPEND YOUR MONEY TO TRY TO RESOLVE AND SECURE THE VALUE OF YOUR HOME. AND WHAT I HEARD YOUR SPEECH, AND I HOPE EVERYONE ELSE HEARD IT AS WELL, THAT YOU'RE ONLY DOING THIS BECAUSE THE CITY WOULD NOT DO IT. YES. AND SO I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ALL ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I WAS AT THAT PROPERTY AND I PROBABLY MET YOU SOME YEARS AGO. IF YOU RECALL, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN YOU REPRESENTED ME ON ANOTHER PROPERTY AT ONE TIME. WELL, I'M NOT THE LAWYER, SO MY BROTHER, BUT HE LOOKS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN I DO. BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I DON'T MEAN TO BE IN A CONVERSATION. IF I MAY. I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THEM RIGHT NOW BECAUSE. THE VULNERABILITY STUDY, THE THE USE OF THAT LAKE, THE EFFECT IT HAS ON THE RIVER, THE EFFECT IT HAS ON THE WATER

[01:05:07]

COMING IN. IT'S NOT EXACTLY LIKE ORANGE LAKE, BUT IT'S IN MY HEAD. AND I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. I SEE THE SAME POTENTIAL. AND I KNOW WE HAD FLOODING BACK THERE BACKED BY THE RIVER WHEN THAT LAST STORM CAME IN. AND I KNOW AND I'VE BEEN THERE WITH ROBERT RIVERA.

AND WHEN WE TALKED, IT WAS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T OWN IT. SO NOW WE HAVE A PRIVATE OWNER AND THAT GRAY AREA BECOMES PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND IF WE EVER WANTED TO CONNECT THE THE LAKE TO THE RIVER AND DEAL WITH THE HYDROLOGY OF WHAT'S GOING ON, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WORK ON IT UNLESS YOU GIVE US BACK AN EASEMENT, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A PUBLIC WORKS PROBLEM. AND IT'S A COMMUNITY THAT PAYS EVERY YEAR A STORMWATER ASSESSMENT JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.

AND THE REASON THAT WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WAS BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXPENSIVE PROJECT THAT DIDN'T WANT TO GET HANDLED BY THE CITY. AND SO I APOLOGIZE TO YOU THAT I'VE BEEN UNABLE TO CONVINCE ANYONE TO TAKE THIS SITUATION SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S SERIOUS. AND, AND I, AND I FEEL BAD TO HEAR THAT SOMEBODY IS HAVING TO SPEND $90,000 BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO OWN PROPERTY WHERE THE RIVER SURGES AND WASHES OUT. AND I KNOW HOW THAT IS. HOWEVER, IT WORKS. NOW THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN OWNERSHIP AT THE ADVICE OF THE CITY TO TELL YOU TO TAKE THIS PROBLEM ON YOURSELF IS BEYOND ME. HOW WE COULD DO THAT WITHOUT COMING BACK TO US AND TELLING US WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING ON A CRITICAL CONNECTION OF OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HURRICANES, WE TALK ABOUT DOING BIG THINGS, AND IT'S NOT A REFLECTION AND ACCURATELY STATED BY OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOING WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED. BUT BUT I'M I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE A SOLUTION. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE I WANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU A WAY IN WHICH WE CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM WITH YOU AND NOT HAVE YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBOR PUT OUT $90,000 WORTH OF ALL THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO TRY TO SECURE THAT PROPERTY? IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WENT BELLY UP, AND WE HAVE A WHOLE RIVER OUT THERE THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE OWN IT OR WHO OWNS IT, BECAUSE IT LOOKS AS IF YOU OWN IT AS A PROPERTY OWNERS. AND SO WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING IF WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER IT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A CRITICAL STORMWATER ASSET. THAT QUESTION WASN'T GOING TO I KNEW THAT QUESTION WAS GOING TO COME UP. AND ONE THING I CAN TELL YOU THOUGH, IS FOR YEARS, OKAY, THE CONTROVERSY OVER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOBODY KNOWING WHO OWNED THAT LAND, WE WERE TORTURED BY TRUCKS PULLING UP AND JUST PULLING OUT TRAILERS AND PEOPLE FISHING. 2:00 IN THE MORNING. WE WERE TORTURED FOR MANY YEARS NOW. YES, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRESPASS. ANYONE THAT GOES OVER THERE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I HAVE NO INSURANCE OVER THERE, AND THERE'S A GIANT SINKHOLE THAT I'VE BEEN ASKING THE CITY TO FIX THAT ANYWAY.

BUT LIKE I SAID, THE, YOU KNOW, ALL WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IN HERE IS PUTTING IN A SEAWALL TO RESCUE OUR HOMES. OKAY. NOW, IN 30 YEARS TIME, WE HAVE LOST A LOT OF LAND. THAT HOUSE OVER THERE HAS LOST 18FT OF LAND. NOBODY CARED. NOBODY CARED. IT WASN'T UNTIL I ACTUALLY REALLY GOT DOWN WITH DEBBIE MANS AND ROBERT RIVERA THAT WE CAME UP WITH A SOLUTION. THE SOLUTION WAS ADVERSE POSSESSION. THEN WE WILL GIVE YOU THE PERMITS THAT YOU NEED TO RESCUE YOUR HOMES.

I HAVE THAT IN BLACK AND WHITE AND A WRITING AND AN EMAIL DIRECTLY FROM DEBBIE MANS AND ROBERT RIVERA. I KNOW HE'S SINCE RETIRED, AND I AND I DO HOPE THAT ANYTHING HE HAS TOLD ME WOULD CARRY ON. OKAY. BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM WITH LAND EROSION.

OKAY, ONE OF THE HOUSES HAS ALREADY HAD A REMEDIATED SINKHOLE. THAT WAS $50,000.

OKAY. YES, WE ARE SPENDING OUR OWN MONEY BECAUSE THE CITY WOULDN'T DO NOTHING FOR US. BUT THEY COULDN'T. IT WASN'T THEIR LAND. SO YOU CAN'T BLAME THE CITY FOR THAT. BUT HOW LITTLE OLD ME CAN SOMEHOW GO OUT AND FIND THE. THE LAST PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, OKAY. AND GET HIM TO SIGN THINGS OVER. AND HOW THE CITY COULDN'T DO THAT. THAT'S BEYOND ME. BUT LITTLE OLD ME WAS ABLE TO DO THAT. OKAY. AND LOOK, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, OKAY, WHAT WOULD I DO TO GIVE SOME SORT OF AN EASEMENT BACK TO THE CITY? WELL, THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT I WOULD DO IS MAKE SURE THAT IT WOULD BE IF, SAY, FOR INSTANCE, YOU GOT RID OF THE CULVERT, OKAY. AND THEN YOU NO MORE CULVERT, OKAY, WHICH HAS FALLEN APART AND COMPLETELY COLLAPSED ANYWAY. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU GUYS HAVE EVER SEEN IT BEFORE, BUT SAY YOU GOT RID OF THAT CULVERT, OKAY? WE DO NOT WANT THAT TO BE NO DEAD END USA. IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AS IT IS. OKAY? IT'S

[01:10:03]

MY PROPERTY. IT'S ONLY TAKEN ME 30 SHORT YEARS OKAY TO EVEN GET TO THIS POINT, BUT THIS IS AS FAR AS I'M ABLE TO TAKE THIS RIGHT NOW. I'VE DONE EVERYTHING COMPLETELY. THE LEGAL CHANNELS, IT'S COST ME $20,000 JUST IN LEGAL. OKAY. SIX SURVEYS. OKAY. THE GENTLEMAN ON THE OTHER SIDE.

OKAY. HE DID IT THE SAME TIME THAT I DID IT. SAME LAWYER AND EVERYTHING. IT HAD TO BE DONE.

OKAY. AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY EVER HAVING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT. THE CITY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR 30 YEARS. WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT IT NOW FOR. JUST ONE FINAL THING FOR STAFF, BECAUSE THERE'LL BE A SECOND READING ON THIS, RIGHT? I MEAN, JUST TO SAY THAT WHEN I ASKED ABOUT CONSERVATION, I DIDN'T GET A REPLY. WHERE I'M AT WITH THIS IS A COUNCIL AT SOME POINT IN TIME TO THROUGH WHATEVER PROCESS, COMP PLAN, SOME OTHER AMENDMENT, WHATEVER IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, DID CONSERVATION HERE, WHETHER IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO, 15 YEARS AGO, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. AND THE RECOMMENDATION HERE TONIGHT IS TO CHANGE AWAY FROM THAT. I JUST I WOULD NEED TO IF THAT RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS AREA, THEN OKAY. BUT IF THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE CITY STAFF HAS ASKED OUR HOMEOWNERS TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESILIENCY FOR THEIR HOMES, THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. SO THAT BEING SAID, THAT SUGGESTS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE IF THIS COUNCIL, AT SOME POINT IN TIME BEFORE MY TIME, I PROBABLY WASN'T EVEN BORN YET WANTED CONSERVATION THERE, THEN IT'S CITY ADMINS JOB AND OUR JOB AS COUNCIL TO HOLD THEM TO IT, TO GET SOMETHING DONE THERE. AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT WASN'T HAPPENING. SO I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE CHANGING SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE A HOMEOWNER, A HOMEOWNER IN A MOMENT WHO'S GOTTEN IT AT A POINT WHERE THEY CAN DO SOMETHING UNLESS CITY STAFF CAN JUSTIFY THE RECOMMENDATION TO GO AWAY FROM CONSERVATION. WHAT ABOUT THREE CONFIRMED SINKHOLES? THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. AND I THINK IF IT'S IF IT'S ZONED CONSERVATION, THAT OUR CITY STAFF SHOULD ADDRESS IT, IF WE DON'T WANT ANYONE MESSING WITH IT, THEN. BUT IF IT'S NOT OURS TO MESS WITH, THEN TO YOUR POINT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK INTO. OR IF THEY COULD TELL ME THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REZONING. BUT WHEN I ASKED ABOUT CONSERVATION, I'M NOT REALLY GETTING A RESPONSE ON THE HISTORY BEHIND THE CONSERVATION. IN FACT, THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED WAS THAT MAP IS WRONG, THAT THAT SHOULD SAY R2 RIGHT THERE. SO I'M NOT WORKING WITH FULL INFORMATION. I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION, BUT AND THERE'S A SECOND READING SO I COULD CHANGE MY MIND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COMES UP BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BUT BASED ON WHAT I'VE RECEIVED, I JUST NEED MORE ON THE HISTORY BEHIND WHY IT WAS CONSERVATION AND WHY WE AS A CITY HASN'T ADDRESSED IT, BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE AN OVERSIGHT ROLE UP HERE TO, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING WHAT OUR FUTURE LAND MAP SAYS, AND NOT JUST THROWING OUT THESE DOCUMENTS AND THEN FORGETTING THEY EXIST UNTIL SOMEONE TAKES IT UPON THEMSELVES TO SPEND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO TAKE IT UPON MYSELF. IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION DIRECTLY FROM THE CITY MANAGER. THEY DIDN'T TAKE IT UPON MYSELF. GUYS, YOU KNOW, I THIS WAS A LONG, LONG. I MADE THE MOTION. YEAH. I SECOND. YOUR COMMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. NO. THERE'S 232 GOING ON. THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2026 2375 WHICH IS THE OTHER HALF. THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2375. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.13 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEADOW BROOK LANE, APPROXIMATELY 280FT WEST OF CHERRY LANE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SAID PROPERTY FROM CONSERVATION TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FIVE PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND, THE MAKER.

I DO WANT TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION ON THIS. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND HIS SITUATION. I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO HERE. AND I UNDERSTAND PETER'S INFORMATION.

I DO AGREE THAT AT SOME POINT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE STEPPED IN AND DONE SOMETHING. BUT THE PROBLEM IS I THINK WE'RE BEYOND THAT POINT NOW, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE NOW HE OWNS THE PROPERTY. NOW DOES HE WANT TO SELL IT TO US AND THEN COUNT ON US TAKING CARE OF IT? SO THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM STAFF ON, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT ON TO THE

[01:15:05]

NEXT STEP BECAUSE WE WANT TO WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF HIS 30 YEAR PAIN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS JUST NEEDS TO COME TO A RESOLUTION. I DON'T WANT TO KICK THIS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WE NEED SOME CLARIFICATION OF, IS THERE A REASON WHY WE DIDN'T TAKE THIS ON? YOU GOT THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE A LAWYER. I'M SURE WE COULD HAVE MOVED ON THIS. WHY WE DIDN'T, I DON'T KNOW. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS WAS BEFORE MY TIME. PROBABLY BEFORE MOST OF OUR TIME. BUT I'D LIKE TO GET A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE SECOND READING FOR THAT. BUT AT THIS POINT, LET'S MOVE IT TO THE NEXT STEP. SECOND. YEAH, I'M SAYING, BRIAN, ON THAT ONE, I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IF WE CAN GET NEW INFORMATION THAT MAY CHANGE SOMETHING FOR SECOND READING, THEN WE'LL LOOK AT IT THEN. ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH, I JUST I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU'VE MADE GREAT PROGRESS. YOU'RE GOING TO GET WHAT YOU WANT EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T WANT IT. BUT I'M WILLING AND HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND REALIZE THAT THERE'S SOME ROLE THAT THE CITY CAN PLAY IN THIS.

AND SO IF THAT CAN HAPPEN, THEN I'M ALL IN. AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT FROM THE MAKER. AND THE SECOND, I THINK IT'S WORTH US LOOKING AT IT TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME VALUE TO US FOR THE VERY IMPORTANT JOB OF RESILIENCY AND THE FACT THAT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF WATER THAT MOVES THROUGH WHEN THAT RIVER COMES UP. AND IT MAY, YOU KNOW, MY MY MAIN INTEREST IS IN THE LAKE ITSELF AND DETERMINING WE'VE HAD FLOODING THAT'S COME IN FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION.

WHEN THE RAINS ARE HARD, THAT COME THAT COME THROUGH THE LAKE, OUT TO THE RIVER. SO IT'S NOT ALL ONE DIRECTION. YOU'VE GOT TO COME IN BOTH WAYS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT BOTHERS US THE MOST IS THE FACT THAT THAT SERVES FIVE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR STORM DRAINAGE. AND EVERY DAY, TWICE A DAY, THAT TIDE COMES IN AND TAKES 1 OR 2 GRAINS OF SAND WITH IT, AND NOBODY CARES.

NOBODY EVER CARED. NOBODY EVER, YOU KNOW. BUT, YOU KNOW, AS I WAS VERY CONSISTENT, YOU KNOW, DEBBIE MANS WAS THE ONE THAT FINALLY CARED AND, AND ADVISED US WHAT TO DO. AND IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD EVEN SINCE THAT POINT. JUST TO SAY I DIDN'T WANT TO DIS I HEARD YOUR POINT SAID THE SINKHOLES AND I'VE WALKED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD 14 TIMES. I'VE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOT OF HISTORY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOURSELF INCLUDED. AND I'M MY NO, MY NO IS NOT TOWARDS YOU OR THE APPLICATION. IT'S TOWARD THE INFORMATION I'M RECEIVING.

AND, AND MAKING SURE IT IS CLEAR THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN RECEIVED, JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A NEED THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT FOR THE NEXT PERSON WHO'S THERE FOR 30 YEARS. AND HOPEFULLY THAT PROMPTS STAFF TO WANT TO WORK WITH YOU CLOSER. I JUST THINK THERE WAS SOME NEGLECT ON THE HOA BEFORE IT DISSOLVED, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE FACTOR OVER THE YEARS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. NO NO NO. YEAH.

I SAID I, I MEANT TO SAY NO. 32. YEAH. READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2376. AMENDMENT TO THE FOR THE FOR 6440 MEADOW LANE LOT 27 THIS ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2376 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.12 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEADOW BROOK LANE, APPROXIMATELY 360FT WEST OF SHERRY LANE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERE AS EXHIBIT A AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SAID PROPERTY FROM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TEN TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FIVE PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

[9.d) First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2376: FLUM Amendment for 6446 Meadowbrook Lane, Lot 27 of the Meadows Subdivision, from LMDR-10 to LDR-5]

[9.e) First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2377: FLUM Amendment for a portion of the Meadows Subdivision adjacent to 6446 Meadowbrook Lane, from CON to LDR-5]

THANK YOU, MR. VANCE. THIS POWERPOINT WILL BE FOR NINE D AND NINE E. IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HEARD. IT'S JUST ON THE TO THE LEFT OF THAT PROPERTY. SO IT IS A A DIFFERENT OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, THE SAME REQUEST, THE SAME ITEMS. THAT'S THE LOCATION THAT WAS READ OUT BY THE THE ATTORNEY. AS YOU SEE, IT'S PARCEL ONE WHICH WE JUST READ THE ORDINANCE FROM, AND YOU'LL BE VOTING ON THAT FIRST. THIS POWERPOINT IS BOTH PARCEL ONE AND PARCEL TWO. AND THEN YOU'LL HEAR A SECOND ITEM BEING READ. THAT'S THE LOT 27 AND THAT'S THE LOCATION OF THAT PARCEL. ONE IS LOT 27 AND PARCEL TWO IS THE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THAT WAS IN THE HOA OWNED PROPERTY. AGAIN, IT HAS THE SAME FUTURE LAND USE MAP ISSUES AS THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WAS READ. IT IS A COMPATIBLE REQUEST TO PUT IT TO LDR FIVE. THE GRAY IS

[01:20:06]

SHOWN ON THE ZONING MAP JUST TO SHOW WHERE THE PROPERTY IS. IT IS R-2 AND THEN THE DRC HEARD THIS REQUEST AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. AND THE LDR ALSO HEARD THIS REQUEST AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD, BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE DRB ABOUT THE STORMWATER ASPECT, OR THE PIPES OR THE ACCESS FOR US TO REPAIR IT IF IT NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED? WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT WE'VE JUST BLOCKED OURSELVES OFF FROM ANY ACTIVITY ON THE INTERIOR OF THAT FOR THAT, THAT DRAINAGE AND THE DRAINAGE MUST BE PART OF A DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SO WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THEM ABOUT THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD HAVE ON OUR ABILITY TO THE DISCUSSION WAS, WAS WOULD THAT DETENTION AREA B LANDLOCKED? AND WE SAID THAT, NO, IT WOULDN'T BE BECAUSE THE SOUTH PART OF. THAT'S ALL ON THE ROAD ADJACENT TO THERE. SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE THE REST OF THE AREA, BUT NOT TO ANY DRAINAGE UNDERNEATH THE ROAD, MEADOW BROOK LANE. CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING? NO. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND. THE MAKER. I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, SAME AS WHAT I SAID ON THE FIRST ONE. SECOND. SAME SITUATION. YEAH, IT'S A REPEAT. I'M HOPEFUL THAT THERE'LL BE A CONTINUED DIALOG WITH THE CITY ABOUT OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM, AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NOW GOING TO BE ON PRIVATELY OWNED LAND. SECOND, LET ME JUST TO SAY THAT A COMMENT CAME UP ABOUT THE LLDRB AND PERHAPS IT WASN'T CAPTURED IN THE MINUTES, BUT I'M NOT SEEING ANY DISCUSSION OTHER THAN A A MOTION AND A VOTE. AND MAYBE SOMETIMES SOME OF THOSE DETAILS DON'T GET CAPTURED IN THE MINUTES, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING RELATED TO STORM WATER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. NAY, NAY. THREE TWO FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2377.

AMENDMENT TO THE PORTION OF MEADOW MEADOW SUBDIVISION ON 6446 MEADOW LANE. THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2377. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY'S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDING FOR CHANGE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MEADOW LANE, APPROXIMATELY 200 320FT WEST OF SHERRY LANE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT A AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN.

PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SAID PROPERTY FROM CONSERVATION TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FIVE PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. PUBLIC OPINION. GO AHEAD. OKAY. YES, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THE CULVERT GOES, I HAVE A LETTER FROM ROBERT RIVERA AND I ASKED A VERY, VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION TO HIM. AND IN THAT LETTER IT SAYS THAT I TAKE CARE OF AND MAINTAIN THE LAND LEADING UP TO THE CULVERT. AND HE MAINTAINS THE LAND ON TOP OF THE CULVERT. AND ORIGINALLY THE CITY WAS GOING TO ALLOW US TO PUT A FENCE THERE, AND IT WAS GOING TO BE ON THE CITY SIDE, BECAUSE FENCE HAS BEEN NEEDED THERE FOR 30 YEARS. SO, AND PART OF ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS WAS THE FENCE HAS TO BE REMOVED IF THE CITY EVER NEEDS TO COME THERE. AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR WHOLE GOAL IS. HERE IS A FENCE AND A SEAWALL. OKAY, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING ELSE, YOU KNOW, SO I JUST I DID JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, TO MENTION THAT REGARDING THE CULVERT AND IF I, IF ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WOULD STORM RELATED IMPROVEMENTS OR YES, I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY. OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS WE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN OUR PRIVACY AND NOT HAVE STRANGERS WALKING UP ON US LIKE DEAD END USA, ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE MOVE FOR APPROVAL. I'LL SECOND MAKER. I'M GOOD. SECOND. WELL, I DO WANT TO MAKE A LITTLE COMMENT HERE ABOUT THE LDRB AND YOU KNOW, TO COUNCILMAN BUTLER'S COMMENT. THERE REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING THAT STATES ANY QUESTION ABOUT CULVERT OR MAINTENANCE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST REALLY TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SLABS AND TREES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE ITEMS THAT WE ARE. I MEAN, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY A CONCERN. SO DEFINITELY WANT TO JUST MAKE NOTE FOR SECOND READING THAT

[01:25:01]

THAT'S ADDRESSED. NO, I, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR COMPORTMENT AND THE WAY IN WHICH YOU'VE ADDRESSED THIS AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK AND AGAIN, APOLOGIZE THAT WE DID NOT TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY ON EVERY MEMBER OF THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PAYS AN ANNUAL STORMWATER ASSESSMENT. AND I THINK PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE US TREATED PROPERLY. YOUR WILLINGNESS IS GOING TO HAVE ME VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE VOTED FOR, BUT I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL FOR HAVING AN OPEN MIND.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AREA AND SEE WHAT'S BEST, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO TO, TO WORK WITH US IN WHATEVER DESIGN MIGHT COME UP FROM IT THAT WE MAY NEED TO HAVE ASSISTANCE WITH. YEAH, JUST TO SAY IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK, THINK OF THE LONG TERM SO THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T BECOME THAT HOA THAT NEGLECTED AN AREA FOR 30 YEARS.

AND SO I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO COME HERE AND SPEAK TO THIS, BECAUSE NOT A LOT OF APPLICANTS OR PEOPLE FROM NEIGHBORHOODS USUALLY COME OUT TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE. SO THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE NECESSARY CONTEXT, WHICH MADE THE DECISION A LOT MORE DIFFICULT. SO I APPRECIATE IT. AND I, I DEFINITELY SYMPATHIZE WITH WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE THERE. I JUST, I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT OUR, OUR CITY SHOULD BE ADDRESSING IF WE PLANNED FOR IT TO BE CONSERVATION. THANK YOU. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY I, I, I THOSE OPPOSED. IT IS 4 TO 1. THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026. THANK YOU VERY

[9.f) First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2372: Rezoning of 5820 Missouri Avenue from Multi-Family Medium Density Residential (MF-14) District to Downtown (D) District]

MUCH. THANKS GUYS. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2370. REZONING OF 5820 MISSOURI AVENUE. FROM MULTIFAMILY TO MEDIUM DENSITY. THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026 2372. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING DISTRICT MAP PROVIDING FOR REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.17 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MISSOURI AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET. 5820 MISSOURI AVENUE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. DESIGNATION FOR SAID PROPERTY FROM THE MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MF 14 DISTRICT TO THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. AND MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, SO YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO OPEN IT UP TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, ASK QUESTIONS IF THEY DESIRE, AND TO MAKE A REBUTTAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD, DALE, YOU YOU INTRODUCED THE AGENDA ITEM AS PART OF HIS RECALLING OF THE ORDINANCE. SO WE'LL ASK MR. HALL TO GO FORWARD WITH HIS POWERPOINT. THANK YOU, MISS MANCE. THE REQUEST IS AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING DISTRICT MAP FROM MULTIFAMILY. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY. RESIDENTIAL MF 14 TO DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MISSOURI AVENUE AND ADAMS STREET. THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE IS DOWNTOWN AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS MF 14. THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO DEVELOP A STANDALONE OFF STREET PRIVATE PARKING LOT. IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THIS SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY.

IT WAS DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN 1952 AND IN TWO 2016 THE DWELLING WAS DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED. SO IT IS A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND. LIKE I MENTIONED IN. IT WAS ZONED MF TWO PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF OUR LDC, WHICH CHANGED THAT TO MF 14. THERE'S A PARCEL OF LAND. THE PINK COLOR IS THE DOWNTOWN CORE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE GREEN COLOR IS DOWNTOWN FUTURE LAND USE. THE GREEN COLOR ON THE ZONING IS DOWNTOWN AND THE ORANGE IS THE MF 14, WHICH. THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LISTS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT SHOW THE APPLICABILITY TO THE REZONING REQUEST, AND THIS RELATES TO THE ONES THAT WE SHOW HERE RELATE TO THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE LAND USES. IT'S IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE IN GREATER DETAIL, BUT KNOW THAT THEY DO RELATE TO THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE LAND USES AS REQUESTED. NOW, THE CURRENT MF 14 DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. THERE ARE DIFFERENT

[01:30:03]

USES WITH IT OR LAND USES WITHIN THAT FUTURE LAND USE, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE IN DETAIL. SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT. BUT THERE WAS A THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT EXTENDING THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT TO THE EAST AND SOUTHEAST INTO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE INTENDED DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN, IS A STANDALONE PARKING LOT. BUT REZONING THIS TO DOWNTOWN WOULD NOT RESTRICT ALL THE OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN DOWNTOWN.

THIS IS THE LIST OF ALL THE COMPATIBLE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN DOWNTOWN. IF THIS WAS ZONED TO THAT REQUEST. SO IN ZONING THIS FOR THAT USE, THE OWNER COULD ALSO DO ANY ONE OF THESE. NOW THESE ARE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LISTS THESE ITEMS THAT YOU SHOULD BE ADDRESSING. AND ONE OF THEM IS NUMBER NUMBER TWO. IS THIS THE MOST SUITABLE USE FOR THAT PROPERTY? NUMBER THREE DOES THE PRESENT ZONING THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY, DOES IT CURRENTLY WORK? THE NEXT ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS BASICALLY DOES THE IS THE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING LAND USE IN THE AREA? IS THE REQUEST COMPATIBLE? FIVE IS THERE A SUITABLE TRANSITION TO THE INTENSITY? IF YOU WERE TO ZONE IT TO THIS. NUMBER EIGHT, IS THIS ZONING PERHAPS PREMATURE? IS THERE ARE THERE OTHER CONDITIONS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT SHOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THIS REZONING IS DONE? AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, IS IS IT SUITABLE? IS THE REQUEST SUITABLE? IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THE REQUEST? SO TAKING THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS DOWNTOWN AND DOWNTOWN ZONING IN THE DOWNTOWN FUTURE LAND USE COULD BE R-1 COULD BE R2, R3 COULD BE MF TEN, COULD BE GOVERNMENT OFFICE OR DOWNTOWN. SO ALL OF THOSE ARE ALLOWED PRESENTLY IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ZONING CATEGORY FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF DOWNTOWN. SO THE PROPOSED REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE COMP PLAN HAS. BUT THERE WERE OTHER ITEMS DURING THE DRC. THEY FOUND THAT THE. AGAIN, THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS, BUT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT ALIGNING WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES THAT WERE SET FORTH IN THE COMP PLAN.

THEY THOUGHT THAT THERE'D BE A POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE AREA. SO THE DRC RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST AT THE DRB. THEY AGREED WITH THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE DRC AND THE DRB AGAIN ALSO DID RECOMMENDED OF DENIAL. THIS THIS REQUEST WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED AND THERE WAS A NOTICE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500FT. THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED AND THERE WAS A NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE TAMPA BAY TIMES. I AM AWARE THERE WERE INDIVIDUALS THAT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS AT THE LDRLDRB, AND THEY ALSO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION TO THE CITY CLERK IN THEIR OPPOSITION, AND I THINK THEY MIGHT BE HERE TONIGHT. THIS COMPLETES THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AND THE APPLICANT, IF THEY'RE HERE AND WISH TO SPEAK AFTER THEIR PRESENTATION. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THE APPLICANT OR THE ENGINEER IS IN ATTENDANCE. TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. DO YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, MAYOR DAVIS? I DO HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. THE FIRST PERSON I HAVE IS MANUEL ZURITA. MR. MAYOR, CAN WE CONFIRM FOR THE RECORD WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE AND WANTS TO SPEAK FIRST? APPARENTLY, NO ONE IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MANUEL. I LIVE AT 5811 MONTANA AVENUE.

EVEN THOUGH MY ADDRESS IS ON MONTANA STREET. BELOW, MY ACTUAL FRONT DOOR FACES ADAMS STREET AND LOOKS FORWARD AT THAT WONDERFUL LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I COME TO GIVE MY PERSPECTIVE ON CHANGING IT AND MAKING IT NONRESIDENTIAL AND EXTENDING THE DISTRICT DOWN THE COMMERCIAL AREA INTO OUR AREA. IN MY MIND, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IF YOU WELL,

[01:35:01]

PARKING LOT MIGHT GET AWAY WITH IT, BUT IT COULD TURN INTO ANYTHING. AND AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO DRAW A LINE OF WHERE THE THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS GOING TO BE AT AND WHETHER RESIDENTIAL STARTS. AND THIS IS, I GUESS THIS WE'RE CROSSING IT. I ALWAYS WONDER WHAT SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS I WAS ON, THE BAD OR THE GOOD SIDE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE I'M ON THE BAD SIDE. BUT I THINK IT'LL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON MY MY PROPERTY VALUE, MY PEACE OF MIND TRAFFIC. OKAY, THE PARKING LOT MAY GET AWAY WITH IT, BUT IF IT CHANGES INTO A COMMERCIAL AREA, GOD FORBID A BAR AND PEOPLE ARE HANGING OUT AND PARKING THEIR CARS OR THEIR GOLF CARTS ALL OVER THE PLACE IN MY DRIVEWAY, PROBABLY THEY DO IT WHEN THERE'S ANY OTHER FESTIVITIES IN DOWNTOWN. SO IF THAT'S RIGHT THERE AND IT CAUSES PARKING ISSUES, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO ME TOO. SO I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE SPECIFIC BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE THERE. ALSO, THE CITY HAS RECENTLY EXPRESSED. I COULDN'T FIND THE THE DOCUMENTS THAT WHERE YOU'RE EXPRESSING SOME CONCERN FOR THE AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY AND LOOKING TO PROMOTE SOME OF THAT. AND IF IT'S IF IT'S A IT'S GOING TO BE A MULTI RESIDENTIAL. I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD CHANGE IT, WHY WE SHOULD LOOK TO CHANGE IT TO A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION AND IN FACT, TURN BACK FROM THAT CONCERN FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YEAH, I'M REAL CERTAIN THAT MY PROPERTY VALUES WOULD REDUCE IF YOU CHANGE IT TO COMMERCIAL AND THAT AT WHAT POINT IN TIME YOU DRAW THE LINE. BECAUSE OF MY PROPERTY VALUES AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY GO DOWN. SO MAYBE THE NEXT THING IS TO COME AND REQUEST THAT MY PROPERTY RETURN TO COMMERCIAL, AND YOU CAN HAVE ANOTHER BAR ON THE NEXT CORNER. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? DID HAVE A SECOND PERSON, PJ ACHARYA. MY NAME. I DIDN'T PLAN ON SPEAKING. PJ KOREA, 5821 MONTANA AVENUE.

I. I WAS I'M RETIRED FROM THE AIR FORCE 20 YEARS AND RETIRED FROM TEACHING 22 YEARS AND.

THANK YOU. AND I, I KNEW THAT WE HAD A LOT OF ACRONYMS, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT MORE. I HAVEN'T I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU GUYS WERE EVEN TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, BUT I AM HERE ON BEHALF. JUST LIKE WITH MANUEL, I LIVE RIGHT BEHIND THAT PROPERTY AND I WOULD REALLY HATE TO SEE IT BECOME ANYTHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL. BECAUSE IF IT IS A PARKING LOT, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE VERY LOUD. IT'S GOING TO BE LOUDER THAN WHAT IT IS NOW. I HAVE FOUGHT SINCE I'VE BEEN THERE. IT USED TO BE CALLED NEWPORT RICKETY HERE AND NOW IT'S NOT IT'S NO LONGER IT'S THAT TERMINOLOGY IS NO LONGER BECAUSE YOU GUYS HAVE DONE SUCH A GREAT JOB WITH BRINGING THE CITY TO EVERYBODY. AND TAMPA COMES TO NEWPORT, RICHIE. EVERYBODY'S COMING TO NEWPORT. RICHIE. AND OF COURSE, WHERE DID THEY LIKE TO PARK? IN MANUEL'S YARD AND MINE. BUT NOW THEY HAVE A SIDEWALK TO PARK ON. I'M VERY HAPPY ABOUT THE SIDEWALK. SO THE THEY USED TO PARK RIGHT UP IN MY FRONT YARD, AND WE'D HAVE TO HAVE THE POLICE COME AND ASK THEM TO MOVE. IT WAS PRETTY AMAZING HOW THEY WOULD JUST DO THAT. SO I HAD CALLED THE ATTORNEY WHEN I GOT THE LETTER, AND HE SAID THEY WERE LOOKING AT MAYBE PUTTING NINE PARKING SPACES THAT THEY WERE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, CHARGE TO HAVE PEOPLE PARK THERE. NINE IS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER PLACES THAT PEOPLE CAN PARK. YOU GUYS BUILT THAT BEAUTIFUL PLACE OVER THERE ON 19, RIGHT BY THE COLLEGE. THEY CAN COME BACK AND FORTH, BUT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT. THEY PARK IN MY FRONT YARD. THEY PARK WHERE WE PARK. I DON'T HAVE A GARAGE, SO WE PARK ON THE STREET. AND SO THAT IS MY THAT'S MY ONLY PLACE TO PARK UNLESS I PARK IN THE ALLEY. AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO PARK IN THE ALLEY AND HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, GET OUT OF MY CAR AT 11:00 AT NIGHT. IT'S NOT FAIR. SO YEAH, I'M AND I'M WORRIED TOO, BECAUSE WHEN I TALK TO THE ATTORNEY, WHEN WE GOT THE LETTER, THEY SAID THEY MIGHT SAY PARKING, BUT THEN THEY COULD TURN IT INTO ANYTHING THEY DESIRE. IT COULD BE A BAR BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE VERY POPULAR AND EVERYBODY'S COMING TO THEM, AND WE'RE HAPPY THAT EVERYBODY'S COMING TO NEW PORT RICHEY, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THAT IN OUR BACKYARD. AND IT LITERALLY WOULD BE IN MY BACKYARD. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHRIS HOOVER. I LIVE AT 5830 MISSOURI

[01:40:06]

AVENUE. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE COULD MEAN FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVE AROUND THIS PROPERTY. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS RESIDENTIAL, ALTHOUGH WE'RE ON THE EDGE OF THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, THE PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SAME BLOCK AS 5820. MISSOURI ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND FOR THE RESIDENTS LIKE ME, THIS IS NOT JUST AN ABSTRACT ZONING ISSUE, IT'S OUR DAILY ENVIRONMENT. AS MY NEIGHBOR SAID, IF THEIR PROPERTY REMAINS RESIDENTIALLY ORIENTED, THE TYPES AND INTENSITY OF THE ACTIVITY THAT CAN OCCUR THERE ARE RELATIVELY PREDICTABLE. BUT IF IT'S REZONED DOWNTOWN, HOWEVER, THE RANGE OF POTENTIAL USES BECOMES MUCH BROADER. WE COULD EVENTUALLY BE DEALING WITH INCREASED VEHICLE TRAFFIC, CUSTOMERS COMING AND GOING, ADDITIONAL PARKING, DEMAND DELIVERIES, COMMERCIAL LIGHTING, OUTDOOR ACTIVITY, AND POTENTIALLY NIGHTTIME NOISE.

THE POINT IS, WE DON'T KNOW TODAY WHAT A FUTURE OWNER MIGHT EVENTUALLY DEVELOP THEIR. AND THE APPLICANT'S CURRENT INTENTIONS MAY BE ENTIRELY REASONABLE. BUT ZONING IS NOT TEMPORARY, AND IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY REMAIN TIED TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE PERSON REQUESTING IT TODAY. IF THE CITY GRANTS DOWNTOWN ZONING, THAT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL COULD REMAIN WITH THE PROPERTY, EVEN IF IT'S SOLD YEARS FROM NOW, TO SOMEONE WITH A VERY DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT SHOULD BE BUILT THERE. THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THE BOARD SHOULD ASK WHETHER THE ZONING DESIGNATION ITSELF IS APPROPRIATE, AND NOT SIMPLY WHETHER THE APPLICANT'S PRESENT PROPOSAL SOUNDS ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS A VERY SMALL PARCEL, APPROXIMATELY 7500FT■!S, SITTING DIRECTLY ALONGSIDE AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THE BOARD APPROVES A ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT ALLOWS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE INTENSIVE ACTIVITY, WHERE DOES THE ACTIVITY GO AND WHO BEARS THE CONSEQUENCES? IF THE SITE CANNOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE ACTIVITY? AND THE ANSWER IS THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS WILL EXPERIENCE THESE CONSEQUENCES. SO I'M NOT ASKING THE CITY TO LEAVE THIS PROPERTY UNDEVELOPED FOREVER. I'M JUST ASKING FOR APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT THAT RESPECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ALREADY THERE. IF THE IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LOCATION, I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE A ZONING DESIGNATION THAT PROVIDES A REASONABLE TRANSITION BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SURROUNDING THE PARCEL. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO DENY THE REQUESTED ZONING. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? MY NAME IS ROWENA HOFER. I LIVE AT 5830 MISSOURI AVENUE, 5820 MISSOURI AVENUE SITS AT THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN, BUT IT'S ALSO PART OF THE EAST GRANDE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS A LONG ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA AND PART OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN NEW PORT RICHEY. SOME OF THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE BUILT AROUND THE SAME TIME AS CITY LANDMARKS LIKE THE HACIENDA HOTEL THAN THE RICHER SUNCOAST THEATER. IN FACT, MY OWN HOME WILL TURN 100 YEARS OLD IN 2028. THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE EAST GRAND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE FLEW 1.2 CALLS FOR MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, PROMOTING TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT, FAMILY ORIENTATION AND SMALL TOWN CHARACTER. AN FLU 1.2.4 SAYS THAT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM THE ENCROACHMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES. IF THE LOT. AT 5820 MISSOURI IS GRANTED DOWNTOWN ZONING, IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY EXPAND THE RANGE AND INTENSITY OF USES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR THERE, INCLUDING MANY THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS COULD RESULT IN THE GENERATION OF SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TRAFFIC, PARKING DEMAND, NIGHTTIME ACTIVITY, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION DELIVERIES, PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY WITH AN INEVITABLE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NEARBY RESIDENTS. THE CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY IS MUCH MORE THAN A COLLECTION OF BARS AND RESTAURANTS. IT HAS A RICH, VIBRANT HISTORY THAT GROUNDS THE COMMUNITY AND DRAWS NEW RESIDENTS AND VISITORS ALIKE. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THIS REZONING APPLICATION AND OPT INSTEAD TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF ONE

[01:45:04]

OF THE CITY'S HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SO BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY, BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION. VOTE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF OUR BOARDS AND DENY THE REQUEST. SECOND MAKER, I THINK VERY ELOQUENT CONVERSATIONS AND VERY WELL SPOKEN BY EVERYONE WHO ADDRESSED US. AND AS IT WAS PRESENTED, WE DO DESPERATELY NEED PARKING, BUT YOU MAKE A GREAT CASE. AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. SECOND, YEAH, JUST TO SAY THAT THERE WAS THE LARGER CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CONCERN FOR TO CHANGE TO SOME OTHER USE THAT'S MORE INTENSE THAN A PARKING LOT THAT THAT CONCERN I SHARE. AND THEN RELATED TO THE PARKING LOT ITSELF, THERE ARE NO PARKING LOTS NOT IN OUR DOWNTOWN THAT SERVE A PURPOSE FOR A STRUCTURE THAT'S LOCATED THERE. THE WEST PASCO ART GUILD IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE RIGHT UP THE ROAD. THIS. HOWEVER, IT'S. IT'S. ITS PURPOSE IS CONNECTED TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE. SO TO THE POINT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? THIS IS THIS IS CLEARLY GOING TO EXTEND THAT LINE BEYOND WHERE WE INTENDED IT TO BE, BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE USING THAT ARE THOSE BEING SERVICED BY THE DOWNTOWN CORE.

SO IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE WE HOLD FIRM AND PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND FIND OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS PARKING IN DOWNTOWN. AND YEAH, JUST JUST LOOKING AT IT JUST IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A MAP. SO YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH IT, RIGHT? NO, I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL THE RESIDENTS FOR COMING OUT AND, YOU KNOW, SHOWING YOUR SUPPORT FOR, YOU KNOW, LOOKING OUT FOR YOUR COMMUNITY. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE RIGHT THERE ADJACENT TO DOWNTOWN, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT INSIDE YOUR YARD. AND TO ME, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS AND I JUST CAN'T SEE THE FEASIBILITY OF BUILDING A NINE SPACE PARKING LOT AND HOW THAT WOULD WARRANT, YOU KNOW, THE COST OF THAT. SO I JUST THINK THAT'S JUST A LITTLE OUT OF SIGHT OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE. SO GO ALONG WITH THESE OTHER COMMENTS. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IF WE TRIED TO GROW THE COMMERCIAL SIZE OF DOWNTOWN, THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT. NOT AT ALL. JUST PIECE BY PIECE AND GROW INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT THE WAY I'D LIKE TO DO IT. SO WE VOTING YES GO IN THE AFFIRMATIVE WOULD BE A VOTE TO DENY THE APPLICATION. CORRECT. IN DENYING THE APPLICATION. THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY I I THAT'S FIVE NOTHING. FIRST READING OF

[9.g) First Reading, Ordinance No. 2026-2378: Amendment of Chapter 3, Code of Ordinances RE: Prohibitions on Alcoholic Beverage Possession or Consumption in Open Containers]