The Laker/Lutz News

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

Serving Pasco since 1981/Serving Lutz since 1964

David Goldstein

Pasco adopts tighter restrictions on apartments

By

The Pasco County Commission has adopted new standards that aim to keep apartment development from consuming frontage along state roads 54/56, between Gunn Highway and U.S. 301.

Commission Chairman Mike Moore has championed tighter restrictions along the State Road 54/56 corridor — citing the need to preserve the frontage for employment-generating development. He also has cautioned his colleagues that allowing too much apartment development now could create problems in the future, when occupancy drops and the buildings fall into disrepair.

Commissioners initially adopted the tighter restrictions on June 30, but revisited the issue on July 14 to clarify the effective date and to address a question raised about which section of State Road 54 falls within the new restrictions.

Under the adopted changes, new multifamily residential zoning and future land use amendments along the SR 54/56 corridor from Gunn Highway to U.S. 301 shall be integrated with a mixture of employment-generating land uses.

Those uses can be existing uses or new ones, according to the county’s new requirements.

Also, on properties along the State Road 54/56 corridor from Gunn Highway to U.S. 301, the first 2,000 feet adjacent to the corridor shall place new multifamily zoning and future land use amendments behind non-residential land uses unless a development vertically integrates a mixture of uses, such as a high-rise with offices, residential and retail uses.

New rezonings or future land use amendments in the affected area that have not yet filed complete applications as of June 30 will comply with the county’s directive.

The new restrictions do not apply to the section of State Road 54 that runs between Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Zephyrhills, Chairman Moore said.

He said the directive has been clarified because questions had been raised about that.

Before voting, commissioners also heard concerns raised by Joel Tew, an attorney who frequently represents applicants in rezoning and land use requests.

Tew questioned the process being used by the board to make the changes, noting it bypassed the normal public hearing process to adopt changes to the county’s comprehensive plan and land development code.

He also said the changes are in conflict with policies within the county’s comprehensive plan.

But, David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, said “I am not aware of any direct inconsistencies with the comp plan or land development code, as part of this policy. However, if we identify any, we will address them through the appropriate land development code or comprehensive plan amendment.”

Moore also noted that no Pasco County property owners stepped forward during public comment to raise objections to the new restrictions.

Published July 29, 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

Planning Commission recommends against rezoning

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended denial of a request that would allow a small subdivision off of Bell Lake Road, in Land O’ Lakes.

The rezoning application, filed by Michael David Vincent, sought to change the allowable density of development on about 9.5 acres, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Bell Lake Road and Alpine Road. The site is about 1 mile east of U.S. 41.

Planning commissioners recommended denial, despite a recommendation for approval from the county’s planning staff.

Todd Pressman, a consultant representing the applicant, said the rezoning would allow a maximum of 32 single-family dwellings on the property. But, he said the target number of houses for the site would be 27.

Pressman also said the zoning would allow a minimum lot width of 35 feet, but that the target width would be 40 feet.

Pressman said the request would yield about four houses per acre, in an area where the county’s long-range planning designation allows up to six houses per acre.

And, the consultant cited policies within the county’s comprehensive plan that call for infill development, encourage a range of housing types and support workforce housing.

“We believe this is a very good request. It will be a very nice little subdivision addition to Pasco County,” Pressman said.

However, two neighbors of the proposed rezoning urged planning commissioners to reject the request.

“The main concern is the size of the lots,” said Troy Gotschall, who lives on Ladera Lane. He noted that most of the lots in the area “are at least a half-acre in size.”

Gotschall is also concerned about “just the look and feel changing drastically from the rural area where we’ve lived for the last 20 years.”

Another neighbor, Dave Hodierne, another Ladera Lane resident, raised concerns about the potential for the new development to be rental homes. He said he’s worried about the potential negative impact that could have on the value of his home.

Hodierne also noted that traffic to the new development, using Alpine Road, would create problems because Alpine Road is narrow.

Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein informed commissioners that one of the conditions for approval requires that Alpine Road be improved to county standards, from Bell Lake to the entrance of the new subdivision.

Pressman told commissioners that the development is envisioned to be rental homes for families. He wasn’t sure of the anticipated square footage, but offered the possibility of 2,000 square feet. He also said price points for the homes were estimated to range from $259,000 to $345,000.

Goldstein said the county does not regulate zoning based on whether a home would be owner-occupied or a rental property.

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi raised objections to the request based on its compatibility with surrounding development.

“I have a problem with these small lots,” he said.

Nectarious Pittos, the county’s director of planning and development, told planning commissioners: “It meets the density requirement” of the county’s comprehensive plan.

But, Goldstein told commissioners: “Nobody is entitled to the maximum the future land use plan allows.”

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel expressed concerns about the planned development.

“What’s the square footage? What’s it going to look like?”

Hanzel added: “I question whether it’s going to enhance that portion of Land O’ Lakes.”

Girardi also challenged Pressman’s description of the project meeting a policy goal of providing a variety of housing types.

“Why is this different than the other products that are being built up and down (State Road) 54? It sounds like what they’re building in every community,” Girardi asked.

On a motion by Hanzel, seconded by Girardi, planning commissioners voted to recommend denial of the request.

The Pasco County Commission has final jurisdiction on zoning and land use issues.

Published November 27, 2019

When rural tranquility and Olympic dreams clash

By

Dania Vizzi wants to use a private skeet shooting range, off Bellamy Brothers Boulevard, to perfect her skeet shooting skills so she can make the U.S. team for the 2020 Olympics.

But, her neighbors say her Olympic quest is causing harm to their agricultural and horse-breeding pursuits, as well as disrupting their rural tranquility and peace of mind.

Those were among the issues aired out at an Oct. 10 Pasco County Commission public hearing on a request filed by Arthur and Doree Vizzi, Dania’s parents.

The 53-acre property is on the west side of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard, about one-half mile east of Johnston Road, said Debbie Hernandez, Pasco County’s zoning administrator.

The skeet shooting range consists of a skeet field made up of shooting stations and two trap houses, Hernandez said.

The county has cited the Vizzi’s for developing the property without obtaining a permit for a conditional use, and the request is an attempt to address that violation.

County planners recommend approval of the request, contingent on several conditions.

During the public hearing, Dania Vizzi, of Odessa,  told planning commissioners: “I’m a four-time world championship medalist; two-time national champion; just medaled at the Pan American Games and, as of last week, I am halfway onto the Olympic team for 2020.

“I just really need it (the skeet shooting facility) to train. This is my passion. This is what I love to do. I want to compete for my country as long as I can. I would just love your help with it,” she said.

Matt Newton, an attorney representing the applicants, said before purchasing the property, his clients reached out to the county and understood that as long as the property wasn’t being used for commercial uses, they could practice on the property.

“She practices several hours a day and an interruption of practice can be devastating to her preparation for competitiveness,” Newton said.

Newton said his client would agree to provide more privacy screening to buffer the properties on the north and south, but said the condition for a 20-foot berm is too expensive.

He said based on his research, meeting that condition would cost between $65,000 and $112,000.

Arthur Vizzi told planning commissioners: “We can’t agree to conditions that are beyond our capabilities. They are cost-prohibitive for us.”

Newton said: “The best method of mitigation in our opinion would be to limit the hours.”

His client agrees to no shooting before 9 a.m. and after 4 p.m., and no shooting at all on Sundays, or on Good Friday, Easter, Thanksgiving or Christmas Day, the attorney said.

But, neighbors urged planning commissioners to consider the negative impacts they said have resulted from the skeet shooting facility.

“I’m not here to kill somebody’s dreams to be an Olympian. That’s not why I’m here,” said Glenn Stevenson, of 16653 Bellamy Brothers Blvd.

“I find it interesting that they can quote all of these awards, but they haven’t just happened. They happened before they purchased the property, as well. So this property isn’t key for her success as an Olympian,” Stevenson said.

“My business is being impacted negatively. I have lost people who boarded horses with me, that are very expensive brood mares. I run a breeding program. I have a reproduction lab on my farm,” he said.

“Originally, they told me it was going to be two hours a day. It was more like four to five hours, seven days a week.

“I can actually hear it in my house. I am the closest property to their property. I get all of the noise in my house,” he said.

He told planning commissioners he would like the use to be limited to five days a week, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., with no shooting on holidays.

Judy Geiger, of 16225 Bellamy Brothers Blvd., lives on the property due south of the Vizzis’ parcel.

“I don’t want this next door to me,” Geiger said.

Beyond noise, she’s worried about contamination.

“The lead stays in the ground,” Geiger said.

She’s worried, too, about a negative impact on property values.

“Who wants to live next to gunfire noise?” she said.

Philip and Robin Rhinesmith, both of 16833 Bellamy Brothers Blvd., were among others voicing  objections.

“There have certainly been quality of life impacts,” Philip Rhinesmith said. “It’s not the fact of the shooting. It’s the duration..”

They are also concerned about long-term impacts, he said.

“Typically, firing 250 rounds a day equates to about 15 pounds of lead on the ground. The accumulation over a year’s time could be 5,000 pounds a year,” he said.

Robin Rhinesmith added: “We have three generations of family living on our farm, which we’ve called home for about 50 years.”

The family lives among “beautiful live oak trees and pasture,” but they spend less time outside because of the constant gunfire.

“Using earbuds on the tractor doesn’t even drown it out,” she said.

She also noted that her daughter, a competitive equestrian for years, has stopped “because she doesn’t enjoy training on her own property.”

But, Doree Vizzi told planning commissioners that they bought the property to enable her daughter to train there.

“I do not want to cause problems with my neighbors.

“That’s not our goal.

“I go with my daughter 90% of the time to the range. I pull for her. She only shoots three or four hours by herself.

“There’s an over-reach and an over-exaggeration going on here right now,” she said.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, told planning commissioners: “The mere discharge of weapons is not something we can regulate because the Legislature told us we can’t. However, we can regulate gun ranges.”

Planning Commissioner Michael Cox said, “by going through this process and having at least some conditions, that would appear to me that it would be an improvement for the surrounding neighbors — specifically the hours of operation that they’re allowed to do it versus all of the time.”

Cox called for approval of the request, contingent on the planning staff’s conditions.

The motion passed and now the issue goes before the Pasco County Commission, which is slated to consider the request at a Nov. 5 public hearing.

Published October 23, 2019

Request raises questions about sites for schools, parks

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of a change that would make it easier for landowners along State Road 52, near Bellamy Brothers Boulevard, to pursue development.

However, planning commissioners also are recommending that any development done in the area be accompanied by a map that identifies where future sites would be located for schools and parks. The requirement for that map would be triggered before any residential development is allowed.

Planning commissioners also recommend that no heavy industrial be allowed, except for that which falls under the definition of a targeted industry. Targeted industries are the types of businesses the county is trying to attract to provide more high-wage jobs in Pasco.

The planning commissioners’ recommendations came during a discussion of the current land use policies involving the Central Pasco Employment Village Area Plan.

The village plan, which was adopted in 2007, recognized a coordinated effort among landowners to create a vision for 2,400 acres of land, with goals of providing jobs and housing, among other things. A financial plan for the area was among the original conditions.

Since then, however, there have been some changes in land ownership and at least one of the landowners has asked the Pasco County Commission to change the policies so they can seek approval for an individual plan for their land.

That’s why the county’s planning staff is seeking changes, explained Nectarios Pittos, director of planning and development for Pasco County.

“This particular text amendment is a county-initiated text amendment. It was found to be difficult to come together to develop the entire planning area at once,” Pittos said.

Planning Commissioner Michael Cox, however, isn’t wild about changing the approach.

“Overall, I have a problem with this whole request,” Cox said.

He said the property owners involved in the original plan agreed to it, and the new buyers knew what they were buying into.

“It’s concerning to me that now, we’re seeing a property owner wanting to pull out of that and go back to the way we used to do it,” Cox said.

Planning Commissioner Chris Williams, who also is planning director for Pasco County Schools, sought assurances that if changes are made, that there will be a provision for park and school sites.

The problem is that those needs could be overlooked, if individual developers are allowed to peel off, Williams said.

“If they come in, and they’re planning this whole area, then they have to take care of schools and parks,” Williams said.

But, if there isn’t a master plan, a number of residential developments could come in that are too small to trigger the requirement for a school site but, when taken together, create the demand for a school site, Williams said. By then, however, all of the land has been taken up by development and the school system can’t find nearby sites.

There are 4,500 residential units approved in the plan, according to David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney.

He asked Williams if a provision is added requiring school and parks sites to be identified — before residential is approved — would address his concern.

Williams said that it would.

But, others in the audience also raised concerns.

“I’m the landowner who initially suggested that we go with individual MPUDs (master-planned unit developments), so that we can develop the industrial piece at the corner of State Road 52 and Bellamy Brothers Road (Boulevard),” said George Southworth, one of the property owners.

“We need to do something with the property. It’s a perfect place to create jobs for the county,” Southworth added.

He also noted that what he wants to do there would not generate a need for schools.

He acknowledged he has other residential properties within the village plan that likely would contribute to the need for school facilities, but this particular piece would not.

Southworth also emphasized: “There is a plan. We’re sticking with the plan and the appropriate land uses that were identified and approved by the county in that plan. We’re just saying, now we can move forward one landowner at a time, or two or three, whoever wants to work together. Otherwise, we’re just stopped dead in our tracks,” Southworth said.

Other landowners, however, expressed concerns.

“I am one of the owners within this MPUD. When I bought the property, I knew what was in here. I was comfortable with it, or I wouldn’t have bought it. It gave certain protections,” said property owner Andy Scaglione.

“When the board mandated — for the fast track on this, they did not know there was serious concerns among other property owners. All they were hearing from was Mr. Southworth.

“I own 133 acres.

“I think we need to slow this down. This is 2,400 acres on Highway (State Road) 52. This is very, very valuable property. This is moving way too quick. There’s too many questions. Let’s look at also some of these heavy industrial uses because that should not be allowed here.

“(State Road) 52 is going to be (State Road) 54, in not too long. Let’s move slow on this. Let’s get it right,” Scaglione said.

Other speakers also encouraged the county to slow the process down, to make sure that nothing’s allowed that could harm other landowners’ property values.

“Our biggest concern is the industrial. Everybody agrees it needs to get done right the first time,” said Terry Schrader, who lives on West Pasco Road.

Ultimately, planning commissioners amended the proposed change to allow light industrial or heavy industrial when it is affiliated with targeted industries.

The next step will be for a public hearing by the County Commission, which has final jurisdiction on land use and zoning matters.

Published July 24, 2019

MPO eyes ways to boost transportation funding

By

The Pasco County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) board is looking at ways to fund future transportation projects — including the possibility of increased revenues from the Penny for Pasco program or amendments to the county’s mobility fee program.

Under the current Penny for Pasco program, which expires in 2024, revenues are raised through a one-penny surcharge for every dollar of sales tax generated within the county.

Manny Lajmiri, senior planner for the Metropolitan Planning Organization, was one of several advocates for the new set of Penny for Pasco options. The proposals were presented to the MPO board at its June 11 meeting. (Brian Fernandes)

The tax revenue is divided among the Pasco County Commission, the school board and Pasco County municipalities. The county receives 45 percent; the school board, 45 percent; and the municipalities split 10 percent.

Of the county’s share, 18 percent goes toward transportation needs.

Existing revenue sources within the MPO’s 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan would amount to $3.2 billion, if Penny for Pasco was discontinued after 2024.

Under the 2045 plan, roadway needs are estimated at $7.6 billion – resulting in a deficit.

Wally Blain is a senior project manager at the Tindale Oliver company, which collaborates with the MPO.

Blain presented five scenarios, along with estimates of revenue they would generate, for the board’s consideration.

At a previous meeting, MPO board members considered options that would have allowed voters to renew the penny surtax, while at the same time, implementing an additional penny or half-penny on top. That idea was dropped because it was deemed to “not be a reasonable expectation” for voters to approve, the project manager said.

But, some MPO members expressed concerns about the new approach, too.

“For us to put that burden on future members is concerning to me,” said board member Mike Moore, a member of the Pasco County Commission. “I don’t think those scenarios should be there.”

However, Jack Mariano, also a board member who sits on the Pasco County Commission, had another idea: “I don’t want to cut the transportation down, but we want to look real closely at environmental lands. Maybe it’s time to build more trails [and] sidewalks.”

David Goldstein of the Pasco County Attorney’s Office stepped to the podium alongside Blain, to make a case for the new approach.

Goldstein affirmed that while the scenarios would not clear the deficit, they would result in substantial revenue growth.

MPO member Kathryn Starkey, another Pasco County commission board member, however, moved the conversation toward using mobility fees as a means of raising funds.

Mobility fees are charged to new development to help pay for the transportation impacts they create.

Starkey contends that the county waives fees for some commercial development that don’t need incentives to set up shop in Pasco.

“A source of revenue is to maybe not give discounts to fast food [restaurants] and only give it to targeted industries that bring high-paying jobs,” Starkey suggested.

But, Goldstein said the county commissioners should have taken that into consideration when working out the updates last year. The next mobility fee update is not scheduled for five years, he added.

Goldstein also said that removing incentives on restaurants and even hotels would not result in a significant boost in revenue.

The board took no action on the issue, and additional discussion is expected at the MPO’s August session.

Five scenarios for road funds

  • Scenario 1: Penny for Pasco extends through 2045, with current surtax kept in place

(That would yield an additional $335 million)

  • Scenario 2: Penny for Pasco extends through 2045, with a half-penny added in 2038

(That would yield an additional $398 million)

  • Scenario 3: Penny for Pasco extends through 2045, with a half-penny added in 2028

(That would yield an additional $818 million)

  • Scenario 4: Penny for Pasco extends through 2045, with one penny added in 2038

(That would yield an additional $796 million)

  • Scenario 5: Penny for Pasco extends through 2045, with one penny added in 2028

(That would yield an additional $1.6 billion)

These estimates reflect the accumulated figures from 2025 to 2045, providing the penny program continued past 2024.

Published June 26, 2019

Opponents cite access concerns in Wesley Chapel rezoning

By

Questions are being raised about the safety of entering Wesley Chapel Boulevard from Hay Road, in a rezoning case seeking to allow 35 single-family attached townhomes on Hay Road.

The applicant, Lawrence P. Martinez, represented by Attorney Barbara Wilhite, is seeking to change the zoning on about 6 acres from agricultural use to medium density, multiple family.

The Pasco County Planning Commission heard the request at its May 9 public hearing.

The request involves a parcel on the west side of Hay Road, about 1,800 feet south of Wesley Chapel Boulevard.

The applicant has voluntarily agreed to deed restrictions that would limit the use of the property to single-family attached townhomes, said Denise Hernandez, Pasco County’s zoning administrator.

“This will not be an apartment complex,” Hernandez told planning commissioners, who serves as an advisory body to the Pasco County Commission on zoning and land use plan cases.

The zoning administrator also noted that the Pasco County Commission has approved similar zoning requests, and that county planners have recommended approval.

“The access at this point of time is proposed through Hay Road,” Hernandez said, but she added there’s a possibility that the parcel maybe developed along with the property to the north. If that happens, the primary access would be Wesley Chapel Boulevard, also known as County Road 54.

Neighbors, however, voiced concerns about the safety of using Hay Road as the primary access. Reginal Mesimer, a traffic engineer from St. Petersburg, appeared on behalf of Perry and Synthia Horner, who own property near the proposed rezoning.

The Horners own Hay Road, with some others who have easements to use it, Mesimer said.

“Right now, there are seven homes on Hay Road. One day, the Horners would like to develop their property with 200 units.

“About a year ago, a traffic signal went up at the entrance of Grand Oaks Boulevard, which didn’t line up with Hay Road. Now, there’s no way to provide a left-turn lane to enter Hay Road from County Road 54, and northbound queuing traffic coming out of Hay Road often is blocked by traffic queuing at the traffic signal at (County Road) 54.

“Mr. Horner tells me in the past year there have been two accidents associated with people who actually live on Hay Road, at that intersection, simply because Hay Road is so close to the traffic signal.

“Now, the county has plans to widen County Road 54 (also called Wesley Chapel Boulevard) to six lanes,” Mesimer added.

Mesimer noted that the parcel up for rezoning might be joined with another to the north, which has access to Wesley Chapel Boulevard.

That would be more suitable than trying to flow the traffic from the 35 new units onto Hay Road, Mesimer said.

The Horners have offered to provide land for an access road to allow motorists to drive to the signalized intersection at Grand Oaks Boulevard, which would improve access for everyone using Hay Road, Perry Horner said.

Paul Steele, of 4100 Hay Road in Lutz, urged planning commissioners to reject the rezoning request.

“We see our lives being turned upside down by this whole development, and a devaluation of our property. I’m here in complete protest to the idea,” he said.

Steele said he has lived on his property for 22 years and is raising several children there.

“We moved into that neighborhood for the specific express purpose of having our solitude, our privacy, being able to lead our lives in a certain way — free of heavy traffic, free of potential crime, free of people coming onto property constantly, being able to have our dogs run free, etc., etc., etc.

“This proposed development is going to have a serious negative impact on our lifestyle.

“If the road situation is not changed, it will have even an additional impact on the safety of my family and people coming to visit us on Hay Road.

“There’s been two very serious accidents. It led to one resident actually selling the property, leaving the property.

“It’s already a bad situation with a blind turn. When you turn right off of Hay Road today, traffic is coming 55, 60, 65 miles an hour. Very frequently people are almost rear-ended, just making a right-hand turn because you can’t see the traffic coming,” Steele said.

Wilhite said she’s not sure if her client will use Hay Road to get to Wesley Chapel Boulevard, or will be able to access the road through a property to the north.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, asked the applicants if there is sufficient right of way to improve Hay Road, if that becomes necessary for access.

Steve Henry, a traffic engineer from Lincks & Associates, representing the applicant, said there is enough right of way for a 20-foot road on Hay Road.

The planning board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning. The Pasco County Commission has the final say.

Published May 15, 2019

Town of St. Leo opposes increased density near its border

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of changes that would allow increased development on the edge of the Town of St. Leo, despite objections from Town leadership.

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended that a change to the county’s comprehensive land use plan be approved, as well as a change to zoning on 175 acres at the southwest corner of State Road 52 and Prospect Road.

Richard Christmas, mayor of St. Leo, urged planning commissioners to reject the proposed changes — which had received a recommendation of approval from the county’s staff.

Christmas said the increased density is not compatible with St. Leo’s rural character. He also cited concerns about disrupting the view shed the town now enjoys.

Planners and representatives for the applicant, however, said the proposed use of the land would be an appropriate transition between the Villages of Pasadena Hills and the Town of St. Leo.

The proposed land use change would allow a maximum of 900 dwellings, 340,000 square feet of commercial and 60,000 square feet of office.

The proposed master unit planned development zoning, which is being requested on the same acreage, would allow 600 dwellings, 340,000 square feet of commercial and 60,000 square feet of office.

The applicant requested 600 dwellings for both the land use and zoning changes, but the county’s staff recommended 900 dwellings for the land use change, to allow consideration of additional residential development if there’s a demand for it in the future, Barbara Wilhite, an attorney representing the applicant, said at the May 9 public hearing.

The land is currently undeveloped, with the exception of a barn.

County planners said the development provides a transition between the Villages of Pasadena Hills and would step down in intensity, as it gets closer to the town. They also said the plan would provide bicycle/pedestrian connectivity to existing trails and would seek to prevent visual intrusion.

Christmas told the planning commission that the town has been concerned about the proposed density of the plan ever since initial discussions with the applicant in December 2018.

“The Town is OK with the current zoning. The current zoning is compatible with the zoning that’s across the street, State Road 52, which is Lake Jovita, one dwelling unit per gross acre. That’s what the zoning is right now. We’re perfectly fine with that.

“What is being proposed is going beyond what their current rights are to something way more dense,” he said.

In addition to the 900 units contemplated in the land plan change, there would be “the equivalent of 3 ½ Home Depots and 60,000 square feet of office space,” Christmas said.

“The Town (of St. Leo) requests denial of the proposed comprehensive plan change,” the mayor said.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, asked Christmas if the Town of St. Leo had objected when the Villages of Pasadena Hills was created.

Christmas said there would have objections to density like this on the town border.

But, Goldstein pressed him: “Did you show up at any county public hearing?”

Goldstein continued: “It’s just interesting to me that nobody from the Town was there when we were approving the Villages of Pasadena Hills, including when we were trying to decide whether to include this piece of property. The Town wasn’t there at all.”

This property initially was going to be included in the Villages of Pasadena, and was only dropped at the last minute, Goldstein said.

“The question for you is, if this was so egregious for this to happen, where was the Town the day whether we were deciding to keep it in Pasadena Hills or not? Where were you?” Goldstein said.

But, Christmas told Goldstein that was not the issue before the Planning Commission.

Matt Armstrong, representing the applicant, told planning commissioners: “Density in the right place and in the right way can be a good thing because it does conserve the land, instead of just spreading it (development) out all over the place, without any kind of respect for what’s there.”

The new State Road 52 alignment goes through the property, and there will be an increased demand for development in the area, Armstrong said.

The master plan for the zoning also call for decreasing the density, as it approaches the edge of the Town of St. Leo, Armstrong added.

“We’re residential to residential. That’s compatible.

“When you are up against the Town, it’s only single-family. You can’t have apartments there, you can’t have multifamily there. There can’t be townhouses there,” Armstrong said.

The pedestrian and bicycle connections will make it possible for people to get to where they need to go without having a car, he said.

Attorney Wilhite reminded planning commissioners: “The comp (comprehensive) plan frowns on a Res-1 density because that is the definition of sprawl. It’s inefficient land use pattern.

“Density is not your enemy,” she added. It allows for master drainage plans, streetlights, parks and sidewalks.

“We’re proud of this project. We think it would be a very good project and a good fit,” she said, asking the Planning Commission for its approval.

But, Christmas repeated his concerns.

“To be clear, the Town’s not saying no to development, just that the development next to the Town needs to be compatible with the Town, sensitive to the topography and is not an eyesore,” Christmas said.

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of both the land use and rezoning for the property. The Pasco County Commission will have the final say on the requests.

Published May 15, 2019

Congestion relief on way for 54/41

By

A project is set to begin in mid-March that’s aimed to improve traffic flow at the intersection of State Road 54 and U.S. 41.

Lanes are being modified to provide more room for motorists who are turning left off State Road 54 to head north on U.S. 41, and those turning right off State Road 54 to go south on U.S. 41.

Efforts are underway to lengthen eastbound turning lanes on State Road 54. The project, set for mid-March, will provide more lane room for motorists turning onto U.S. 41. (File)

“There is no widening involved with this project, just lane modification to help alleviate congestion turning north and south onto U.S. 41,” explained David Botello, public information specialist for the Florida Department of Transportation.

Motorists heading east on State Road 54, who intend to turn right or left onto U.S. 41, are sometimes blocked from entering their turning lanes.

That’s because the traffic builds up at the intersection’s traffic signal.

During the first phase of construction, pavement will be removed and new pavement will be installed.

“No lanes will be closed during the day, so traffic should not be significantly impacted,” Botello assured.

No lane closures are expected, but if any do occur, they would be done at night to avoid impacts during peak traffic hours, he said.

Sidewalks and crosswalks are to remain open, and the CSX railway company will provide a railroad crossing flagger at the intersection.

The project also includes reconfiguring the median at State Road 54 and Hunt Road.

The new median will have a separator — which will allow eastbound motorists to turn left onto Hunt Road, and left turns off of Hunt Road onto State Road 54.

U-turns will no longer be permitted for westbound traffic at this median.

The project is expected to cost an estimated $1.1 million, with completion set for this coming summer.

Pasco County Commissioner Kathryn Starkey has been an adamant supporter of the project, which has been in planning for several years.

“This is a temporary solution, but it’s something that won’t take long to implement,” she remarked. “I do believe people will see some relief.”

The commissioner also credits Pasco County Attorney David Goldstein with helping her make the proposal come to fruition – stating it was a team effort.

In addition to being a part of the Metro Planning Organization’s Long Range Transportation Plan, the project is one of the first implementations of Vision 54/56.

The Vision program considers long-term improvements on the State Road 54 and State Road 56 corridor – spanning from U.S. 19 to Bruce B. Downs Boulevard.

For current updates and visual schematics, visit tinyurl.com/yyzangk9.

Published February 20, 2019

Pasco County considers mobility fee rate update

By

The Pasco County Commission is considering changes to its mobility fee rate structure, which could lead to higher rates in a couple of categories by virtue of removing discounts they now receive.

The update also calls for lowering fees in seven land-use categories, and changing the fee charged for residential development in rural areas on lots of 5 acres or more.

Mobility fees are based on the transportation impacts caused by new development, which is typically expressed in the number of trips the development generates, as well as the length of the trips it creates, according to Bill Oliver, of W.E. Oliver P.E., LLC, the county’s consultant on the mobility fee update.

The mobility fees are charged to new construction.

Currently, the mobility fee for a new single family home is $9,800 in the rural district; $8,570 in the suburban district; and, $5,835 in the urban district.

During a Sept. 25 workshop, a majority of commissioners agreed that removing a 7 percent incentive for apartments in the county’s urban fee district would not pose any problems for the county.

Commissioner Mike Moore urged his colleagues to drop that incentive.

“It’s no secret, my frustration, on every corner and every street, we’re putting up apartments,” Moore said.

“We don’t need any more high-end apartment complexes on 54 and 56, in that corridor. So, why would we incentivize them?”

“We’re talking about taking up valuable land, frontage of (State Roads) 54/56, that could be job creators, and they’re getting filled with apartment complex after apartment complex and storage facility after storage facility, and it’s getting crazy.

Commissioner Kathryn Starkey, however, expressed reluctance.

“We have a shortage of workforce housing. I think we ought to be careful,” Starkey said.

Moore said he’s talking about high-end apartments that are popping up along the corridor.

Starkey said one way to address her concern might be to set a threshold to identify apartment developments that could continue to receive an incentive, and those which would not.

While commissioners cannot take any actions at workshops, their discussion can indicate which way they’re leaning. In this case, they agreed to bring back the apartment incentives issue for when they hold a public hearing on the proposed fee update.

On another category, Starkey failed to sway a majority of commissioners when she suggested eliminating, or at least reducing, the incentive for hotel development.

“I’m not sure we need to subsidize hotels anymore,” Starkey said. “They’re running at 90 percent occupancy.”

Moore said he’d want more information before going that route.

“Do we have enough product yet? How much product do we need in Pasco County before we take that away?” Moore asked.

Starkey said the incentive wouldn’t have to be stripped entirely, but the county could charge something.

“They’re paying zero,” she said.

Commissioner Jack Mariano suggested looking at the issue again in five years, when the county plans to do its next update of the mobility fee rates.

Commissioner Ron Oakley agreed: “We’re trying our best to be a premier county and we’re getting there. Don’t put the brakes on before we get there.”

On another issue, Oakley said asked if the county could reduce the gap between the fees paid in rural districts, versus the other fee districts.

Oliver explained that the rates paid in rural areas are higher because residents living there drive longer distances, thereby having a greater impact on the county’s roads. They also enjoy a higher level of service because there’s less congestion.

Oakley said the disparity in rates bothers rural residents.

“They’re concerned about having to pay so much more here, and everybody says ‘Well that’s because you’ve got a longer trip  on the road and that’s got more impact.

“It seems like it’s harsh,” Oakley said, noting a lot of “have been arguing and fussing” because of high mobility fees.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, said the proposed fee schedule addresses that issue.

Under that schedule, a new single-family home built on 5 acres or more in the rural district would pay the same fee as the same-size home built in the suburban district, which is $8,570. Those built on smaller lots in the rural district would continue to pay $9,800.

Goldstein noted: “Our vision for the rural area really is larger lots, so we didn’t think that a large lot in the rural area should be penalized for building on a large lot in the rural area.”

The update calls for reducing fees in these categories: High-rise condominiums; age-restricted communities; congregate care facilities; college/university in suburban/rural areas; churches in suburban areas; hospitals; and hardware/paint stores (but not big box stores such as Lowe’s or Home Depot).

The update also introduces five new land uses: Non-veterinary kennel; breakfast/lunch only restaurant; fast-casual restaurant; ice-skating arena; and active/passive warehouse.

Besides changing specific categories, there’s also a proposal to update the mobility fee schedule every five years, instead of approximately every three years, as has been the practice.

Lengthening the time between updates, coupled with an increasing number of permit applications, would allow the county to reduce the permit administration fee from $392 per permit to $136 per permit, Goldstein said.

The update also proposed additional incentives to spur development along U.S. 19.

Next, the proposed fee schedule goes to the Pasco County Planning Commission for its recommendation, and then it comes back to County Commission for final action.

The Planning Commission is scheduled to take up the issue at an Oct. 25 public hearing. The County Commission has two public hearings scheduled, on Nov. 27 and Dec. 11.

If adopted, county staff recommends that the new fees take effect on Jan. 1.

Mobility Fees update
Pasco County is considering an update to its mobility fee schedule.

Some quick facts:

  • Pasco County’s mobility fee was last updated in 2014. (Since then, infrastructure costs have increased by 6.7 percent and the county’s incentives program has expanded).
  • Fees have essentially held constant since 2011.
  • The county has rural, suburban and urban fee districts.
  • There are 11 fee schedules, with 81 land uses in each schedule.
  • The fee schedule has incentives to encourage specific types of development, in specific areas. (The county pays those subsidies, using taxes from nongrowth sources).
  • The update introduces five new land uses. They are: Non-veterinary kennel; breakfast/lunch only restaurant; fast-casual restaurant; ice-skating arena; and active/passive warehouse.
  • The update also calls for reducing fees in seven land use categories. They are: High-rise condominiums; age-restricted communities; congregate care facilities; college/university in suburban/rural areas; churches in suburban areas; hospitals; and hardware/paint stores (but not big box stores such as Lowe’s or Home Depot).
  • The proposal also calls for updating the mobility fee schedule every five years, instead of every three; and, reducing the administrative fee for permit applications from $392 per permit to $136 per permit.

Source: Bill Oliver, of W.E. Oliver P.E., LLC, the county’s consultant on its mobility fee schedule update. This information was presented by Oliver to the Pasco County Commission during a workshop on Sept. 25.

Published October 3, 2018