The Laker/Lutz News

Serving Lutz since 1964 and Pasco since 1981.
Proud to be independently owned.

Charles Grey

400 apartments proposed on Wesley Chapel Boulevard

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of a change to the county’s comprehensive plan that would allow consideration of up to 400 apartments to be developed on 28.2 acres, at the intersection of Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road.

Planning commissioners recommended approval, despite objections from commissioners Peter Hanzel and Roberto Saez.

The proposed change of the comprehensive plan is the first step in the process to permit the proposed development. A zoning change would be required, too.

The Pasco County Commission has final jurisdiction over land use and zoning changes.

The current land use designations on the property allow up to six dwellings per acre, and also light industrial uses. The proposed change would allow up to 24 dwellings per acre.

County planners recommended approval of the request, which they say will yield about 13 dwellings per acre on the land because it has a significant amount of wetlands.

The county’s comprehensive plan does not have a category between RES-12, which allows up to 12 units per acre, and RES-24, which allows 24 units per acre.

In this case, the applicant has agreed to cap the density at 400 units, as a condition in its  planned request for a master-planned unit development rezoning.

In the agenda background materials, county planners said the request is supported by the comprehensive plan as “an appropriate transitional land use between the single-family residential development to the north and zoned multifamily district to the west.”

They also noted that a proposed employment center use abuts the property, and that generally encourages higher densities to support that type of use.

Joel Tew, an attorney representing the applicant, said “this site is entirely appropriate for multifamily development.”

Hanzel objected.

“We have an overabundance of apartments in that area. There is no need for another apartment complex out there,” Hanzel said.

He voiced concerns about the county having an oversaturation of apartments, creating the prospect for problems down the road, when “huge apartment complexes will begin to deteriorate.”

Planning Commissioner Michael Cox said: “I personally think there are plenty of apartments right now.”

But, he added: “The fact is that this request is consistent with the comp plan. Ultimately, a decision to deny would have to be defensible in court.”

Planning Commission Charles Grey agreed: “When we deny something like this, we need a leg to stand on.”

Pasco County Commissioner Mike Moore frequently has pressed for less apartment development in the county, contending that Pasco already has more than enough.

Cox said if the county wants less apartment development, it needs to change its comprehensive plan to reflect that.

Published January 13, 2021

Pasco seeks to hike fees for market-rate apartments

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission is recommending approval of an ordinance that would raise mobility fees charged for market-rate apartments.

The proposed ordinance also would eliminate mobility fees for single-family and multi-family projects that qualify under the county’s definition of affordable housing.

In recommending approval, the planning commission suggested that the higher rates take effect on Jan. 1, 2021. The changes had been proposed to take effect on Aug. 10.

The Pasco County Commission will have the final word on the issue.

Planning commissioners decided to recommend a delay in implementation based on their concerns about the current economy, and after hearing those same worries expressed by the public.

Ed Rogers with Florida Design Consultants, who spoke on behalf of Crown Community Development, urged commissioners to delay implementing higher fees.

“Crown Community Development currently has two projects under active development that are fully entitled and have multi-family components. Chapel Crossings is in the urban service area and Watergrass is in the suburban area.

“In both projects, Crown has contracts pending with market-rate apartment developers who are on the cusp of moving forward,” Rogers said.

He referred to a County Commission workshop, when that board decided to seek higher mobility fees for market-rate apartments and to drop the fees for affordable housing.

“We were living in a different economy back in February,” Rogers said. “In fact, the first item on the workshop agenda that day was the county budget for the next fiscal year, and the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) presented to the board a glowing picture of the economy, which was vibrant at the time.

“The COVID-19 crisis and its significant economic impacts hadn’t yet made its imprint on anybody’s consciousness at that point.

“But, we now live in a different world where more than 30 million Americans have sought unemployment benefits because of the effects of the coronavirus on the economy,” Rogers said.

Raising the fees now could jeopardize Crown’s pending multi-family sales, he said.

He asked that consideration of the proposed fee increases be tabled until the economy is “on a more certain and positive track.”

Attorney Barbara Wilhite, who also spoke on behalf of Crown Community Development, cited similar concerns.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey also questioned the timing of the proposal.

“I think this is probably not a good time to increase fees to anybody that wants to bring a benefit to our county. It’s a fact that would discourage them. We need growth.”

“To me, this is a bad time to do it,” Grey said.

Planning Commissioner Chris Poole agreed, noting that he’s read about the state’s sales tax being decimated in March and that the numbers are expected to be even worse for April.

“Given the uncertainty that we’re facing, I really think that this is an issue that should be tabled and picked back up at a later date,” Poole said.

One representative for the Bay Area Apartments Association spoke in opposition of the higher fees for market-rate apartments, while another representative of that association spoke in favor of eliminating the mobility fees for affordable housing.

Ultimately, planning commissioners voted to recommend that the proposal be found consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.

The proposed rate changes now go to the Pasco County Commission for consideration.

Published May 27, 2020

Neighbors battle townhomes near Lake Thomas

By

Residents living near Lake Thomas are fighting a proposed townhome project, on approximately 42 acres, on the west side of U.S. 41, about one-half mile north of Ehren Cutoff, in Land O’ Lakes.

Barbara Wilhite, an attorney representing the applicant, appeared at the Jan. 23 Pasco County Planning Commission hearing, seeking a change to the county’s land use plan to increase the potential density on the site from three dwellings per acre to six dwellings per acre.

Obtaining the land use change is just the first step in the process. A rezoning also would be required before the townhomes could be built.

Wilhite said her client is aiming for a 218-unit townhome project on the property, which represents a density of 4.8 units per acre.

She said meetings have been held with neighbors and, as a result, conditions will be included with the rezoning request to address concerns that have been raised.

Several neighbors voiced objections during the public hearing.

Shirley Schmidt, 21133 Marsh Hawk Drive, Land O’ Lakes, who lives at The Preserve at Lake Thomas, said 300 feet of her property is immediately adjacent to the subject property.

The developer has listened, but she still objects, she said.

“He’s made revisions to address many of our concerns, but there is one overwhelming objection that cannot be mitigated if this project is approved — density, and its impact on traffic.

“The Ridge Road extension project, which is going forward within a few years, will dump a huge flow of traffic onto (U.S.) 41, just north of where this project is located.

“That alone will result in an unbearable increase in the traffic volume. Now, add yet another 400 vehicles from this project, and you’ll be one step closer to total gridlock.

“The traffic light at 41 and Ehren Cutoff is dangerous already. Residents from the proposed townhouse development, who need to go north, will be turning south onto 41 and crossing three lanes of traffic in the space of approximately 200 yards, to do a U-turn. That southbound turn lane creates a blind zone for those headed north and attempting to turn into our subdivision.

“We, in The Preserve at Lake Thomas, lost a resident not less than three months ago to a horrible accident, with this exact scenario.

“Please protect the rights and safety of the existing residents with your ‘No’ vote on this project,” she urged planning commissioners.

Scott Hitt, of 21008 Little Lake Thomas Road, is concerned about impacts of intensifying development.

“You get a bunch of people piled in on top of each other and you’re going to get stuff that starts happening. Right now, we leave our doors unlocked. We have stuff all over the place. Nothing goes missing. It’s kind of a cool place. It’s a gem that’s hidden away in here.

He urged commissioners to reject the request: “It’s not a good fit.”

“We’re not against development. Development is good, just not R-6.”

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey asked: “What is good?”

“R-3 (the current land use) is good,” Hitt replied.

Joe Seidle, of 20955 Lake Thomas Road, has lived in the area since 1982.

“We’re not saying we’re anti-growth. We’re saying, ‘It’s too many units,’” Seidle said.

“I haven’t heard one compelling need to change the land use. It’s Res-3, why are we changing it?”

Kathy Eshleman, of 5419 Shell Road, turned in two petitions with signatures from 99 people who couldn’t attend, but are opposed to the request.

She voiced her opposition, and she told planning commissioners she would prefer the development of single-family homes, within the existing density.

Other speakers objected to the intensification of development and voiced concerns about the

potential impacts on traffic, drainage and the quality of Lake Thomas.

Changing Land O’ Lakes’ character?
Ed Bly, of 21117 Lake Thomas Road, asked planning commissioners to consider the precedent that change would set. “This decision will forever change all of Land O’ Lakes, not just the Little Lake Thomas community,” Bly said.

Jane Smith, of 5353 School Road, Land O’ Lakes, is worried about the impacts to the lake, as more people move into the area. “I’m concerned about the runoff, with 218 units.”

Wilhite brought a team of experts to talk about her client’s intentions for the project.

Alexis Crespo, a certified land use planner with Waldrop Engineering, said the client recognizes that a binding project plan and conditions are important, in order for his request to be successful.

Many changes have already been made to the plan, in response to concerns that have been raised, she said.

For instance, the proposed access to the site will be directly from U.S. 41.

Also, the units will be clustered internally to limit impact from the buildings on adjacent single-family residences.

The units also will be limited to four-unit townhomes, two stories in height, she said, and the project will have substantial buffering.

The conditions for the proposed rezoning also address concerns about boat access to Lake Thomas, she said.

“This will have a passive boardwalk for residents, but no motorized or non-motorized boats will be able to access the lake from this project.”

She said the proposed project is consistent with the county’s vision for infill development in areas where there are water, sewer, schools and roadways to serve it.

She also noted that townhomes represents a diversity in type of residential development, and said many beautiful master-planned communities within Pasco County regularly incorporate housing diversity within their communities.

Steve Henry, of Lincks & Associates, said the additional traffic generated from the change compared to what’s currently permitted would have a negligible effect on U.S. 41.

He also noted the developer plans to put a right-turn lane in and a right-turn out lane at the project’s driveway.

Roy Mazur, professional engineer with WRA Engineering, said the project would not be allowed to cause flooding to on-site or off-site property, or to create adverse impacts on water quality.

“Even though a lot of the site will be impervious — there will be concrete, asphalt, buildings — our discharge in the developed condition cannot exceed that the discharge of the existing condition. That’s why the (retention) ponds are there,” Mazur said.

Wilhite also noted that the installation of the boardwalk will prevent access to the lake.

Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein noted that Crespo had presented a site plan that had more detail than is typically included in a master unit plan development.

He asked Wilhite if the zoning request for the master plan unit development will have a detailed plan that will be adopted with the zoning.

Wilhite said her client is willing to document commitments, but hasn’t finalized the plan that will accompany the rezoning request.

“Nobody likes us to say things and then not do them. I get that. That’s not our intent,” Wilhite said.

Planning Commissioner Michael Cox asked Wilhite if her client is committed to proposed conditions contained in the master plan unit development narrative, including no access onto Little Lake Thomas Road, no boat access onto Lake Thomas and buffering requirements.

Wilhite said: “That’s correct.”

“It seems to me that these conditions address a ton of the concerns of residents,” Cox said.

Wilhite also noted: “The boardwalk concept was put in place as a means of enforcing what we say, which is no motorized, or non-motorized access to Lake Thomas.”

It provides a barrier to keep boats out, she explained.

Chairman Grey said,  “We’re here really to talk about the number of units we want to allow on the site. Personally, I think maybe R-6 is a little bit too intense.”

The planning commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the requested land use change.

Commissioners Richard Tonello, Peter Hanzel and Chairman Grey voted no.

The issue now goes to the Pasco County Commission, which makes final land use and zoning decisions in the county.

The County Commission is scheduled to consider the request on Feb. 18 at 1:30 p.m., in the board chambers at West Pasco Government Center, 8731 Citizens Drive in New Port Richey.

Published February 05, 2020

Residents battle 5-acre lots in their neighborhood

By

The Pasco Planning Commission is recommending approval of a rezoning that will allow homes to be built on 5-acre lots, instead of 10-acre lots, on a 211-acre site, on the northwest corner of Trilby Road and Dowling Lake Road.

The applicant for the rezoning change, Massey Partners Limited, was represented by attorney Clarke Hobby.

Planning commissioners are recommending approval despite opposition by nearby neighbors.

County planners also have recommended approval.

Art Woodworth, who lives nearby, expressed concerns about the potential for public access to Dowling Lake, from the new homes that will be built.

Plans call for eight new lots to be situated on Lake Dowling, with other lots without direct access.

“They might want to have a common beach area or a dock — well, we have a problem with that,” Woodworth said. “I don’t want to have a dock across the lake from me where 34 homeowners can get together and have parties. I object to that.”

He also expressed concerns about adding more traffic to Trilby Road, which is a narrow road.

“There are curves on Trilby Road that have very little sight distance, at best 100 feet,” Woodworth said.

He noted: “Cars commonly encroach into the other lane because the lane widths are so narrow.”

Calvin Weese, a neighbor to the north, told planning commissioners: “They never came to us — asked us for our input, listened to our concerns, (to) hear other options or suggestions we may have.

“I haven’t heard anyone in the neighboring area say that they support this change,” Weese said, adding the impacts on the neighbors were not considered.

“It you can see through the smoke and mirrors, it’s simply a way of getting more value for this property,” Weese said.

Another neighbor, Chris Baker, urged planning commissioners to deny the request — in order to help preserve the area’s wildlife and serenity.

“It’s an amazing place,” he said. That lake is unique. It’s special. There’s a lot of wildlife there. There’s a nesting pair of eagles that hunt there, half the year.

“We see many eagles there, when they come back in season. We see a great deal of hawks, cardinals, every type of raptor that Florida has to offer, are there,” he said.

He said his fear is, “you put too much activity in there, it’s going to chase away some of these animals.”

Sylvia Kelly, another neighbor, also is worried about adding more traffic to Trilby Road.

“It’s a dangerous road for all of us that are out there,” she said. “There are deep culverts.”

She urged planning commissioners to retain the requirement for a minimum lot size of 10 acres.

Hobby said the applicant is willing to record a deed restriction that would limit the number of lots on the lakefront to eight. He also agreed to language that will prohibit a community dock, boat launch or beach.

“We are not in here seeking small lots. We are in here seeking the second largest lots in the county,” Hobby said.

“This project is going to have a negligible effect on Trilby Road and the surrounding network,” he added.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey said, “For me, it’s difficult to deny someone something that other people have been granted.

“I don’t think they’re asking for anything that’s not permitted in the code,” he added.

Grey said initially he was concerned about potential impacts to the lake.

“I wasn’t happy with (the possibility of) having 35 people have access to that lake,” Grey said. “I know if I lived on that lake, that would ruin it for me. I wouldn’t vote for that. I wouldn’t allow that.”

Unlike the neighbors, Grey said, “I don’t think it’s going to spoil the rural nature of that area.”

Planning Commissioner Michael Cox noted the applicant is the majority landowner on the lake.

The request now goes to the Pasco County Commission for final consideration. A public hearing on the request has been scheduled for Oct. 7 at 1:30 p.m., in the board chambers at the Historic Pasco County Courthouse, in downtown Dade City.

Published September 11, 2019

Idea of temporary ban on mini-warehouses sparks criticism

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has voiced objections to a proposal for an 180-day moratorium on new applications for mini-warehouses and self-storage facilities.

Alexandra LaPorte, senior planner with the county’s planning and development department, told planning commissioners that the six-month moratorium would provide time for county staff to craft proposed regulations relating to that type of land use in the future.

The idea would be to guide the future placement of mini-warehouse and self-storage facilities.

Such regulations are not a novel concept, LaPorte said. Other communities in Florida, including Tamarac, Miami-Dade and Collier County, have regulations on the books, as do other communities across the nation, she said.

But, planning commissioners, at their May 23 meeting, wasted little time letting county planners know that they don’t like the idea of a ban, even if only temporary in nature.

The planning commission rejected the idea, saying it is inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey did not mince words.

“I think it’s overkill,” Grey said.

Planning Commissioner Michael Cox said: “These facilities pay good property taxes, and they’re not a drain on services.”

He added: “At the end of the day, the market is going to determine what needs to be where.”

But, Nectarios Pittos, planning and development director, said that mini-warehouse facilities generally consume about 5 acres of land, and produce, on average, about five jobs.

He added that they also contribute to sprawl.

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel wanted to know how the proposed moratorium would affect apartment builders, and he also wondered how much capacity the existing self-storage facilities have.

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi put it like this: “There’s a need for it, or the developers wouldn’t be doing it.”

Planning commissioners also voiced concerns that the temporary ban could be extended for longer periods.

Grey told planners, “I think you ought to take it back and limit it to what roads you want to protect.”

No one from the public commented on the item.

The issue is on the Pasco County Commission’s June 4 agenda, but is expected to be continued until its June 19 meeting.

County Commissioner Mike Moore has repeatedly voiced his concerns about mini-warehouses occupying land that he thinks would be better used for businesses that generate jobs.

He has specifically criticized the use of land for storage facilities along the State Road 54/State Road 56 corridor, which he has said is prime real estate that is suited for large employers.

If ultimately adopted, the 180-day moratorium would not affect anyone who has already had a pre-application meeting on this type of development.

Commissioner Kathryn Starkey also has said that storage facilities should not take up space that could be used to attract businesses offering quality jobs in Pasco County.

Published June 05, 2019

Pasco County streamlines development review process

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission got a makeover but several of its newly appointed members will have familiar faces.

The Pasco County Commission on July 10 approved an ordinance that revamps an existing two-step process for previewing land use and zoning applications.

Commissioners disbanded a long-standing advisory board, known as the Development Review Committee, or DRC. That committee generally reviewed applications and made recommendations to the County Commission.

The DRC was made up of county department heads and the county administrator.

The county’s new ordinance also reduces the size of the Planning Commission from an 11-member board to seven voting members.

Six planning commissioners are county appointments, with the seventh member appointed by the Pasco County School District.

While the configuration has changed, five of the county’s appointees were members of the outgoing board. They are: Michael Cox, Jaime Girardi, Charles Grey, Peter Hanzel and Kevin Ryman.

Roberto Saez is the only new face on the board. He formerly was Pasco’s senior construction project manager for Pasco.

Chris Williams, the school district’s planning director, has been approved by the school district to fill the seventh slot. He, too, served on the outgoing board.

The new planning commission will have its inaugural meeting on July 26. It will be the only board making decisions and recommendations to county commissioners on development-related issues.

County commissioners unanimously approved the ordinance and new appointees.

The streamlined approach, which took years to become reality, initially was recommended by a study conducted by The Urban Land Institute in 2008.

Pasco staff members culled through 29 applications for the new planning commission, including seven current members.

They presented county commissioners with a list of 15 applicants, from which six candidates emerged with sufficient votes to make the final cut.

County commissioners also initially approved Dennis Smith – a current planning commission member –  as an alternate in the event that Cox had to decline his appointment.

Cox was waiting to hear if he would be appointed to a state ethics commission, which would make him ineligible to also serve on the planning commission.

The ethics commission appointment didn’t happen, so Cox will serve on the planning commission. And, the appointment of Smith as alternate became moot.

Published July 18, 2018

Approval recommended for TECO solar farm

By

Opponents are disappointed

A proposed solar farm in northeast Pasco County cleared the first hurdle needed for approval — despite impassioned pleas and even tears from area residents who oppose it.

The Pasco County Planning Commission recently voted 6-3 to recommend approval of the project to the Pasco County Commission, which has the final say.

Tampa Electric Company, or TECO, needs a special exception permit to build the solar farm on about 350 acres on two sides of Blanton Road. Portions of the site are bordered by Frazee Hill and Platt roads. The site is north and west of Pasco-Hernando State College’s East Campus.

It’s not clear when the county commissioners will take up the issue.

There is a 30-day appeal period for challenges to be filed against the planning commission’s decision.

Additional delays would come if an appeal is filed.

Nearly 240 people crowded into West Pasco Government Center in New Port Richey on April 9 for a five-hour public hearing on the proposed project.

Tampa Electric Company operates a solar farm in Big Bend. (File)

Opponents objected to the loss of unique scenic views in a gateway area into Dade City, which is known for its rolling hills.

“This is by no means something that fits in this area,” said Gregory Ostovich, who lives near the proposed site.

“This is clean energy,” he said. “However, there is a term called visual pollution. This is spewing huge amounts of visual pollution in our area that trees will not hide, shrubs will not hide.”

About 250 acres of the proposed solar farm site are owned by State Sen. Wilton Simpson and his wife, Kathryn Simpson. Additional acreage is owned by James Gross & Ranch Inc., according to county records.

If built, TECO officials propose investing about $75 million and anticipate production of about 53 megawatts of power. About 464,000 photovoltaic panels would be installed that would track the sun daily from east to west, and feed power to TECO’s electric grid.

Over the next decade, TECO plans to invest $850 million in 10 solar projects that would provide energy to about 100,000 homes in Florida.

The electric company has about 20,000 customers in Pasco County, but company officials said the solar farm’s energy production would be shared by all of TECO’s service-area customers.

Consultants and TECO officials laid out a site plan that they said would produce clean energy and protect wildlife.

They provided renderings of a buffer of trees and shrubs along the roadway that would largely block views of the panels, and maintain Dade City’s rural character. They also emphasized cost efficiencies of solar compared to other fuels.

“Photovoltaic is going to be a good neighbor,” said Mark Ward, TECO’s director of renewables.

The project had some supporters at the hearing, including Charles Lee, director of advocacy for Audubon Florida.

Lee said TECO has been generous in protecting wetlands and creating a 660-foot buffer zone for an eagle’s nest in the southeast corner of the site.

In testimony during the hearing, a TECO representative committed to keeping that corner undeveloped “in perpetuity.”

“I understand that neighbors would like things to remain the same,” Audubon’s Lee said. “Renewable energy is important. We believe it is a good site. We believe the impacts have been well taken care of. We think the applicants have done an exemplary job of setting aside an area (for an eagle’s nest). This is not normally what we see.”

Landowners who would sell to TECO, if the project is approved, also supported it.

Members of the Jordan family, which harvested citrus groves for decades, described years of struggle to hold onto their way of life. But, the citrus greening disease has devastated Florida’s citrus industry, they said.

“It is not viable,” said Alice Jordan. “We can’t do it anymore, folks.”

But, opponents kept coming back to what they and Dade City would lose.

Laura Myers described the beautiful views she and her family had in a new home they bought on top of the hill overlooking the solar farm site.

“That’s not going to be covered by their buffering,” she said. “Instead of God’s sunrise, we are going to be looking at solar panels.”

Property owner Gordon Comer and his attorney, Gordon Schiff, contend the project doesn’t meet the county’s land use regulations including a northeast rural protection plan.

Comer said he was a real estate developer with 20 years of experience in Hillsborough, Pinellas and Polk counties.

“I am not opposed to appropriate development moving in,” he said. But, the solar project, he added, would substantially diminish the quality of life and property values.

Schiff declined to comment if an appeal would be filed.

The matter produced sharp differences among the planning commissioners as well.

“This is just the wrong place,” said Art Woodworth Jr. “There are plenty of other places TECO can site solar. I can’t understand why TECO is so intent on jamming this down the throats of northeast Pasco (residents).”

Planning Commission Charles Grey, who supported the solar farm proposal, acknowledged that perhaps a better location could be found.

But, Grey said: “Every time you find a location, someone will say ‘that is not a great spot. You need to put it over there.’

“It’s a beautiful area,” Grey said. “I want to see it preserved.”

But, Grey continued: “Everyone has rights. Not just you. Property owners have rights too.”

Published April 28, 2018