The Laker/Lutz News

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

Nectarios Pittos

Pasco commissioners clash on apartment request

By

A divided Pasco County Commission has continued a request for a conditional use that would allow a maximum of 248 apartments on the west side of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, south of Eagleston Boulevard.

Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation submitted the request, but the hospital chain intends to sell the 16.24-acre site to an apartment developer.

The land currently is zoned for commercial uses.

Development of apartments is allowed in the commercial zoning district, but the applicant first must secure a conditional use permit from the county.

Debate on the request at the county board’s Jan. 12 meeting revealed that commissioners are not on the same page, when it comes to this request.

In a departure from routine, the hearing also included a fairly detailed refresher from Nectarios Pittos, the county’s director of planning and development, relating to the board’s directive on  future apartment development along the State Road 54/State Road 56 corridor.

That directive does not apply to the property in question.

Still, Pittos went over many of the statistics relating to apartments that were included in the board’s workshop on apartments in February 2020.

The proposed apartment development would be built next the BayCare Hospital Wesley Chapel, which is expected to open in early 2023.

The new multifamily development features three four-story buildings, with a total of 248 units, according to Pete Pensa, a professional planner from AVID Group, representing the applicant. The site plan calls for active and passive recreation areas, the preservation of a significant amount of open space, and a connection to an existing multi-use trail on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard.

Pensa also noted that the current zoning would allow uses that would generate more traffic than the requested zoning would create.

Representatives from the future BayCare Hospital Wesley Chapel and Blue Heron Senior Living, neighbors to the proposed apartment complex, both submitted letters of support for the project.

Attorney Barbara Wilhite, representing the apartment developer, noted that the proposed use meets the criteria in the comprehensive plan and land development code.

She also cited a recommendation of approval for the request from the Pasco County Planning Commission.

Commissioners Mike Moore and Jack Mariano, however, opposed the request.

Moore made a motion for denial, citing sections of the county’s land development code and land use plan that relate to economic development.

“The proposed conditional for multifamily will consume land and transportation capacity that the county must ensure is available for employment-generating land uses,” Moore said.

Mariano supported Moore’s motion.

The proposed development would be located directly on an arterial roadway, Mariano said, “with the connection that we have right there, it screams for something commercial — a job generator.”

Moore and Mariano weren’t the only ones opposed to the proposed apartments.

Seven emails in opposition were read into the record, and 17 other emails in opposition were received and filed.

Commissioner Kathryn Starkey and Commission Chairman Ron Oakley, however, said the site seems suitable for apartments.

Starkey said the site is close to two transportation corridors and it also is within walking distance to nearby jobs.

While Moore has repeatedly complained that the area is oversaturated with apartments, Starkey disagreed with Moore’s position.

“I’m not sure this area is overbuilt for this price point. I think most of the housing around here is actually very expensive,” Starkey said.

Oakley said an apartment development on the site makes sense.

“I think the project fits,” Oakley said. “I don’t think the traffic would be a problem. I don’t think there’s going to be any issues with the schools. And, I think it fits in the neighborhood where it’s located. It’s a good project, as far as I’m concerned.”

Initially, when commissioners voted on Moore’s motion for denial, there was 2-2 split, with Commissioner Christina Fitzpatrick not voting.

She asked for greater clarification, and after receiving it, voted against Moore’s motion.

She said she agrees with the project because it will be next to the hospital, and within walking distance.

Next, Mariano moved for a 60-day continuance, which Moore seconded.

Fitzpatrick supported the continuance to give her time to thoroughly study the issue.

That motion passed on a 5-0 vote.

After the vote, Oakley said, “I feel like I’ve been in a workshop I shouldn’t have been in.”

Published January 20, 2021

Input from law enforcement welcome in planning efforts

By

Pasco County Commissioner Mike Moore failed to find support from his colleagues when he suggested adding a seat on the county’s planning commission for a representative from the sheriff’s office.

Moore recommended the expansion of the planning commission during the county commission’s Jan. 12 meeting.

He said Sheriff Chris Nocco has asked for such involvement in the past, and Moore asked his colleagues to move forward with the request.

“It would definitely be an asset, with the growth of the county, when it comes to public safety, as well as the traffic concerns. They need to be represented on the planning commission.

“We do have a school board (representative) that’s on the planning commission. It would only benefit us to have the sheriff’s office to have a representative on the planning commission,” Moore said.

But, Pasco County Attorney Jeffrey Steinsnyder noted: “the school board is on the planning commission only for the purposes of increase in residential density, and that’s by statute.”

He added: “I’m not sure you couldn’t put a representative of the sheriff’s office on it, but that would require a land development code amendment to change that composition.”

Commissioner Kathryn Starkey was not receptive to expanding the planning commission.

“It just seems kind of odd to me, to put the sheriff’s office on the planning commission,” Starkey said. “Is there any planning commission in the state that has law enforcement on it?”

Steinsnyder said he would have to research that question to find out.

Starkey then asked: “Is there anyone at the sheriff’s office with planning background?”

Moore responded that the sheriff does have someone in mind that he would like to appoint to that role.

Chase Daniels, assistant executive director for the Pasco Sheriff’s Office, said “to Commissioner Moore’s point, obviously any time there are new developments, there could be criminal elements to that.

“There are other concerns with CPTED, which is crime prevention through environmental design — guardhouses, gates, security cameras, lights.

“And then, to Commissioner Starkey’s point, as well, anytime you add more cars on the road, you obviously add more people that are speeding, people looking for through routes and trying to get off major thoroughfares.”

The sheriff’s intent is that “so many of those things that do come through the planning commission, we would appreciate the opportunity to have eyes on, as they go through, and make recommendations,” Daniels said.

Starkey said she’s fine with having a safety voice, but doesn’t think the planning commission is the best place for that.

“We take public comment, and certainly we hold the sheriff’s comments in high regard, and I would think that he should come to the meetings. However, being a voting member — I think that’s just not the right place for them,” Starkey said.

Commission Chairman Ron Oakley and Commissioner Jack Mariano agreed with Starkey that the sheriff’s office doesn’t need to have a representative on the planning commission.

Moore told his colleagues: “I guess I don’t understand the apprehension to have somebody appointed from the sheriff to be on the planning commission, when everything and anything approved does have some type of impact on law enforcement.

“They’re asking to be involved in those discussions,” Moore said, noting the sheriff’s office can add a “totally different insight.”

He also reminded board members of how important public safety is to the residents of Pasco County.

“We’ve seen time and time again, on our surveys, public safety always ranks No. 1,” Moore said.

Nectarios Pittos, the county’s planning and development director, said that having a sheriff’s office representative provide input on pre-application reviews could provide a chance for the law enforcement agency to weigh in at a much earlier stage of the project, than they would at the Planning Commission stage.

County attorney Steinsnyder also noted that the sheriff’s office might be able to be involved in another aspect of the county’s planning efforts, too.

“They may need a seat at the table at ordinance review, where we’re developing the land development code changes,” Steinsnyder said.

But Moore pressed on, noting he’d made a motion to take the necessary steps to add a representative from the sheriff’s office to the planning commission.

That motion was seconded by Commissioner Christina Fitzpatrick, but it failed, with Oakley, Starkey and Mariano voting no.

After the vote, Moore asked County Administrator Dan Biles to be sure to reach out to the sheriff’s office to invite them to have a member attend pre-application meetings, which Biles said he would do.

Biles also noted that the county already shares some planning information with the sheriff’s office, but he will make sure that the information is getting to the right place.

Published January 20, 2021

Pasco eyeing rule changes to spur more jobs

By

The Pasco County Commission is looking at changing the county’s employment center land use requirements in an effort to encourage more jobs.

County Commissioner Jack Mariano raised the issue during the board’s July 14 meeting, noting that he’s aware of a potential development near the intersection of State Road 54/Suncoast Parkway that could yield more jobs, if the site wasn’t required to have a multifamily component.

“I don’t want to restrict anybody, with EC (an employment center designation), not to be able to create more jobs,” Mariano said. “I want to get every single job that I can.”

Commission Chairman Mike Moore chimed in: “I agree. Do we want apartments or 500 more jobs? We want the jobs. It’s not hard to figure out, right?”

Moore said that’s especially true along the State Road 54/56 corridor, which already has a substantial amount of housing available.

Commissioner Mike Wells said he also supports Mariano’s position.

Nectarios Pittos, the county’s planning and development director, reminded commissioners that it has been the county’s longstanding policy to locate housing close to employment.

He also noted that the county’s plan promotes creating density to support transit plans.

Sites designated as employment centers that are 20 acres or less are not required to include multi-family development, Pittos added.

He also cautioned commissioners that such a change could contribute to traffic congestion.

Commissioner Kathryn Starkey said the board needs to hear the pros and cons of making such a change.

“We’re making some knee-jerk reactions,” Starkey said. “We only have two east-west roads. We need to be careful.”

Commissioners directed county staff to prepare a board workshop for further discussion on the issue.

In other action, the board:

  • Approved a resolution to notify the public of the county’s proposed solid waste rate increase of $7 per equivalent residential unit (single-family) for fiscal year 2021. The resolution also includes a proposed increase in per-ton tipping fees of $6.39 per ton for fiscal year 2021. A public hearing on the proposed increases has been set for Sept. 8 at 9 a.m., in the board chambers of the Historic Pasco County Courthouse, at 37917 Meridian Ave., in Dade City.
  • Approved an amendment to an agreement with Good Samaritan Health Clinic of Pasco Inc., to extend the time to complete the installation of a generator for the pharmacy and medical flooring for the clinic. The original completion date was scheduled for Sept. 30, 2020. However, due to COVID-19, an extension was necessary. The new completion deadline is Sept. 30, 2021.
  • Promoted Brian Hoben to the position of community services director. Hoben had been serving as the public services administrator and as interim community services director.

Published July 22, 2020

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

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