On the agenda

1. 0.aRoll Call▶ 0:00
2. 0.b

   Pledge of Allegiance

   Pledge of Allegiance and procedural reminder to silence cell phones.

   ▶ Jump to 0:39 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:39] If we stand for the pledge, please. [00:00:44] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America [00:00:48] and to the republic for which it stands, [00:00:51] one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty [00:00:56] and justice for all. [00:00:59] Thank you. [00:01:02] OK, if anybody in the audience has cell phones on, [00:01:05] if you could please quieten those. [00:01:07] And you're going to take over? [00:01:10] Can you read your homes? [00:01:11] No. [00:01:11] Oh, yeah. [00:01:14] Our first case today is case for, I'm sorry,

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 0.cApproval of Minutes: November 17, 2016▶ 1:15
4. 1

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “4808 Square Rigger Court” — transcript expanded below

   Amended Land Use Plan Amendment LUP2015-02 – Hyundai - 4727 US Highway 19

   discussed

   The LDRB reheard amended Land Use Plan Amendment LUP2015-02 for a 10.21-acre property at 4727 US Highway 19, proposing to change the land use from HDR30 (high density residential) to highway commercial with approximately 1.7 acres designated as conservation (the wetland area). The amendment would facilitate a Hyundai inventory car storage lot. Several neighboring residents from Square Rigger Court raised concerns about noise, light pollution, tree removal, and property values, though most did not oppose the land use change itself.

   Ord. Ordinance #2016-2098

   📍4727 US Highway 19📍4742 Square Rigger Court📍4754 Square Rigger Court📍4758 Square Rigger Court📍4800 Square Rigger Court📍4804 Square Rigger Court📍4808 Square Rigger Court🏢Hyundai of New Port Richey🏢Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFMUD/SwiftMud)🏢Spring Engineering👤Chuck Dayhoff👤Darryl Stidham👤Diane Gilman👤Ed Naramore👤Gibson Lawrence👤Harold Howard👤Lisa👤Mr. Fink👤Mr. Karpus👤Mr. Mettler👤Raleigh Dove#25-foot wetland buffer#HDR30 high density residential#LUP2015-02#Newport Richey tree ordinance#coastal high hazard area#conservation land use category#highway commercial land use category

   ▶ Jump to 1:41 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:41] OK, back to our first case today is for amended land use plan [00:01:50] application LUP-2015-02, Nyong'o of New Port Richey. [00:01:58] And Lisa, if you want to give us information on that. [00:02:01] Thank you. [00:02:02] Mr. Karpus will be presenting this case today. [00:02:05] I just have one question before we get started. [00:02:07] This is a case that we had heard previously, is that correct? [00:02:10] That's correct. [00:02:11] And I was kind of curious as to why we saw it again, [00:02:15] as to why I thought ours was just a recommendation to the city council [00:02:20] and that they had the prerogative to go ahead and amend that [00:02:24] and to work around it. [00:02:25] So I was kind of curious as to why we were seeing it again. [00:02:28] That's right. [00:02:29] And I know Mr. Karpus is anxious to tell you this, [00:02:32] but I'll just get to the answer. [00:02:34] And the reason it actually went to city council [00:02:36] as a first reading item after your public hearing [00:02:39] and your positive recommendation, it was decided at that public hearing [00:02:43] that we wanted to go back and revise the ordinance [00:02:46] to include the wetland area as conservation category. [00:02:51] And the upland area is considered the highway commercial land [00:02:55] use category. [00:02:55] And in essence, that's the change to the ordinance. [00:02:58] But we had to go back through the process in order to get it corrected. [00:03:04] Thank you. [00:03:09] Good afternoon. [00:03:10] Lisa took all my fun. [00:03:13] So again, you have looked at this before, the subject property is 10.21 acres. [00:03:25] The proposal is to change the land use that's currently on there [00:03:34] from HDR30, high density residential, to highway commercial category [00:03:40] to facilitate the development of the site into an inventory car use lot. [00:03:47] The amended plan, as Lisa had said, is going [00:03:51] to include about 1.7 acres of conservation area. [00:03:56] On the next slide here, you'll see that on right about there. [00:04:02] That green area would be a conservation area [00:04:05] that would not be able to be developed as part of the plan. [00:04:10] Now, this is only for the land use amendment. [00:04:13] This is not a site plan at this point, so there's no development on this site. [00:04:18] So setbacks and all that type of stuff for the parking lot [00:04:21] would still need to be determined. [00:04:24] Here's the actual survey showing the wetland area versus the upland area, [00:04:34] which was provided by the applicant. [00:04:37] Here are the pictures that you'd seen before previously of the dealership, [00:04:43] and then the view of the subject property. [00:04:45] Now, the proposal meets the concurrency requirements [00:04:51] and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. [00:04:54] And I'll make the note that was made previously by Mr. Mettler [00:04:56] is that the comprehensive plan encourages commercial developments [00:05:03] along Highway 19 and discourages residential developments [00:05:07] in the coastal high hazard areas. [00:05:10] And this property is in the coastal high hazard area, [00:05:13] so it would discourage the developments [00:05:15] under the current land use designation. [00:05:23] So that's what we have. [00:05:24] I could also add to his presentation. [00:05:28] This is a quasi-judicial review, and those proceedings would be appropriate. [00:05:34] We've gone off script just a little bit, [00:05:36] but you would want to invite the public to address this case. [00:05:41] Thank you. [00:05:44] Has anyone had any contact or connection with this previously? [00:05:49] You should also declare it now, right? [00:05:55] No. [00:05:56] Anybody on the board? [00:06:01] Yes. [00:06:02] All right. [00:06:03] Have we received what the state setback is from jurisdictional wetlands? [00:06:14] Right. [00:06:15] And there wouldn't be anything in this land use plan, [00:06:17] but that is a site plan related provision. [00:06:23] SwiftMUD, Southwest Florida Water Management District, [00:06:26] is the regulator regarding wetlands. [00:06:28] And they have a 25 foot setback requirement [00:06:31] that I'm sure the applicant's engineer would [00:06:33] be able to address to you as well, in case he [00:06:35] has received the SwiftMUD permit. [00:06:43] What's that? [00:06:44] That's up to the chair. [00:06:47] We were going to have them talk, and at that point, [00:06:51] I think you could ask some questions. [00:06:54] Right now, it's just asking if anybody on the board [00:06:57] had questions of staff, if there was anything [00:06:59] they had a question of staff about. [00:07:04] Seeing no questions at this time, we'll [00:07:06] go ahead and ask if there's anybody here that [00:07:08] would like to talk to the application. [00:07:13] Please identify yourself and your address. [00:07:20] Good afternoon. [00:07:21] My name is Raleigh Dove of Spring Engineering, [00:07:23] and I do represent the applicant. [00:07:26] In response to your question, there is a 25 foot buffer [00:07:29] along the wetland areas on both the north and west sides, [00:07:33] and we will have to honor that particular buffer. [00:07:37] You don't have an overhead, do you? [00:07:41] Back to the aerial map. [00:07:44] She wants to show his thing. [00:07:46] Oh, we don't have that one. [00:07:51] Can we use the pointer, Raleigh? [00:07:55] It's the top one. [00:07:57] OK. [00:08:03] On that side? [00:08:03] It's the top. [00:08:04] Yeah. [00:08:04] OK. [00:08:05] That buffer would be this green area [00:08:12] along the north and the west side of the property. [00:08:16] The wetland itself is a man-made upland cut ditch [00:08:20] done many, many years ago, and it's [00:08:22] been there so long that it is now, in fact, jurisdictional. [00:08:26] And Swift Mud has claimed that as a wetland, [00:08:28] so we have to honor the 25 foot buffer setback [00:08:32] from the inside buffer line there, inside wetland line. [00:08:54] Any other questions? [00:08:56] Any other questions? [00:08:58] Yeah. [00:08:58] No. [00:08:59] I think that's the thing. [00:09:02] Any other presentation? [00:09:03] Is that just? [00:09:04] OK. [00:09:05] Is there anybody here that would [00:09:09] like to speak against the proposal? [00:09:13] I'd like to see this diagram. [00:09:15] You want to come up? [00:09:19] Please identify yourself and address. [00:09:21] My name is Ed Naramore. [00:09:22] I live at 4758 Square Riga Court, [00:09:25] which is one of the townhomes that borders that northern [00:09:30] strip that you're talking about. [00:09:32] I just wonder if we could see that diagram. [00:09:34] Go back a couple. [00:09:36] Not the one before that. [00:09:37] This one. [00:09:38] OK. [00:09:38] This one here. [00:09:39] This is what I was trying to see. [00:09:41] This is what it would look like. [00:09:45] Yeah. [00:09:45] I think they're 25 foot. [00:09:48] Yeah. [00:09:48] So you got about 56 feet, and then another 25 feet. [00:09:52] It's about 56 feet wide, it looks like. [00:09:55] Sir, we're going to have to have you speak into the microphone, [00:09:57] if you don't mind, when you address the board. [00:10:00] Thank you. [00:10:04] Aside from the diagram there, on the north side [00:10:08] there, there's a, how wide is that, those two parallel lines? [00:10:15] Yeah. [00:10:20] I would prefer that the applicant respond, [00:10:24] because it's his survey. [00:10:26] We would ask Mr. Dove to speak to the issue. [00:10:29] Thank you. [00:10:38] The width of the wetland line varies a little bit, [00:10:41] but it's somewhere between 55, and in the case on the west [00:10:45] side, as much as 70 feet wide. [00:10:47] So we would have a buffer between the rear of those lots [00:10:51] to the north, and the development area for the car [00:10:55] dealership of 55 plus 25, which would [00:10:59] be about 80 feet of total buffer. [00:11:02] And then in addition to that, we have [00:11:03] to provide the city required landscape buffer. [00:11:07] So you're going to end up with 80 or so feet, 80 plus maybe 10 [00:11:12] feet of buffer area there. [00:11:17] Mr. Dove, would you be able to re-explain that [00:11:20] with the pointer, so that the audience [00:11:23] has the benefit of you showing them, as well as telling them? [00:11:29] Sure. [00:11:30] The width of the wetland itself, which is the upland cut ditch, [00:11:36] varies from, say, 55 feet, maybe a little bit more [00:11:40] along this area, to as much as 70 feet along the west side. [00:11:44] Then in addition to that, we have the 25 feet of upland [00:11:49] buffer that the water management district requires. [00:11:52] And then in addition to that, we have the city [00:11:54] required landscape buffer. [00:11:56] So you're going to end up with, say, 55 plus 25, maybe plus 10, [00:12:02] as a total buffer width of between 80 and 90 feet [00:12:05] from the backs of the lots over here. [00:12:09] That answers my question. [00:12:10] Thank you. [00:12:12] Any other comments? [00:12:14] Anybody else to speak against? [00:12:17] Please identify yourself and address. [00:12:21] My name is Darryl Stidham, 4742 Squareberger Court, [00:12:23] New Port Richey. [00:12:24] I have no issue with the land use change at all. [00:12:29] Just something that the north and north wetland [00:12:33] be conserved, or at least make sure that's aware. [00:12:36] Because our bedrooms back up to that. [00:12:39] Every single one of us, our bedrooms are right there. [00:12:42] So that's our big concern. [00:12:44] But I have no issue with the land use change. [00:12:48] Excuse me. [00:12:49] You're saying you're on the north side? [00:12:51] North of it. [00:12:52] Lot 29, or lot 39, 29 in the diary room is where I'm at. [00:12:57] You understand what the buffer is? [00:12:59] Yes, sir, I understand. [00:13:00] And what's existing and all? [00:13:01] I do. [00:13:01] Mr. Chairman, could I ask you to ask the speaker [00:13:04] to spell his name, please? [00:13:08] I didn't catch that. [00:13:09] It is Darryl, D-A-R-R-Y-L, Stidham, S-T-I-D-H-A-M. [00:13:14] Thank you. [00:13:18] Any other comments? [00:13:21] Anybody else to speak against? [00:13:25] Please come forward and identify yourself. [00:13:32] My name is Harold Howard. [00:13:34] I live on 4754 Square Rigger Court, [00:13:37] which is in this same neighborhood, [00:13:39] the north edge of the boundary. [00:13:41] I'm not here to speak against the rezoning [00:13:43] or even against the building of our car lot behind us. [00:13:47] I'd just like the board to remember [00:13:50] that we've got at least 25 families that live back there. [00:13:54] There's already noise pollution coming off [00:13:57] 19 that goes right through those woodlands [00:14:00] you saw on the north edge. [00:14:03] So any removal of any more trees or vegetation [00:14:07] is just going to make it worse. [00:14:09] My other concern is light pollution. [00:14:11] I don't want to live next to a football field that's [00:14:14] on full glare all night long. [00:14:18] And that would, like the other gentleman said, [00:14:21] our bedrooms are right facing that direction. [00:14:25] So I'm really concerned with the noise pollution [00:14:27] from the highway that may be reduced [00:14:30] by the elimination of vegetation and the possible light [00:14:35] pollution that I think we may have if they're [00:14:40] going to be running. [00:14:42] I'm sure they have lighting on their lot that's [00:14:45] going to be on all night long. [00:14:47] And what that's going to mean to us. [00:14:50] Kind of an off issue here is we each [00:14:53] paid $10,000 to face that conservation area [00:14:58] that when we bought. [00:15:00] It was not a conservation area. [00:15:02] That's another issue, but I'm trying to explain here [00:15:07] why this is, I mean, we spent a lot of money [00:15:11] to live right there for that reason. [00:15:15] And the reason is being, [00:15:18] or the value of that is diminishing. [00:15:22] Thank you. [00:15:23] Thank you. [00:15:26] Yes, okay. [00:15:30] Please identify yourself and address. [00:15:35] My name is Gibson Lawrence, [00:15:36] and I live at 4808 Square Rigger Court. [00:15:40] And my concern is, from what I understand, [00:15:43] is if they're gonna leave the wetlands alone, [00:15:46] but I thought they were gonna, [00:15:48] supposed to be some kind of water retention pond [00:15:51] or something built after that for storing water, [00:15:55] and they were gonna use mostly the south end [00:15:57] of the 10 acres. [00:16:05] I think you'd have to refer to the engineer for that site. [00:16:10] I mean, that's from what I got [00:16:11] from the last meeting we were here. [00:16:20] Yes, to address that issue, [00:16:23] we are proposing a retention pond [00:16:26] along the north boundary of the wetland buffer. [00:16:32] That has not yet been designed. [00:16:34] We're not into the site plan stage yet. [00:16:37] So I can't stand here and tell you [00:16:39] what the width of that will be, [00:16:40] but that will be an additional buffer [00:16:43] above and beyond the 25 feet plus the landscape buffer. [00:16:47] While you're here, Mr. Dobb, just one second. [00:16:51] In regards to the lighting, [00:16:53] do you know what will be there at this point, [00:16:55] or is that too early to say also? [00:16:58] No, we've discussed that with Mr. Fink, [00:17:02] and there will be lighting back there. [00:17:04] We can't have an inventory storage lot. [00:17:06] And keep in mind, this is inventory storage. [00:17:08] It's not a lot where the people, [00:17:10] public will be allowed to roam around [00:17:12] and look at cars and this sort of thing. [00:17:14] But there will be a minimum level [00:17:17] just for security purposes. [00:17:18] There will be full cutoff fixtures [00:17:21] so the spillover doesn't go beyond the property lines. [00:17:26] Thank you. [00:17:27] Yes. [00:17:28] What about the noise factor when the trees are removed? [00:17:32] Again, this is an inventory lot, [00:17:34] so you're not gonna have traffic back there. [00:17:36] There's just gonna be cars stored [00:17:39] waiting to be moved up to the front lots. [00:17:41] Is there noise emanating from something beyond that? [00:17:45] What did the gentleman mean when he was afraid of noise? [00:17:50] Ma'am, I'm talking about the highway noise off 19th. [00:17:53] Oh. [00:17:54] The way that lot is angled. [00:17:56] Time out, time out. [00:17:58] You can ask. [00:17:59] If you wanna speak, [00:18:00] you have to come up to the microphone to speak. [00:18:10] What I was talking about specifically [00:18:11] was the highway noise off 19th. [00:18:14] Which is like I said, the way that lot is angled, [00:18:17] it's probably. [00:18:20] But you still have, [00:18:22] can I speak? [00:18:23] Yeah. [00:18:24] But you're still, I mean, [00:18:26] regardless of whether this thing goes through or not, [00:18:29] you're already facing noise from 19th. [00:18:31] Right, right. [00:18:33] I just don't want it to get any worse. [00:18:34] I don't see where this affects it at all. [00:18:37] May affect it, depending on how far they cut. [00:18:41] To make, they've got, [00:18:42] they're gonna give us our 25 feet. [00:18:46] That's how much we've got on the other side [00:18:49] from our house to the canal. [00:18:52] 25 feet. [00:18:54] I don't know how many additional trees beyond that [00:18:56] they're gonna cut down to get to 25 feet. [00:18:59] That's what I'm saying. [00:19:07] Well, they've explained the buffers. [00:19:10] He can explain the buffer, [00:19:11] but I don't think unless we have somebody [00:19:14] out there with decibel meters [00:19:15] that can tell you really scientifically [00:19:18] what's gonna affect it. [00:19:19] I'm not sure that you're gonna get [00:19:21] that answer here today. [00:19:35] Anybody else to speak against? [00:19:38] Or for? [00:19:44] Please identify yourself. [00:19:45] Hi, my name's Diane Gilman at 4800 Square Rigger. [00:19:50] I too am concerned. [00:19:52] My concern is that the conservation area [00:19:58] isn't wide enough at the north end [00:20:03] that it's just not large enough [00:20:11] and that the buffer won't therefore be large enough. [00:20:15] And I too am concerned about the noise [00:20:20] off of 19. [00:20:21] Once you cut down the amount of trees necessary [00:20:27] for the parking lot, [00:20:29] in other words, the more paved lot you have, [00:20:34] obviously the more noise there'll be [00:20:37] that we'll hear from 19, [00:20:40] which I understand we're gonna have more noise, [00:20:43] but the amount of noise is what the concern is. [00:20:47] You know, the additional noise. [00:20:52] And the value to the property, [00:20:56] which we had thought would be a certain amount, [00:21:03] could possibly be now lessened [00:21:06] due to this now construction of an inventory lot, [00:21:12] which we thought was not going to be there [00:21:15] because of the zoning that was there prior, [00:21:20] which is now going to be changed. [00:21:24] Some people looked into the zoning [00:21:26] before they bought the property [00:21:28] and thought that they were okay with buying this property. [00:21:33] And now it's, you know, [00:21:37] a request has been made to be rezoned, [00:21:40] which, you know, maybe they wouldn't have bought [00:21:42] the property because, you know, [00:21:44] and now it's under, it's not under their control now. [00:21:49] So that's a concern. [00:21:51] So that's all I had to say. [00:21:53] Sorry I was so long. [00:21:56] Thank you. [00:21:57] Thank you. [00:21:58] May I ask you a question again, I think, [00:21:59] for clarification in our last meeting, [00:22:01] I think we had made provisions [00:22:03] that if they were cutting trees, [00:22:05] that trees have to be replaced, is that correct? [00:22:07] That's correct. [00:22:08] Yeah, and I just wanted to make sure [00:22:09] that people realize that, [00:22:11] that you can't just go cut trees [00:22:13] without replacing trees, [00:22:14] that trees have to be replanted [00:22:16] and landscaping has to be put in. [00:22:18] So, you know, if you're cutting trees, [00:22:21] there's still a tree ordinance in New Port Richey [00:22:23] that requires that to be done. [00:22:25] Well, I appreciate that clarification myself. [00:22:29] Okay. [00:22:29] Good afternoon. [00:22:30] My name is Chuck Dayhoff. [00:22:31] I'm at 48, or, you know, 4804 Square Ruger Court, [00:22:36] would be impacted by the change. [00:22:40] And we are very concerned. [00:22:43] With the buffer area, [00:22:47] that it is deep enough to maintain the foliage [00:22:51] that is currently there. [00:22:53] Some of those trees are big, beautiful trees, [00:22:57] and replacing with $10 shrubs just wouldn't cut it. [00:23:01] And the noise reduction that we're afforded [00:23:07] by the trees that are currently there, [00:23:10] just unbelievable. [00:23:13] I hope that's all taken into consideration. [00:23:17] You are aware that the 25, [00:23:22] the 50 foot of buffer that's there now [00:23:25] that was dug through Highland [00:23:26] as a drainage ditch years ago, [00:23:29] and then another 25 foot of buffer [00:23:31] you're going to have there, [00:23:32] they're not going to take anything out of that? [00:23:34] They're not taking anything out? [00:23:35] I don't know, I'm asking. [00:23:36] That's what they're saying. [00:23:38] And then you also have an additional buffer. [00:23:41] Then you got an additional buffer [00:23:42] for a landscape buffer to come in there. [00:23:45] And the only other way that I know you could control it [00:23:47] is if you own the property [00:23:48] and said, we don't want to do anything with it. [00:23:51] Because there is such a thing as private property rights [00:23:53] as you have next door and these people have too. [00:23:56] Well, and I understand that. [00:23:58] It's just that it was presented to us [00:24:00] as a conservation area. [00:24:01] Do you understand what they're saying? [00:24:04] Well, if I would have known that a year ago, [00:24:07] I wouldn't have purchased the property. [00:24:08] I would have been fine. [00:24:09] Probably the area that has now been declared [00:24:12] swift mud controlled, the drainage ditch, basically, [00:24:17] I guess we call that a conservation area, right? [00:24:20] We will when we actually categorize it [00:24:23] as a conservation category land use, so yes. [00:24:26] Yeah, so if they do this, [00:24:28] the only thing I can see from what I'm presented is [00:24:32] from they do this, this may be something better [00:24:34] than what could happen on this property. [00:24:37] Yeah, because that may be. [00:24:39] That's quite a buffer. [00:24:41] Yeah, that's a pretty good size buffer [00:24:43] and this ditch was drug right through highland. [00:24:46] All that used to be orange groves years ago. [00:24:48] So it's high sandy soil. [00:24:49] It's not some low swamp. [00:24:51] Everything there all the way to Highway 19 [00:24:53] used to be an orange grove. [00:24:55] So that won't grow in a swamp. [00:24:58] Okay. [00:24:59] Okay. [00:25:00] Thank you. [00:25:01] Mr. Chairman, could I ask you to ask the applicant [00:25:04] to clarify his intention to provide the buffer [00:25:10] that you described as in the... [00:25:14] Mr. Dove is going to come and do that, yes? [00:25:16] I thought he would, so thank you. [00:25:18] I'm all ears. [00:25:20] What now? [00:25:22] If you could please clarify just for one last time [00:25:26] the extent to which the depth of the buffer [00:25:30] will be provided. [00:25:32] It shows from this survey the wetland area [00:25:37] and you've indicated it'd be somewhere between [00:25:39] 50 feet in depth along the north [00:25:42] and 75 feet along the west. [00:25:44] And then you've also identified 25 feet beyond that [00:25:50] coterminous with that wetland buffer. [00:25:54] So that's somewhere in the range of 75 feet as a minimum. [00:25:59] And then I think the question would be, [00:26:01] are you able to speak to the issue [00:26:05] of not removing any trees from that area? [00:26:08] Well, it's an upland buffer that can't be disturbed [00:26:13] without permitting and mitigation. [00:26:15] And for an inventory car lot, the client, I can tell you, [00:26:19] does not want to go to the expense of trying to take away [00:26:22] any of that buffer and go to the cost of mitigation. [00:26:25] So that buffer will remain intact. [00:26:30] In addition, there'll be the retention pond, [00:26:32] which we're working on the size of that now, [00:26:35] plus then a landscape buffer [00:26:38] that will satisfy your requirements. [00:26:40] So we believe there's gonna be adequate buffer [00:26:43] much more than has been provided on the other side [00:26:46] of the upland cut ditch. [00:26:48] So with these things in place, [00:26:52] I believe we've done about all we can do [00:26:55] to comply with the codes and with SWFMUD regulations. [00:26:59] I think the question that they were concerned with [00:27:01] was the trees, existing trees. [00:27:05] Yeah, we will not remove any trees in the buffers. [00:27:08] We can't without mitigating them, [00:27:10] and we don't want to do that. [00:27:11] How far out? [00:27:12] A retention pond, of course, [00:27:13] is gonna require removal of trees. [00:27:16] Yes, the only place we won't remove trees, [00:27:18] let me make it clear, is in the 25-foot upland buffer. [00:27:23] The pond will have to be cleared. [00:27:26] We'll have a landscape buffer. [00:27:28] We'll leave as many natural trees there as we can. [00:27:32] But then beyond that, [00:27:33] we will have to clear for the parking lot. [00:27:39] Any other questions? [00:27:46] Seeing no other comments, we'll put it before the board. [00:27:53] What would you like to do? [00:27:55] I move approval of the recommendation [00:27:57] of the GRC. [00:28:01] Do we have a second? [00:28:02] I'll second it. [00:28:03] Mary seconds. [00:28:06] Have a roll call vote, please. [00:28:08] Mr. Gray? [00:28:09] Yes, to the motion. [00:28:11] Dr. Cato? [00:28:12] Yes, to the motion. [00:28:13] Ms. Michael? [00:28:14] Yes, to the motion. [00:28:15] Ms. Moran? [00:28:16] Yes, to the motion. [00:28:17] Mr. Perrillo? [00:28:18] Yes, to the motion. [00:28:19] Mr. Smith? [00:28:20] Yes, to the motion. [00:28:21] Mr. Smallwood? [00:28:22] Yes, to the motion. [00:28:24] Thank you, and this will go back to city council again, [00:28:28] is that correct? [00:28:29] This will, and the first reading of that ordinance [00:28:32] before city council is, I want to say January 2nd, [00:28:36] if that's the first Tuesday. [00:28:38] The 3rd. [00:28:39] The 3rd, thank you. [00:28:39] January 3rd will be the date that this case [00:28:42] will come to city council in the same room, [00:28:45] in the evening, 7 p.m., [00:28:47] and the recommendation from the Land Development Review Board [00:28:50] will be forwarded to city council. [00:28:53] City council will have a first reading on the 3rd, [00:28:55] and they'll have a second reading sometime thereafter. [00:28:59] We don't know when the second reading will be held, [00:29:01] but the first reading will be held on January 3rd, [00:29:04] Tuesday at 7 p.m. [00:29:06] And city council will have minutes of this [00:29:08] with comments, with all of the comments, too, [00:29:11] so your comments will be in there before. [00:29:13] Thank you.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

5. 2

   Code Amendment COD2016-13 – Definitions

   tabled

   Code amendment COD2016-13 (Definitions) was pulled from the agenda and deferred; no hearing or action was taken.

   Ord. Ordinance #2017-2103

   • direction:Staff pulled and deferred code amendment COD2016-13 from the agenda. (tabled)

   👤Debbie Manns👤Lisa#COD2016-13

   ▶ Jump to 29:19 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:29:20] Our second case today is code amendment. [00:29:26] Second case is code amendment COD-2016-13 definitions. [00:29:34] Applicant is city of New Port Richey, Debbie Manns. [00:29:37] Lisa, you want to take this? [00:29:39] Yeah. [00:29:40] I actually want to pull this case from the agenda. [00:29:43] We are deferring it, so we're not [00:29:45] going to be hearing this today. [00:29:46] So thank you for addressing it, but we are not [00:29:48] addressing it formally today. [00:29:50] OK. [00:29:51] So that one is off the agenda for today.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

6. 3

   Code Amendment COD2016-12 – Chapter 7, Dog-Friendly Dining

   approved

   The LDRB reviewed Code Amendment COD2016-12 to Chapter 7, which would allow dogs at restaurants with outdoor dining areas via a permit process. Staff noted the permit fee would be $50 (one-time, non-transferable), and the board recommended approval to City Council by unanimous roll call vote.

   Ord. Ordinance #2017-2102

   • motion:Recommend approval of Code Amendment COD2016-12 (Chapter 7, Dog-Friendly Dining) to City Council. (passed)7–0

   📍4853 Dogwood Street, Newport-Ritchie👤Debbie Manns👤Dr. Cato👤Lisa👤Mr. Gray👤Mr. Perillo👤Mr. Smallwood👤Mr. Smith👤Ms. Michael👤Ms. Moran👤Robert Davis#COD2016-12#Chapter 7 Dog-Friendly Dining#City of Gulfport (referenced precedent)#Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation#State Department of Hotels and Restaurants

   ▶ Jump to 29:57 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:29:57] Then our final case is code amendment. [00:30:00] is COD 2016-12 Chapter 7, Dog-Friendly Dining, and applicant is City of New Port Richey Debbie Manns, so Lisa, you want to handle that? [00:30:13] Yes, so this one we are addressing today. [00:30:15] Okay. [00:30:16] And it may surprise some of you that we don't already have this provision in our regulations, [00:30:21] but what this will allow are dogs to dine at restaurants that have outdoor dining areas. [00:30:29] So, in effect, a restaurateur will apply for a permit, and they'll show a diagram of their outdoor dining area. [00:30:37] They'll show access to the area. [00:30:39] They'll show where their tables and chairs are going, and they will have regulations they will have to address related to handling of food, [00:30:53] cleaning of tables, and pet owner responsibility. [00:30:58] Oh, that's the nicest way I can say that part of it. [00:31:02] That's pretty good. [00:31:03] You're not going to have poop stations or anything? [00:31:06] There will be a permit that will be required. [00:31:11] The permit will be applicable to the establishment. [00:31:16] It will not be transferable to subsequent owners, but the subsequent owner may apply to have their own permit. [00:31:26] In terms of any complaints that may result from such dog-friendly dining, the Code Enforcement staff will handle complaints and violations. [00:31:36] The staff will report those complaints to the State Department of Hotels and Restaurants through the Department of Business [00:31:46] and Professional Regulation, and it's a very simplistic amendment, even though it's longer than maybe it should be. [00:31:55] It's something that the city attorney is familiar with from his time serving the city of Gulfport. [00:32:03] It's been in use, and it's served that city well. [00:32:07] We actually have one change to mention, which is the fee. [00:32:12] We are suggesting the fee for the permit be $50. [00:32:16] I think the ordinance says $100. [00:32:19] We are going to forward both this ordinance as well as a resolution to include that fee. [00:32:27] We have a resolution of fees that we'll be forwarding to City Council, and we're suggesting a $50 fee for this permit application. [00:32:33] That would be a one-time fee also? [00:32:35] One-time fee, that's correct. [00:32:37] This is not related to service dogs? [00:32:42] This is not related to service dogs. [00:32:43] Service dogs are already permitted wherever service dogs are permitted, which is pretty much everywhere. [00:32:47] This is your pet that you want to bring to dinner with you or to lunch, [00:32:51] and so this will allow you to do that if the restaurant so chooses to do, [00:32:57] and they already have outdoor dining. [00:32:58] This is only for outdoor dining. [00:33:01] So we're looking for a recommendation from this board that we can forward to City Council. [00:33:06] Questions? [00:33:08] Okay, basically I'm in favor of this, but Lisa, do you think I'm wavering on this, [00:33:16] but if an altercation between dogs occurs, that the owner should be able to evict the dogs as he or she feels necessary? [00:33:26] Is that even needed or not? [00:33:29] I'm going to say that's a civil matter that the city attorney is going to have to either agree with me or not on. [00:33:35] I know there's going to be those questions about what if you get bit by the dog that's sitting next to you [00:33:39] and you don't want to dine with the dog. [00:33:43] That's pretty much up to the business owner to handle, and the patron. [00:33:49] There's going to be signs posted, so if you walk in and you decide, [00:33:52] I don't want to dine with dogs, then you can turn back around and walk out. [00:33:57] I think her question was, what if two dogs got in a fight? [00:34:01] I understand. [00:34:02] I think you need to throw the owners of the dogs out along with the dogs. [00:34:05] Right, I understand, and that's going to be up to the business owner to handle. [00:34:09] Should we put it in writing, or will the owners of the dogs, and it doesn't say you can do that? [00:34:17] They should know that. [00:34:19] If I can give you a couple comments on it. [00:34:22] First of all, the restrictions in this ordinance are pretty onerous as it stands, [00:34:27] and the reason they are so onerous is because that's what state law requires. [00:34:32] So I'm not sure I was looking through it to see if state law has something about two dogs fighting, [00:34:38] but everybody's required to keep their dog under control. [00:34:42] Every dog owner has liability for anything their dog does. [00:34:46] We used to have a two-bite rule in the state where the second bite was the one where you got in trouble. [00:34:51] Now there's one-bite rule, so the first bite you're in trouble. [00:34:55] So I think I really can't imagine adding more restrictions to this ordinance, [00:35:01] and most communities that have adopted this have stuck with what state law requires because, like I said, it's pretty onerous. [00:35:07] They have to have hand sanitizer on every table and things like that. [00:35:11] It is, as Lisa said, it's up to the business owner if they want to potentially drive away customers by doing this as well [00:35:19] that may not want to dine with dogs, and then that's up to each individual person [00:35:24] because there's all kinds of signage that's also required. [00:35:27] Again, very onerous and, again, provided by state law. [00:35:31] So I can't imagine you wanting to add anything more to this. [00:35:34] I think it's pretty tough as it is, and it's really going to be up to the businesses to police it. [00:35:39] I kind of agree with that. [00:35:43] Just from personal experience in not New Port Richey but in Pinellas County, [00:35:47] I've been at several, haven't had my dogs there, but at several dining facilities where dogs are at, [00:35:54] and they're usually, people that take them there usually have them under control, [00:35:58] and they're very good, well-behaved dogs. [00:36:00] They're on a leash. [00:36:01] Thank you very much for that commercial. [00:36:03] Yeah. [00:36:04] That's it. [00:36:05] That's the commercial. [00:36:06] Any other questions? [00:36:12] Come forward and state your name and address. [00:36:16] Robert Davis, 4853 Dogwood Street, New Port Richey. [00:36:20] This was brought to my attention by one of the restaurants in town. [00:36:24] We have multiple restaurants that are already doing this, [00:36:28] and it was brought to their attention by the health department [00:36:31] and said that the city didn't have an ordinance, [00:36:33] and when he comes back in six months he would fine him $500 if the city didn't address this problem. [00:36:43] Good. [00:36:44] Thank you. [00:36:45] That's not making it any more complicated than it is, and I'll move it. [00:36:47] We approve whatever you got there, Lisa. [00:36:49] I'll second it. [00:36:51] I have a motion and a second. [00:36:52] Can we have a roll call vote, please? [00:36:55] Mr. Perillo? [00:36:56] Yes, to the motion. [00:36:57] Mr. Smallwood? [00:36:58] Yes, to the motion. [00:36:59] Mr. Smith? [00:37:00] Yes, to the motion. [00:37:01] Dr. Cato? [00:37:02] Yes, to the motion. [00:37:03] Ms. Moran? [00:37:04] Yes, to the motion. [00:37:05] Ms. Michael? [00:37:06] Yes. [00:37:07] Mr. Gray? [00:37:08] Yes, to the motion. [00:37:14] Okay.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

7. 4

   Adjourn

   The board exchanged holiday greetings, noted the next meeting would be January 19, 2017, and adjourned by motion.

   • motion:Motion to adjourn the meeting. (passed)

   👤Lisa

   ▶ Jump to 37:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:37:15] I think that concludes our regular business. [00:37:17] Do we have any other business, Lisa? [00:37:19] Well, I would like to say Merry Christmas to you all. [00:37:23] And to you as well. [00:37:24] Thank you. [00:37:25] And I would like to wish you all a safe and happy and healthy new year. [00:37:29] And tell you that January 19th of 2017, if you can believe that, [00:37:35] will be the next time I see you, if not earlier. [00:37:38] And I want to thank you for your attendance today. [00:37:41] Thank you. [00:37:43] Any other comments? [00:37:44] Anybody else have any? [00:37:45] Move we adjourn. [00:37:46] Motion to adjourn. [00:37:50] All in favor. [00:37:51] Aye. [00:37:52] Aye. [00:37:53] Aye.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.