►
From YouTube: City of Oldsmar Ordiance Review Committee, 7/6/2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
I
said
if
you're
the
one
making
these
decisions
or
any
arborist
that
comes
after
you,
my
suggestion
to
him
was
to
leave
it
alone,
because,
if
you're
coming
up
onto
a
sidewalk,
that's
within
the
city's
right
of
way
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
curb,
then,
if
you
think,
a
smaller
tree
would
be
better
there.
If
a
diseased
tree
had
to
be
removed,
then
you
could
make
that
call.
A
A
The
only
other
thing
that
we
discussed
was
there's
another
ordinance
section
that
isn't
on
our
review
materials
and
tom.
I
don't
know
if
you're
familiar
with
it,
but
it's
section
1201
and
the
only
reason
I
bring
it
up
is
that
there
was
a
house
bill
hold
on
one.
Second,
I've
got
it
house
bill
1159,
and
what
that
house
bill
does
is
private
homeowners,
private
owners
of
any
any
land
who
want
to
remove
a
tree
need
to
have
a
certified
arborist
say
this
tree
is
diseased.
You
can
take
it
out.
A
A
So
I
didn't
understand
the
impact
of
that
in
the
interplay
with
the
leisure
services
department,
but
what's
normally
required
and
what
was
before
this
house
bill
was
passed
because
now
any
arborist
can
tell
you
so
anybody
who's
a
certified
arborist
and
you
call
them
they
can
show
up
to
your
house
and
say
yeah.
We
can
take
it
down
because
what
and
I'll
do
it
for
you
so
you're
paying
them.
A
Imagine
that
the
heat
beating
down
is
so
you
need
a
certain
amount
of
canopy,
so
they
gave
me
section
12
of
the
ordinances
which
we're
not
going
to
discuss
in
length,
but
just
so
all
of
you
know
in
case
it
comes
up
in
order
to
remove
a
larger
tree,
you
would
need
to
plant
maybe
two
trees,
maybe
five,
because
at
some
point
that
canopy
is
going
to
be
restored.
So
that
was
something
that
I
never
knew.
A
That
was
a
big
deal
to
alex
and
the
res
and
there's
another
arborist
and
to
chip,
because
there's
not
really
any
way
that
they
can
control
it.
So
if
somebody
contacts
the
city-
and
they
want
to
do
it,
they
can
walk
them
through
the
process.
You
know,
like
I
said,
a
permit's
not
required,
but
just
in
case
that
comes
up
if
there's
any
kind
of
scuttlebutt
about
it.
A
The
hope
is
that
everyone
would
contact
the
city,
because
you
want
that
arbors
to
go
out,
but
the
arbors
can
go
out
if
it's
the
city's
arborist
and
say
no
there's
nothing
wrong
with
your
tree.
You
just
don't
like
breaking
the
leaves,
and
that's
not
a
reason
to
remove
this
tree,
which
concerned
me,
because
if
it's
on
my
private
yard,
I
should
be
able
to
do
it
and
they
said
no
and
that's
because
of
the
canopy
and
the
impact
that
it
has
on
the
ground
below.
This
is
something
to
kind
of
keep
in
mind.
B
It's
interesting
you
bring
that
up,
because
I
personally
have
an
issue
with
three
trees
that
are
really
not
on
my
property
yeah
they're
on
the
inside
of
the
sidewalk.
So
it's
technically
not
the
right
of
way,
but
my
line
ends
about
five
feet
from
the
sidewalk,
so
they're,
really
the
city's
trees
right
and
yet
the
canopy
keeps
getting
trimmed
away
by
tico
for
the
power
lines.
B
A
Well,
it's
in
terms
of
directly
addressed,
I
don't
know,
but
I
did
raise
the
question
of
even
if
it's
in
the
right
of
way,
but
it's
on
my
my
lawn
and
there's
some
disease,
there's
disease
or
it's
causing
problems
on
another
person's
property.
Whose
problem
is
that
and
it's
the
homeowner's
problem?
It
wouldn't
be
the
city
that
would
pay
for
it.
It
would
be
you
that
have
to
pay
for
it
to
maintain
it.
A
A
C
So
let
me
just
jump
in
and
add
a
little
bit
to
that.
It's
not
just
that!
The
tree
is
disease,
it
has
to
be
danger
to
property
or
person,
and
so,
let's
just
say,
if
it
is
just
diseased
on
one
corner
of
the
tree
and
it's
not
a
danger
to
anybody-
they're
still
going
to
need
to
come
to
the
city
and
they're
still
going
to
need
to
get
a
permit
for
that.
C
C
So
there
could
be
situations
where
a
tree
is
diseased,
but
it's
not
necessarily
dangerous.
So
I
wanted
to
make
that
clear,
and
you
know
I
have
had
the
question
come
up.
Well,
what?
If
the
city
arborist
says
it's
not
a
danger
and
we
have
a
certified
arborist
saying
that
it
is
a
danger.
You
know
who
is
controlling,
and
you
know
the
bottom
line
is:
is
that
that
statute,
that
was
added
does
not
provide
an
answer
to
the
question
right.
B
C
Matter
at
all
and
we're
not
going
to
have
competing,
experts
testify-
or
you
know,
address
the
permitting
issue,
so
we're
trying
to
make
changes.
To
that
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
cities
that
I
represent
are
concerned
about
it,
and
so
we're
hoping
that
we
can
make
a
change
to
it
in
the
next
session
to
at
least
identify
the
fact
that
they
have
to
provide
it
to
the
city
or
they
have
to
have
the
city
arborist.
You
know
review
it
as
well.
C
You
know
maybe
something
else
that
would
give
us
a
little
bit
more
teeth,
and
so
people
just
are
not
cutting
down
trees.
Right
safety
harbor
has
done
an
amazing
job
relative
to
their
tree
program
and
so
they're
very
careful
on
people
making
sure
that
they
have
those
letters
to
show
that
the
tree
is
a
danger
and
they
prosecute
people.
B
A
A
There
wasn't
yeah
and
the
reason
I
brought
it
up
is
because
it
was
an
interplay
and
it
was
on
alexis's
and
chip's
mind
when
they
were
talking
with
me,
and
it
was
good
to
have
the
one-on-one,
because
I
didn't
really
understand,
but
I
said
I
can.
I
can
bring
that
up
at
the
next
meeting.
Just
let
everybody
kind
of
know.
This
is
something
that
is
going
on
and
we
all
probably
have
trees,
especially
in
the
neighborhood
jared
lives
in
where
you
just.
A
What
am
I
supposed
to
do
about
this?
It
would
need
some
sort
of
direction
about
it,
and
so
it
wasn't
necessarily
laid
out
here.
It's
likely
to
be
laid
out
there
when
they
make
those
changes,
but
it
just
wasn't
on
a
review
list,
so
I
thought
it
was
important
to
bring
it
up.
The
only
other,
let's
make
sure.
A
A
B
A
Yeah
I
just
want
well
that
was
a
suggested
ad
by
alexis
when
he
went
through
this,
so
we
just
got
to
make
sure
it's
spelled
correctly
when,
when
it's
drafted
up,
which
I'm
sure
we
would
have
done
anyway,
beyond
that
everything
else
that
we
had
discussed
about
environment
we
took
took
place
during
the
last
meeting.
I
just
had
those
follow-up
questions,
so
unless
anybody
else
had
anything
to
add
about
that,
I
could
probably
close
the
chapter
on
suggested
changes.
B
A
D
All
right,
thank
you.
This
will
be
a
little
bit
of
an
open
discussion
for
some
of
this
because
it
was
handled
actually
fairly
extensively
while
andrew
was
still
here,
and
so
I
kind
of
picked
it
up
and
tom.
I
know
you're
involved
in
and
have
some
thoughts
on
on
some
of
these
pieces.
I
reached
out
to
staff.
They
didn't
have
anything
additional
to
add
other
than
what
had
been
discussed
previously
and
I'll
start
at
the
beginning
of
the
document
and
skim
through
it
quite
quickly.
D
I
had
a
comment
that
I
watched
the
march.
I
think
it
was
the
march
meeting
and
there
was
some
discussion
that
we
might.
We
might
need
to
revisit
a
couple
of
points
in
here
so
I'll
open
that
up
for
discussion
now,
which
is
regarding
advertising
or
selling
from
vehicles,
and
the
thought
was,
you
know
things
like
ice
cream
trucks
and
do
we
need
to
change
language
to
make
it
read
in
such
a
way
that
we
want
it
to
read
or
and
and
or
is
it
enforceable
as
it
currently
reads?
It's
it's
pretty
brief.
B
E
E
D
That
tend
the
ones
I've
seen
tend
to
come
in
where
there's
another
entity
involved
and
they
say
hey
come
on
in
with
your
truck.
I
assume
there
must
be
some
kind
of
licensing
or
permitting
or
whatnot,
but
anyway
tom.
Do
you
want
to
weigh
in
on
that
a
little
bit
and
tell
me
what
the
current
thought
is.
C
Yeah,
I
don't,
I
don't
really
have
a
thought
one
way
or
the
other
food
trucks
are
important.
I
think
that
the
reason
that
this
originally
was
put
into
the
code
book
was
because
of
people
parking
like
big
army
trucks
right
up
against
stationary,
tampa
road
or
whatever,
and-
and
it
has
you
know-
tom's
dentist-
you
know
in
the
plaza
and
the
truck,
never
moves
right
kind
of
thing,
and
I
think
that
was
probably
the
purpose
of
it.
A
A
Sure,
I'm
just
meaning
in
terms
of
you,
go
to
a
shopping
center
and
there's
just
a
giant
car
or
van
parked
there
just
for
the
purposes
of
advertising
and
since
that's
not
something
that
we
would
want
in
the
community.
This
has
been
written
up,
but
it's
never
enforced.
So
now,
with
the
with
food
trucks.
Being
such
a
big
deal
ice
cream
trucks,
nobody
seems
to
mind.
In
fact,
people
really
like
them.
E
B
B
A
A
Right,
yeah,
but
the
spirit
of
it,
meaning
I
don't
feel
like
looking
at
this
van
every
day,
because
tom's
dentist
is
in
that
shopping
center
to
use
that
example.
I
don't
know
that
it's
worthwhile
to
write
the
exception,
because
I
think
everybody
sort
of
understands
it,
but,
of
course
that's
open
to
discussion
with
everyone
here.
Do
we
really
need
to
make
sure
that
food
trucks
and
ice
cream
trucks
and
the
like
can
still
conduct
business?
Let.
D
Me
ask
this
too
tom:
you
may
know
for
vehicles
that
might
be
parked
for
extended
periods
of
time
and
then
obviously
it's
there
for
an
advertisement.
It's
been
there
for
days,
weeks
months,
even
years
that
seems
pretty
enforceable
like
whoever
enforces
that
and
I'm
not
certain
who
that
would
be
could
say
you
have
an
advertisement,
that's
not
permitted!
You
need
to
you
know.
The
city
has
has
advertising
covered
and
it's
going
to
cost
x
amount
for
this
sign
and
whatnot.
D
That
seems
intuitively
kind
of
simple,
whereas
I
think
from
my
perspective
you
know
ice
cream
truck
cruising
around
is
not
a
bad
thing.
It's
not
that
often
and
and
food
trucks.
When
I
go
out
to
a
venue
that
maybe
they
don't
have
food
as
a
restaurant
and
they
sell
beer
and
wine
or
something
and
they
have
a
food
truck.
I
think
it's
awesome,
but
that's
movable
and
it's
not
going
to
be
there
usually
more
than
a
day.
You
know
so.
E
Does
this
also
reference
like
I'm
thinking
about
like
in
in
a
subdivision,
you're
going
down
the
street
and
someone
has
like
this
wrap
around
around
their
car.
That
says,
you
know,
visit
www.such
and
such
to
buy
fake
rolexes,
and
it's
always
in
that
person's
driveway
every
day
and
you
drive
by
it,
and
you
see
it
I'm
thinking.
The
essence
of
this
is
saying
that
that's
not
permanent.
B
B
B
D
Yeah,
well,
I
hate
to
hate
the
punt,
because
it's
not
super
easy,
but
this
one
might
need
more
definition
at
some
point
in
time.
You
know
unless
it's
covered
somewhere
else
tom.
My
thought
is
to
leave
it
as
is,
and
you
know,
but
is
it
really
enforceable
you
mentioned,
I
don't
think
we're
enforcing
it
really
anywhere.
C
B
C
D
D
D
C
D
A
A
C
I
think
that
what
you
would
want
to
do
tarpon
springs
just
did
this
couple
months
ago.
They
added
a
section
like
under
6645,
and
they
sk
they
put
in.
You
know
parking
in
electric
car
spot,
even
though
you're
not
an
electric
car
and
they
assigned
the
value
of
it.
I
think
it
was
25,
and
so
maybe
what
we
want
to
do
is
to
add
that
here,
because,
even
if
you
are
in
violation
of
it
someplace
else,
there
is
no
specific
fine
associated
with
it,
and
so
it'll
have
to
come
to
the
code
enforcement
board.
C
B
C
C
D
C
D
D
I
have
one
so
so
those
are
the
lists
of
streets
that
I
got
received
from
andrew
that
I
believe
capture
these
areas
that
were
talked
about:
harbor
palms,
bayside
meadows,
streets
of
forest
lakes
and
then
the
other.
The
other
piece
would
just
be.
I
think,
suggesting
that
it
be
an
open
topic
with
city
council
that
they
we
may
need
some
spots
that
where
I
know
it
takes
a
long
time
and
and
things,
but
where
we
may
need
some
crossing
areas.
D
D
D
B
B
B
E
A
A
D
D
A
Well
sure-
and
even
you
know,
because
I
live
over
near
the
rec
center,
so
my
street's
on
this,
but
I
know
that
if
I
turn
out
of
my
street
and
go
on
to
this
would
be
forest
and
then
down
pine
right.
I
can't
go
over
forest
lake
boulevard,
so
that
was
what
worse,
lakes
and
some
of
the
discussion
at
the
last
council
meeting
from
what
I
remember
was.
A
Is
that
is
there
something
to
that
can
be
done
about
forest
lakes
and
the
only
the
issue
that
I
had
because
we
live
in
that
forest
lakes?
Neighborhood
is
my
daughter
and
my
son
will
eventually
go
there,
go
to
forest
lakes
elementary,
but
I
couldn't
drive
them
to
school
or
pick
them
up.
So
I
could
drive
to
the
end
of
pine
where
it
stops
the
forest
lakes
and
then
they
could
cross
the
crosswalk.
A
Then
I
could
put
them
back
in
the
golf
cart
and
I
could
drive
home,
and
that
was
one
of
those
things
they
were
trying
to
to
figure
out
was.
Is
there
any
way
to
make
this
a
little
bit
more
feasible?
So
when
I
saw
the
list,
that's
why
tampa
road
kind
of
jumped
out?
Because,
right
now
I
can't
get
from
my
house
to
south
of
tampa
road
and
a
golf
course.
A
She
can
cross
lakes
so
exactly,
but
that's
going
to
take
more
than
just
suggesting,
adding
that
to
an
ordinance
because
there's
so
many
different
divisions
with
whether
it's
the
city,
the
county,
the
state
roads,
we
don't
know
and
if
you'd
even
be
able
to
allow
it.
I
think
the
concern
is,
if
you
just
picture
it.
A
One
accident
and
jared
you-
and
I
have
talked
about
this
one
accident
on
a
street
with
a
golf
cart
and
then
the
whole
thing's
over
yeah.
You
can't
do
it
because
there's
no
protection
there
right,
but
that's
why
this
is
an
ever
going
on
conversation
with
with
council
and
with
us,
and
I
know
andrew
brought
it
up.
There's
a
petition
going.
D
A
A
The
last
council
meeting
they're
set
to
discuss
it.
I
think
at
the
next
one
right.
No
well
soon
is
what
I'm
guessing.
Oh,
I
got
you
okay,
but
it
was
brought
up
and
it
was.
It
was
a
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
in
the
future
and
hopefully
soon,
because
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
about
it
going
on
in
the
community.
C
C
B
D
B
C
So
what
you
would
do
is
you
would
contact
the
local
district
for
fdot
and
then
you
would
get
basically
apply
through
it
that
way,
and
as
for
the
county,
I'm
not
really
sure,
probably
go
straight
to
the
county
administrator.
He
would
assign
someone
to
help
through
the
project
to
the
other,
but
you
know
I
think
what
will
probably
happen
is
if
you're
making
this
recommendation,
then
city
staff
is
probably
going
to
come
back
with
comments
on
this.
When
it
comes
to
the
the
council
for
approval,
because
there
may
be
some
that
the
you
know.
C
B
B
A
It's
just
golf
cart
paths
yeah,
but
they've
designed
it
so
much
that
the
kids
are
actually
encouraged
to
drive
their
golf
carts
to
high
school
to
limit
parking
spaces
at
the
high
school.
So
they
just
have
designated
golf
cart
parking
when
you're
a
certain
age
you
can
drive
and-
and
I
think
you
know-
if
that's
the
vision-
it
was
done
a
little
bit
differently
and
since
we're
we
have
so
many
main
roads
driving
through
the
city
and
it
divides
the
city.
You
know
northern
and
southern,
it's
difficult
to
say:
okay.
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
A
If
you
dip
into
calling
it
a
residential
unit,
then-
and
it's
used
for
another
purpose,
so
I
was
looking
at
that
because,
since
it's
not
always
residential,
I
can
have
a
manufactured
home
in
my
backyard
that
I
use
for
storage
of
whatever
it's
not
a
residential
unit.
So
would
it
have
to
be
a
residence,
and
I
think
that's
where
closed
system
probably
came
from
so
most
likely
you're
going
to
live
in
there,
but
I
couldn't
think
of
a
different
way
to
describe
it
other
other
than
closed
system.
A
And
that
I
was
just
having
an
on
about
whether
or
not
it's
residential,
because
then,
if
it's
a
residential
structure
and
you
have
it
on
your
property
and
in
order
to
sell
it
as
a
part
of
the
land,
you'd
have
to
retire
to
real
property
to
get
into
all
of
that,
if
you're
not
using
it
for
that
purpose,
and
it
would
just
be
on
the
grounds
as
another
structure
closed
system
that
happens
to
be
movable.
It's
not
a
residence.
C
F
A
A
B
A
If,
if
they're
permanent,
if
they're
tied
down
to
a
foundation
like
jared
had
mentioned,
then
they
wouldn't
fall
under
the
definition
of
mobile
home
right
if
they're
mobile
and
they
would-
and
so
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
say
we
understand
that
there's
a
new
trend
of
of
tiny
homes
and
we
want
to
make
sure
it
was
covered.
I
think
they
are
covered.
A
F
B
F
It
seems
awkward
that
the
the
introductory
you
know,
fats,
oils
and
grease
management
program
in
order
to
and
all
that
that
sentence
there
or
other
industry
with
oil
and
grease
containing
discharges
shall
and
then
you
go
down
to
seven
and
eight,
it
says:
do
not
it's.
The
heading
doesn't
seem
grammatically,
correct.
F
F
F
C
F
C
F
F
A
C
Yeah,
it
should
remain
separate
because
you
know
every
residential
unit
and
every
commercial
building
with
the
bathroom
needs
water
and
sewer,
but
we
don't
have
the
capabilities
of
providing
reclaimed
water
to
every
home.
First
of
all,
we
don't
have
the
infrastructure
in
the
ground
and
second
of
all,
we
don't
have
enough
reclaimed
water
to
provide
to
everyone
in
the
city.
C
F
C
The
code
only
provides
for
25
percent,
but
the
statute
allows
up
to
50
if
a
special
analysis
is
done.
So
there
are
areas
and
cities
where
they
actually
provide
water
sewer
service
outside
the
jurisdiction
limits,
because
their
lines
are
the
closest
to
provide
service
to
those
those
homes
or
those
businesses.
So
my
suggestion
is:
it
does
not
hurt
to
leave
it
in
there,
because
there
may
be
a
situation
where
we
have
to
provide
someone
who's
living
in
hillsborough,
county
with
water
and
sewer
outside
our
jurisdictional
limits.
C
C
C
A
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
F
C
So
my
thoughts
are
well
first
of
all,
there's
no
requirement
under
the
law
as
to
where
it
should
be
or
not
be,
but
when,
when
you
have
a
provision
that
says
that
if
it's
within
200
feet
that
they
have
to
connect
that
puts
a
huge
burden
on
a
property
owner,
because
now
they
have
to
pay
for
that
line
between
their
you
know
their
driveway
and
the
main
line
which
could
be
up
to
200
feet
away.
So
there's
a
huge
expense
for
a
property
owner.
C
If
you
want
to
alleviate
that,
we
can
just
change
that
to
the
word
adjacent,
and
so
they
don't
have
to
hook
up
unless
it's
adjacent
to
their
property
or
located
in
the
right-of-way
adjacent
to
their
property,
so
that
it's
not
a
legal
thing.
It's
just
a
matter
of
is
policy
wise.
Is
that
what
you
want
to
do
or
not?
Do
you
can
leave
it
alone
or
make
it
a
little
bit
closer,
so
property
owners
don't
have
to
do
it
unless
it's
right
in
front
of
their
door?
Basically.
B
F
B
C
Some
cities
do
this.
My
advice
to
you
is
to
include
such
a
provision,
and
the
reason
is
is
that
you
want
to
get
people
off
of
septic
tanks.
I'm
not
sure
how
many
there
are
still
are
here
in
oldsmar,
but
there
probably
are
some,
but
this
would
mean
that
if
they
want
to
annex
into
the
city
that
they
would
be
responsible
to
make
sure
that
they
are
connected
to
the
sewer
system,
just
like
the
potable
water.
My
suggestion
is,
you
add
that
it's
a
good.
It's
a
good
ad.
F
C
So
here's
the
issue
on
that
is
is
that
when,
when
contractors
they
install
infrastructure,
they
put
it
in
place
and
they
convey
it
over
to
the
city.
Normally
they
have
to
have
a
one-year
maintenance
bond
which
basically
says:
if
anything
happens,
that
infrastructure
within
a
year
then
we're
going
to
come
in
and
we're
going
to
repair
it
and
they
the
bond,
is
usually
in
the
amount
of
10.
C
So
if
you
have
a
500
000
project,
you
got
a
50
000
bond,
that's
sitting
aside
for
one
year,
I
have
never
seen
too
many
bonds
polled
I've,
never
known
there
to
be
a
bond
in
excess
of
10
percent.
You
know
you
we
could.
We
could
require
that
and
we'll
tell
you
that
you
change.
We
change
it
here,
though,
and
it's
going
to
require
a
change
in
every
single
contract
that
we
have.
C
We
just
can't
lay
it
out
on
the
code
without
changing
it
in
every
one
of
our
contracts,
I'm
not
a
numbers
guy
as
to
whether
or
not
that's
sufficient
or
not.
I'm
surprised
that
nan
is
asking
me
if
that's
sufficient.
I
don't
I've,
never
seen
one
pulled
so
to
me.
If
you
never
use
it,
why
change
it
yeah?
It's
sufficient!
Yeah,
okay,.
A
So
b
a
permanent
utility
easement
will
be
required.
I
just
it's
just
me
being
nitpicky,
but
should
we
change
will
to
shale
just
to
make
sure
they
know
or
is
well
sufficient
for
our
purposes
there?
The
other
question
I
had
in
c
was
the
fence
had
to
be
chain
linked
with
barbed
wire
as
part
of
the
top
portion.
A
Defense
have
to
meet
a
certain
definition.
Was
my
question
there.
If
we
just
say
fence,
is
that
sufficient?
Because
I
think
it's
there
for
protection
of
whatever's
behind
it,
and
so,
if
we
take
that
out
and
just
leave
fence,
which
is
the
suggested
edit,
I
didn't
know
if
that
was
going
to
be
enough
or
if
we
were
going
to
fall
out
of
line
with
another
ordinance
that
requires
that
defense
meet
this
definition.
If
it's
around
metered
water
services
and
the
like.
So
just
those
couple
a
couple
of
questions
I
had
in.
F
C
C
B
A
And
just
get
a
garden,
picket
fence,
that's
you
know
a
foot
off
the
ground
and
say
no,
I
put
your
fence
up,
I
don't
know
what
else
you
want
me
to
do
and
it
was
you
know.
Is
it
an
attractive
nuisance
and
what
is
it
to
determine
yeah
from
getting
over
it
right
I
mean
this.
Is
this?
Is
the
fence?
You
just
told
me:
I
needed
one,
you
didn't
give
me
any
sort
of
certain
definition
and
it
was
me
just
borrowing
problems
by
guessing
okay.
A
Well,
if
somebody
wants
to
be
real
nit
picky
about
it,
I
guess
they
could
do
it
and
it
just
harkens
back
to
the
tree
conversation
we
were
having
well,
this
arborist
said
it
was
fine,
you
know.
Well
you
just
told
me:
I
needed
a
fence,
so
I
didn't
even
know
if
it
needed
to
be
stricter
or
my
guess
was
it
had
come
up
in
the
past
and
somebody
might
have
balked
at
it
and
nan
was
aware
of
that
and
just
said
you
know
they
need
to
put
up
a
fence.
A
We
all
know
what
a
fence
is
and
and
put
it
there,
and
so
my
concern
was,
if
it's
just
that,
would
somebody
be
able
to
manipulate
it,
because
you
just
told
me
all
I
needed
was
a
fence
and
there's
no
other
definition.
When
we
go
to
a
very
strict
specific,
you
need
this
type
of
fence,
it
has
to
be
chain
link
and
it
has
to
have
barbed
wire
at
the
top.
A
A
B
Just
wondering
if
chain
link
was
put
in
so
there
was
instant
visibility
to
if
there's
a
leak
there
you
know
put
vinyl
around
it,
you're
never
going
to
see
it
right.
Somebody
can
easily
report
hey
your
pumping
station's
leaking
at
such
such
address
right.
You
can
report
it
there's
vinyl
around
it
nobody's
going
to
see
it.
I
agree
with
that.
E
Also
on
on
right,
she
doesn't
have
it
changed,
but
right
next
to
it,
it
says
sentinel,
light
and
alarm.
So
I'm
wondering
I
don't
know
what
sentinel
light
an
alarm
defines,
but
would
a
sentinel
lightning
alarm
in
give
an
alarm
of
a
leak
of
some
structure,
difficulty
that
would
then
not
need
the
chain-link
fence.
If
the
sentinel
said
hey,
there's
a
problem
going
on
with
this
pumping
station
and
alerts
who's
ever
monitoring,
this
sentinel,
then
whatever
fence
they
have,
is
fine,
the
sentinel
monitors
and
says:
there's
a
problem.
F
C
A
And
ken
back
to
the
fence
question
and
I
just
kept
reading,
I'm
sorry,
I
guess
I
keep
parking
back
on
it.
Those
plans
looks
like
they
have
to
be
discussed
with
her
office
with
nan's
office,
so
it
might
be
that
she
would
require.
You
know
this
type
of
fence
anyway,
and
it's
just
hey.
There
needs
to
be
a
fence.
You
have
to
talk
over
all
the
plans
with
me
regardless,
so
that
may
be
what
she's
getting
that
too
for
me
or
something.
B
F
C
F
C
C
A
I
guess
if
any
person
decided
to
take
it
out,
they
could
say
that
it
was
necessary
for
whatever
reason
I
just
didn't
know.
If,
if
we
change
that
to
emergency,
then
whose
decision
is
it
if
it's
an
emergency
because
it
could
be
any
person?
Is
that
what
that's
saying
there
tom
and
I'm
just
getting
into
semantics?
But
it
seemed
it
read
a
little
weird
to
me
to
just
say
emergency
because
then,
whose
decision
is
that?
A
A
A
And
he
was
and
or
and
before
it
was
unless
it
was
necessary.
So
it's
not
necessary
because
the
kids
want
to
play
with
the
fire
hydrant.
It
was
necessary
because
he
had
something
else
going
on.
But
if
you
take
that
out
and
it's
just
emergency,
then
I
guess
if
it
was
a
legitimate
emergency,
you
could
prove
that
very
easily.
If
it
wasn't
and
somebody
called
you
out
on
it,
you
might
have
an
issue
there.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
limit.
Limiting
it
to
emergency
was
okay.
F
C
F
Okay,
any
objections
or
okay,
next
page
paragraph
c,
there
picking
out
sprinkler
again
and
and
adding
irrigation
and
the
comment
there.
The
city
does
not
inspect
lawn
watering
systems,
except
when
connected
to
the
reclaimed
water
system
to
check
for
overspray
and
cross
connection
with
potable
water
system
and
then
again,
sprinkler
eliminated
in
d.
C
F
F
F
C
A
When
I
read
it-
and
it
was
in
what
came
up
was
that
development
that
they
want
to
put
the
townhouses
on
that's
going
on
the
planning
board
and
campbell
council
last
time
as
well.
If
it's
a
multi-family
dwelling
and
there's
a
master
meter
when
they
go
to
say
we
want
to
build
this
here,
is
that
in
any
proposed
plan
that
the
council
has
to
approve.
C
A
D
C
A
That's
how
I
read
it.
That's
how
I
read
that
comment.
Yeah
and
I
said
well,
maybe
that's
the
case
and
that's
I
was
trying
to
see
if
there
was
no,
it's
actually
being
followed.
It's
just
in
a
different
document
that
comes
before
council.
It's
not
a
specific.
We
here's
your
tacit
approval,
here's
the
the
write-up
it
was
ever.
A
F
A
I
don't
know
I
mean
if
it's,
if
it's
not
being
done,
and
it's
not
custom
and
there's
no
reason
to
keep
it
in
there,
is
there
any
issue
with
taking
it
out.
I
guess
is
what
nan's
suggestion
is.
Do
we
do?
We
need
to
have
it
in
there
if
council
doesn't
need
to
approve
what
are
they
called
master
meters.
C
Yeah,
I
think
it
should
be
changed,
but
it
would
just
not
be
here.
It
would
be
a
global
change
throughout
the
entire
section,
wherever
it
refers
to
recovered
water,
we
need
to
change
it
to
reclaim
water,
because
we
just
wouldn't
want
to
change
the
definition
and
leave
it
up,
leave
it
the
other
way
throughout
the
code.
F
B
F
C
Yeah,
it
looks
like
she's
saying
that
she'd,
like
it
she's
saying
this,
this
is
not
standard
practice.
We
don't
issue
cross-connection
permits
and
therefore
it
shouldn't
be
listed
under
that
section.
70-159
it's.
So
if
it's
not
necessary
and
it's
not
standard
practice,
she's
basically
saying
to
delete
paragraphs
b
and
c,
then.
C
C
F
F
F
F
F
F
C
C
F
C
C
Okay,
a
lot
of
discharge
in
there,
but
so
my
advice
to
you
is:
don't
delete
this
section,
just
change
it
by
striking
the
words
except
is
authorized
by
the
public
works
director
in
accordance
with
the
person's
article,
and
then
you
can
use
that
as
an
argument.
If
you
don't
have
a
permit
to
discharge
into
one
of
our
water
bodies,
then
you
can.
You
can
be
charged
with
that.
F
B
F
In
addition
of
immediately
report
any
potential
problems
and
found
in
section
70-233
and
added,
followed
by
a
written
report
within
five
days
of
the
event,
good,
okay,
absolutely
nothing.
On
the
next
two
pages,
three
pages,
four
pages
over
70
263,
an
addition
of
lint
traps
and
ore
and
grease
oil
grease,
would
be
a
small
g.
I
guess,
if
that's
added.
F
F
C
F
F
A
C
A
B
C
F
C
A
F
A
Before
we
get
to
that
ken,
since,
since
we're
little,
we
jumped
ahead
a
little
bit
in
70-356,
there's
establishment
of
a
fee
and
nan's
comment.
There
was
this
has
been
increased
over
over
the
years
based
upon
rate
studies,
but
I
didn't
know
code
should
be
updated
to
reflect
current
rates
outlined
in
resolution
2019-12.
C
B
C
Meant
ordinance
and
not
resolution,
but
I'll
take
a
look
at
that
and
I
think
what
she's
just
basically
saying
is:
it
needs
to
be
current.
Whatever
the
dollar
amount
is,
but
usually
when
we
change
the
ordinance,
we
do
it
in
such
a
way
that
it
would
follow
the
code
every
single
time.
It's
changing
the
code
by
the
way,
the
ordinance
it
would
appear
there
so
I'll
follow
up
with.
Let
me
follow
up
on
that
with
nan,
so
I
understand
what
she's
saying
and
then
get
that
resolution
from
ann.
C
I
look
for
that
resolution
and
my
paperwork
that
I
had
at
the
office.
I
did
not
create
it,
so
I'm
not
sure
when
I
create
it,
I
save
it
so
someone
else
had
to
have
created
that
if
it
was
resolution
29-12,
so
I
need
to
get
a
copy
of
it,
but
so
long
as
I
have
your
agreement
or
consensus
here
that
I
can
update
that
to
whatever
dollar
amount,
it
is
that's
what
I'm
going
to
move
forward
with.
Okay,
yes,.
A
A
These
are
the
changes
that
I'm
proposing,
which
I
was
fine
with
reading
through
them,
but
I
think
that's
what
I
think
they're
important,
especially
the
owned
by
the
city
park
because
of
what
happened
previously
and
and
nan's
comments
on
the
front
this
limits,
what
we
can
do,
we
shouldn't
be
limited
by
it,
so
I
think
just
going
through
that
I
think
we've
already
discussed
it,
but
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
part
of
the.
If
anybody
else
had
any
other
comments
on
it,
that's
good.
F
F
Well,
it
goes
to
70
351
definitions.
That
was
another
place
where
manufactured
home
development
was
added
in
developed
residential
property.
That
was
one
of
the
places.
Okay,
next
page
7356,
she
has
highlighted
there
again
the
sum
of
a
dollar
fifty
a
month,
and
this,
I
think,
is
covered
on
her
sheet
here.
Questioning
that
fee
right,
tom
yeah.
C
So
my
suggestion
is
you
pick
a
number
and
for
discussion
purposes
and
and
not
add
in
that
weasel
language
up
to,
because
then
we'll
never
know
who's
going
to
make
the
determination
as
to
what
it
actually
is.
So
if
you,
you
know,
put
in
a
dollar
amount,
a
thousand
dollars
two
thousand
dollars
something
like
that.
F
Failure
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
division
and
violations
of
the
provision
of
this
division
shall
upon
conviction,
be
punished
by
a
fine
of
not
to
exceed
500
per
day,
and
the
notes
say
that
the
county
code
says
quote
not
more
than
ten
thousand
dollars
for
each
offense.
So
where
do
we
want
to
go
with
that
from
500
per.
A
C
C
B
C
Set
dollar
amount
and
that's
what
I'm
suggesting
that
you
do
here
to
a
set
dollar
amount
whatever
it
is
in
my
mind,
it's
you
know
we're
not
we're
not
pinellas
county.
We
don't
have
those
huge
things
happen
here
in
oldsmore.
I
think
ten
thousand
dollars
is
way
too
much
money
yeah,
but
I
think
that
there
probably
should
be
an
increase
over
the
500.
C
So
it
will
be
per
day
because
you
pick
up
that
same
language
that
the
county
has
on
the
next
page.
If
a
violation
is
continued,
each
day
of
such
violation
shall
constitute
a
separate
offense
yeah,
so
it's
separate
so
so
whatever
the
dollar
amount
is.
If
it
happens
on
more
than
one
a
day,
one
more
than
one
day,
it's
gonna
be
more
than
one
violation.
Three
days
three
violations.
A
But
each
day
is
an
each
day.
Is
a
new
offense
there's
a
new
offense,
so
they're
saying
if
it's
egregious
a
week
is
going
to
cost
you
seventy
thousand
dollars.
If
you
keep
doing
this,
you
better
not
do
it
so
here
I
mean
that
that'd
be
thirty
five
hundred
dollars
in
the
same
seven
day
span,
which
you
could
be.
That
would
be
the
maximum
in
that
week.
D
A
B
A
A
If
it's
per
day,
then
I
think
it's
a
turn
enough,
but
that's
what
I
mean
is
it?
Is
it
a
continuing
violation,
because
and
the
reason
that
I
said
dumping,
because
that
when
we
were
talking
about,
I
guess
it
was
harbor
palms
over
behind
the
new
car
wash
the
material
is
still
within
the
waterway.
Is
that
a
continuing
violation
or
is
it
just
the
dumping
itself
itself?
A
And
so
does
that
be
a
separate
defense,
meaning
you
dumped
on
monday,
you
dumped
on
tuesday
you
dumped
on
friday,
and
so
that's
three
separate
instances
or
the
material
has
been
in
there
since
monday,
and
you
haven't
gotten
it
out
of
there
because
then
the
final
course
would
be
that
much
higher.
So
that's
where
I
was
coming
from
in
that
respect.
Is
that
a
continuing
violation,
because
this
shouldn't
be
here
or
is
it
just
the
act
itself
that
triggered
the
fine
of
x?
And
you
did
that
three
days
this
week?
A
A
A
D
F
F
B
C
Probably
because
of
the
fact
that
she
wants
cash,
she
doesn't
want
to
give
the
opportunity
to
go
through
the
bonding
aspect
of
it,
because
then
we
have
to
get
the
bond
make
sure
it
meets
all
the
requirements
of
the
code
make
sure
it's
one
of
the
bonding
companies
that
is
authorized
by
the
state
of
florida.
Then
we
have
to
hold
that
bond
city
clerk
has
to
make
us.
C
F
F
C
F
A
Well
then,
it
said
it
needs
for
further
research.
Do
we
know
who
the
second
commenter
was
so
cindy
needed
to
yeah,
so
cindy's
gonna
need
to
research
that
a
little
bit
more
cindy's
comments
are
the
are
in
blue,
because
I
I
thought
that
was
left
kind
of
open,
the
way
that
they
said
we
need
to
verify
with
utility
billing
and
okay.
Fine,
then
cindy
looked
at
it
and
said
yeah,
I
got
to
look
at
it
a
little
bit
more.
So
there's
not
really
a
proposed
change
there,
but
I
don't
know
where
they're
heading
either.
Okay,.
C
Wrong
citation
I've
got
to
find
the
right
reference.
Okay,
she's
just
saying
it
doesn't
make
sense
that
you're
talking
about
because
70-29
talks
about
sanitary
sewer,
and
it
doesn't
make
sense
that
the
reference
is
to
that
sanitary
sewer.
So
I
need
to
find
the
citation
the
correct
citation
to
fit
it
in
there
I'll.
I
will
do
that.
C
I
think
that
she
wants
us
to
build
something
in
there,
in
other
words,
a
code
provision
that
talks
in
generalities.
How
important
it
is
that
private
listations
do
certain
things.
So
it's
she
is
in
very
generalized
terms
address
what
she
wants
to
be
included.
I
think
that
I'm
going
to
need
to
expand
upon
that,
but
there's
nothing
wrong
with
adding
this.
You
know
something
that
would
address
those
issues
in
another
paragraph,
and
so
I
can.
I
can
create
that.
C
And
my
advice
to
you
is:
don't
change
that
and
the
reason
I
say,
don't
change.
That
is
because
those
impact
fees
that
are
referenced
above
in
paragraph
one
are
directly
related
to
the
calculation
at
250
a
day.
So
if
we
change
it
down
below
the
numbers
are
not
going
to
work
out
right
in
the
math
that
was
done
when
those
impact
fees
were
originally
calculated.
C
C
F
C
C
So
if
the
property
is
tenant
occupied
you
charge
it
to
the
tenant
and,
if
you're,
unsuccessful
and
collected,
if
I'm
on
so
successful
in
collecting
it
from
the
tenant,
we're
out
of
luck
and
that's
because
the
way
the
state
statute
reads,
cindy
is
commenting
on
that.
Basically
saying
the
only
way
we
can
really
do
that
is,
and
then
the
lease,
if
the,
if
the
owner
you
know,
addresses
it
that
way,
but
that
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
us
right.
A
If
you
rent
it
out
and
the
tenant
defaults
on
it,
they
wouldn't
put
a
lien
on
the
property,
because
the
owner
of
the
property
wasn't
the
one
who
defaulted,
the
the
recourse
that
you'd
have
is
if
the
tenant
put
down
a
deposit,
you
can
go
after
the
deposit
which
is
kind
of
it's
stated
in
the
statute.
But
it's
there.
That's
where
you
collect
some
of
that
money,
but
yeah.
They
were
just
talking
to
each
other
in
the
comments,
so
that.