The Laker/Lutz News

Serving Pasco since 1981/Serving Lutz since 1964

Charles Grey

Project at I-75 and State Road 52 moves closer to approval

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of a rezoning request to clear the way for a project known as Pasco Town Center, on roughly 1,000 acres at the southeast quadrant of Interstate 75 and State Road 52.

Pasco County will seek to build a project known as Pasco Town Center at the southeast quadrant of Interstate 75 and State Road 52. (MIKE CAMUNAS)

The request now goes to the Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction on land use and zoning matters.

This won’t be the first time the county board considers the project.

It approved an economic incentive deal on June 7, with Columnar Holders, relating to the proposed project, which includes 4 million square feet of industrial space; 725,000 square feet of office space; 3,500 housing units; 400,000 square feet of retail and 300 hotel rooms.

The agreement terms provide a $55.8 million package for Columnar, funded mostly through property tax rebates, as specific milestones are met.

The development company also will install key roads and utility connections beyond the Pasco Town Center Property – providing $70.1 million in public infrastructure, with no direct cost to taxpayers, David Engel, the county’s director of the office of economic growth, said at the June 7 county board meeting.

Pasco Town Center is within the Employment Center area of Connected City.

Joel Tew, attorney for the applicant, described the project to the planning board at its July 21 meeting.

“We’re talking about thousands and thousands of jobs,” he said.

“We must use at least 55% of the land — in this case, we’re talking over 1,000 acres of land, so we’re talking about over 500 acres of land must be allocated and used for corporate business park, targeted business or industrial use,” Tew said.

“We then must use at least 20% for residential uses, but they can’t be single-family detached. So, everything has to be multifamily or townhomes to support the employment center.

“Then, finally, we have to use at least 5% for support commercial uses for the employment center,” he said.

Planning Commissioner Chris Williams, who also is the director of planning for Pasco County Schools, noted that the residential entitlements are double what had been previously proposed.

That raises the issue of the potential need of a school site within the project site, Williams said.

Tew responded: “For the record, we understand that concern.”

He also noted that there’s still a significant amount of land that has not yet been committed to a particular use, so he is confident that a suitable site could be identified.

At the planning board’s meeting, Engel explained the significance of the Pasco Town Center project.

“It’s vitally important for our economic future because it is the heart of our economic development area, on I-75 and (State Road) 52, employment node,” he said.

It will provide infrastructure — the public spine roads and the master utility lines—for the employment center area, as well as to areas to the east, he said.

The Office of Economic Growth wanted to ensure the elements of the economic development agreement were carried through to the master-planned unit development (MPUD) level, so it has worked closely with the county’s planning department to ensure that happened, he said.

County planners recommended approval of the request.

Neighbors seek to protect their tranquility
Carol Roth, who lives on McKendree Road, appeared before the planning board, along with her daughter and granddaughter. All three women raised concerns about the impacts the sizable project will have on their way of life.

“When we came into this area, it was beautiful and serene,” Roth said.

“I feel it is the obligation of Pasco County government to protect me and my environment and my land, as you allow for growth for business and other people. I’ve lived there over 50 years, I built that home and I’ve enjoyed what I have.

“I’ve enjoyed its inherent beauty. I don’t know if people are familiar with rural Pasco, but it’s a distinct beauty,” she said.

She also noted that her property has a variance for an air strip and wanted assurances that wouldn’t be affected, if future plans call for a new school nearby.

Roth said she’s not against development, she’s against the impacts that come with this type of development.

“What happens to the little people who own 20 acres right across the street?” she said.

Her granddaughter noted that the family built their home “with their own sweat and blood.”

She expressed concerns about impacts on wildlife in an area where gators walk across their property, dozens of turkeys hang out there, and there’s sandhill cranes and other creatures.

Safety is an issue, too, she said.

Roth’s daughter noted that all of the development will create light pollution, resulting in a loss of access to the night sky, and the sense of stillness and awe they currently enjoy.

Brad Tippin, the county’s development manager, said the county doesn’t anticipate any conflicts with the landing field from future development. He also noted that plans call for realigning McKendree Road, which would push traffic further away from the family’s home.

Tew said that whenever development occurs, it will be required to meet buffering, setback and landscaping requirements.

Planning Commissioner Jon Moody observed: “We can’t stop Tampa from extending northward. I don’t think there’s anything we can do to stop that kind of growth. The population continues to grow, the people up North keep coming. And, from the looks of things, it looks like it’s going to keep coming.”

Moody said he understands the family’s concerns, noting he won’t pay for streetlights in his neighborhood because he enjoys the night sky, too.

“But I can’t guarantee that the next 100-acre tract over or the one after that is not going to get built on; I don’t own it,” he said.

He also noted this project is “going to bring a lot of jobs, probably desperately needed  jobs.”

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi agreed: “Growth is coming. It’s inevitable.”

At least now, both Girardi and Moody said, the county is planning for growth.

Planning Commissioner Williams added: “My family has been here for five generations, here in Pasco County.”

He, too, enjoys the rural nature of where he lives, Williams said.

But he added: “I can’t dictate what my neighbor decides they want to do with their property.”

Planning board chairman Charles Grey added: “We’re aware, keenly aware, of growth and how it affects areas that we once thought were going to be that way forever.”

This project has been thought out and will have considerable benefit, Grey said.

“There’s going to be a downside as far as you’re concerned because of the growth, but the upside is, at some stage, you may want to sell that property, and when you do, it’s going to be worth a lot more money, because of it,” Grey said.

Published July 27, 2022

Themes emerge, as Pasco updates plan

By

As Pasco County works to update its comprehensive plans, themes have been emerging through listening sessions, according to a consultant working with the county on the Pasco 2050 update.

Pasco residents primarily identify as being residents within a specific community, said Steve Schukraft, a planner with HDR Inc., the consultants working on the county’s plan update.

There’s “a very diverse set of perspectives and a diverse set of ideas about what their life is like in their community and how they see the county, overall,” he said.

Schukraft shared some of the key issues that have emerged during the listening sessions with members of the Pasco County Planning Commission, during a June 16 workshop.

The State Road 52 and Interstate 75 interchange is expected to become far busier, as large industrial projects that are planned near the interchange are developed. Pasco County has approved recent incentive packages that are expected to yield more than 8,000 jobs in the area. Planning for industrial development has been identified as one of the county’s key needs, during Pasco County Commission discussions. (Mike Camunas)

He also shared information gleaned from reviews of previous engagement efforts by the county, and from a review of the county’s planning practices and documents.

Plus, he opened the discussion up to the planning board’s thoughts on issues they think must be addressed in the Pasco 2050 plan.

One topic that’s been raised repeatedly during the listening sessions is a concern about the impacts from rapid growth on community character and compatibility, Schukraft said.

He also told the planning board: “An observation that we would make is that there’s not a real clear sense among the general public about what the comprehensive plan calls for. So, they’ll see development on the side of the road that is perfectly in line with what the comp plan calls for and what zoning allows — they’re just upset because it represents a change in their day-to-day life,” he said.

“People talked a lot about their concern when they see a site cleared for development, when they see corridors getting more development and getting more dense over time,” he said.

“People don’t know where the line is drawn now between the more suburban future land use categories and the rural categories,” he noted.

Opinions about life in Pasco vary widely, depending on where people live, he added.

“We heard from people in the new large-scale master-planned communities (who said) that they had the best quality of life of anyone in the country. We had some people in some other communities who felt they were kind of falling behind, that they didn’t have the advantages of other folks in the county —  they didn’t have the same quality of facilities, same accessibility. So, there was a big divergence in perspectives.”

One big theme that came up centered on “protecting and conserving rural communities and landscapes.

“We heard that often. We heard that throughout the county,” Schukraft said.

The consultant said he thinks for many, it’s an issue of visual impact.

His sense of their sentiment was this: “I like my open views. I like the rolling hills in Northeast Pasco and I don’t want those developed.”

Planning board member Chris Williams told Schukraft: “As somebody who lives in the Dade City area and lives on a rolling hill and has an open view, those (statements) ring true to me.”

But David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, noted: “The people who are saying, we need to protect our rural area, where are they suggesting that growth go? You can’t say, ‘We want no growth.’”

During listening sessions for the upcoming update of Pasco County’s comprehensive plan, the need for preserving rural areas was one of the common themes that emerged. Balancing that desire with the need to accommodate growth could surface as one of the major debates, in the process to create the Pasco 2050 plan.

Work on comprehensive plan update is in early stages
Schukraft told the planning board, at this point in the process, he was merely presenting what was heard in the listening sessions and what has been gleaned from reviewing previous county engagement efforts,

The research being done also includes a look at the county’s demographics and socioeconomics; land use development conditions; mobility; a review of existing planning and policy framework; a market analysis to look at where the market opportunities are; strengths and weakness in Pasco’s market position; and, some planning best practices.

Charles Grey, the planning board’s chairman raised an issue that bothers him.

“It really turns me off when I drive by a nice wooded piece of property and then the next day I drive by and it’s leveled, there’s not a tree on the site.

“I’ve seen them tear out 500-year-old oak trees to put in a car wash. That doesn’t make sense to me,” Grey said.

He’d also like to see what can be done to encourage redevelopment.

“There’s plenty of areas that could be redeveloped. From a practical point of view, how do you do it?” Grey asked.

Schukraft noted the negative impacts caused by congestion.

“One of the direct impacts of development is traffic and most of the county is developed in auto-oriented fashion, so to get a gallon of milk, or to get your kid to school or to get to work, you’re driving.

“So, you’re in a car and you experience the county in a car to meet most of your daily and weekly needs.

“We need to look really carefully about how we accommodate those additional trips on the network with already constrained capacity,” Schukraft said.

Planning board member Don Anderson addressed the shortage of affordable housing.

He told Schukraft: “There’s already tenants being displaced because people are moving into the area. People who have lived here, were raised here, are actually being displaced because of the increase in rents.”

Schukraft responded: “People are bringing fat checkbooks into the region and pricing folks out.”

“And then just the movement from folks getting priced out of Hillsborough and Pinellas, coming up to Pasco to try to find cheap housing is putting pressure on the market, too. Some of it has to do with raw supply. The market needs to probably be producing twice the amount of houses per week or month, or units per week or month to meet that demand. And, that ramp-up hasn’t happened yet.”

If you would like to know more about Pasco County’s comprehensive plan update efforts, visit Pasco2050.com.

Published July 06, 2022

Elected leaders are trying to figure out how to get kids to school safely

By

When Pasco County Schools announced it would be dropping courtesy busing for middle and high school students next school year, local residents began seeking other answers from local elected leaders.

The decision affects about 3,000 students, who live closer than 2 miles from school. It doesn’t affect elementary school students.

The district’s rationale for ending the courtesy bus rides is that it will take some of the strain off the bus driver shortage, and should help with getting students to school on time and reducing wait times for students needing to be transported home after school.

Courtesy bus rides are expected to end this fall for sixth- through 12th-graders living within 2 miles of Pasco County Schools. The school district’s decision has prompted discussion among elected leaders of various government boards. (File)

Plus, the state doesn’t pay for those courtesy bus rides.

Since the district’s announcement, the issue has been sparking conversations among other elected government leaders.

During the Pasco County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting a couple of weeks after the announcement, Pasco County Commissioner Mike Moore told his MPO board colleagues: “I don’t know if you are, but I’ve gotten several emails from constituents with concerns.

“How is that going to work with our prioritization of sidewalks?” Moore asked other elected members on the board, which is responsible for transportation planning throughout Pasco County.

There are many areas within 2 miles of schools that lack sidewalks, Moore noted. “Students will have to walk in yards or in streets,” he said.

Moore than asked whether there were ways for the county board and the school board to work together to attract funding for additional sidewalks.

Tina Russo, a planner for the MPO, responded: “We feel the urgency. This has been a big discussion with all of our folks in the county, with figuring out the best way to move forward.

“There is a school safety group that meets monthly that discusses several different things, whether it be crossing guards, traffic officers, sidewalks, all of those things.

“Right now, we’re working on a county process of how we’re going to fund sidewalks and rank them, and then go after different pots of funding,” she said.

Russo added: “There’s nothing easy about it.”

Moore said if there any grants available, action is needed now.

Pasco County Commission Chairman Kathryn Starkey agreed solutions must be found.

However, she added: “There has to be a process, where they identify the most critical ones. That’s a lengthy process.”

Right of way must be secured, and in some cases the property owners are unwilling to sell, Moore said. That requires eminent domain — a process the county likes to avoid, he added.

“The most concerning thing is time,” said Camille Hernandez, who was attending her final MPO meeting before leaving her role as mayor of Dade City.

“It takes so long,” she said, to secure funding, acquire right of way and get sidewalks built.

“There really needs to be creative thinking here. We can’t wait,” Hernandez said.

“It’s really going to be an activist kind of movement, in the interim, whether it’s walking groups or biking groups — it’s going to have to be alternative methods,” she said.

Starkey said one potential solution is called a Walking School Bus. Essentially, it’s a group of students walking together to school, chaperoned by volunteer adults.

In addition to concerns raised by the MPO, the issue came up again at the Pasco County Planning Commission meeting, during discussion of a rezoning request.

Chris Williams, director of planning for the school district, was asking whether a proposed project had sidewalks.

That’s a critical issue, Williams said, because of the shortage of bus drivers and the lack of state funding for bus rides within 2 miles of school. The state does allow some bus rides within 2 miles, but the walking conditions must be deemed dangerous by very specific state standards.

Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein told the planning board: “The MPO board expressed a great deal of concern about us having inadequate sidewalks to the schools.

“I think it is a high priority for our board (Pasco County Commission) to get that issue dealt with. There is a program called Safe Routes to Schools, but it is a fairly slow process to get sidewalks built.

Goldstein noted that at least one commissioner “said maybe the county should be looking at spending some Penny for Pasco money, as part of the renewal, to prioritize all of these sidewalks and get them built quickly.”

To make that happen, the county would need cooperation from the school district to identify areas where there’s an immediate needs for sidewalks, Goldstein said.

“I would think the voters would support getting these sidewalks built for safe transportation to schools. We just need to know where the proper locations are to do that,” Goldstein said.

Planning board chairman Charles Grey agreed the issue is important.

“It is a valid concern and I think it is something that we, as a county, need to address,” Grey said.

Discussions on the topic are likely to continue within the coming months, before the courtesy bus rides are slated to end in the fall.

Published May 04, 2022

Planning board makeup to stay the same

By

The makeup of the Pasco County Planning Commission will stay the same — despite a change in the way members are selected.

Also, the planning board has reappointed Charles Grey as its chair and Jaime Girardi as its vice chair.

There are differences, though. Now, each Pasco County commissioner makes his or her individual appointment to the planning board and that planning commissioner serves a term that mirrors the term of the county board member who makes that appointment.

The county board also collectively selects one planning board member who serves a four-year term.

In this case, County Commissioner Ron Oakley appointed Grey; County Commissioner Mike Moore chose Peter Hanzel; County Commissioner Christina Fitzpatrick chose Don Anderson; County Commissioner Jack Mariano chose Roberto Saez; and, Commission Chairwoman Kathryn Starkey chose Girardi.

The board collectively appointed Chris Poole.

The planning board advises the county board on land use and zoning issues.

The issue involving how planning board members are selected arose last summer.

County board members Mariano and Starkey said they wanted to make individual appointments; Oakley said the process was working and no changes were needed.

County Attorney Jeffrey Steinsnyder said the change would require an amendment to the land development code.

Steinsnyder added: “I’ll also remind you that the reason you moved to board appointments versus commission appointments was to move forward the way most other jurisdictions do it.”

The county board directed its staff to take the steps necessary to lay the groundwork for a board vote to amend the land development code.

Public hearings were held and the land development code was changed.

When the county board ultimately voted to keep the current planning board membership intact, Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator, responded this way: “Everyone is back on, which makes me very, very happy.”

Characterizing this reaction as an editorial comment, Hernandez added: “This is the best planning commission that you’ve had in the 19 years that I’ve been doing this job.”

Oakley noted: “We were looking at something that I felt wasn’t broken.”

At its Feb. 3 meeting, Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein told the planning board that no additional swearing-in ceremony would be required, since they had previously been sworn-in.

However, Goldstein said he would be happy to arrange a ceremonial swearing-in, if one was desired.

Planning board members agreed that wouldn’t be necessary.

Published February 09, 2022

Planning board recommends RV resort in rural area

By

Residents in rural northeast Pasco County rallied against the proposed North Pasco RV Resort , but were unable to persuade the county’s planning board to recommend denial.

The Pasco County Commission recommended approval of a land use change and a rezoning, which would clear the way for the 550-space RV resort. The issue now goes before the Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction on land use and zoning issues.

The proposed 132-acre site borders Interstate 75, east of Lake Iola Road and south of Blanton Road. It is within the county’s Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay Area.

That overlay is intended to protect the character of the rural landscape, preserve scenic views and vistas, and ensure that on-site development is compatible with the character of the surrounding area, according to the county ordinance that established the district.

Attorney Barbara Wilhite represented the applicants, VCARE Consultants LLC, during the planning board’s Jan. 6 public hearings for the zoning and land use requests.

VCARE also hired Frances Chandler Marino, who wrote the Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay Area plan, to review the proposed plan for compliance with the rural plan. The private professional planner testified that the proposed plan is consistent with policies within the rural overlay district.

Marino outlined specific conditions of approval that address provisions in the rural plan.

Wilhite told the planning board that numerous concerns were raised about the proposed plan during the initial neighborhood meeting in September 2019.

In response, she said, “we slowed down the project.

“We really listened to the concerns and I feel we addressed every one of them, except for folks that are just going to say, ‘We don’t want this. We don’t want this project,’” Wilhite said.

The original request called for 675 spaces; the new request calls for a maximum of 550.

The plan also includes a resort lodge and clubhouse facilities.

“We hired a landscape architect,” Wilhite said.

“We designed a specific, regulatory corridor buffer along Lake Iola Road, which is a rural scenic road. Our berm along Lake Iola Road exceeds the Northeast Pasco land development code requirements.

“We took an extra step, which I’ve never seen done before. We did an internal master landscape and tree plan,” she added.

A topographical survey will be done and conditions addressed how the site will be graded, consistent with Northeast Rural Pasco policies, she said. No mining will be allowed on the site, she added.

The development also will have its own wastewater treatment plant.

The conditions are part of the approval for the master-planned unit development, meaning any deviations would require the applicant to go back through the regulatory process, Wilhite said.

Marino told the planning board: “It is a commercial recreation use, a use that’s generally compatible in rural areas. The intensity was compatible, because of the adjacency to the interstate. That level of intensity might not be appropriate (in) other locations, but next to the interstate, it is.”

But opponents raised numerous issues.

Paul Boetcher cited concerns about potential ill effects from runoff on Lake Moody.

Gail Wright questioned where the water will come from for the new development.

“If they go to full capacity of 550, that’s 1,100 people flushing toilets. That’s 1,100 people taking showers,” she said.

Wright’s husband, Carl, objected to the proposed RV resort: “That’s commercial, in my book, and I don’t think that an RV park has any business being in the rural part of Pasco.”

Neighbors also raised questions about impacts on the area’s traffic and about the potential for RVs to be stacked on exterior roads, waiting to enter the resort.

Several residents submitted the same email, which notes the overlay district “was specifically set aside to preserve the rural nature of this unique area of Florida, to preserve the dark skies, to maintain unique viewsheds, minimize sound pollution, and protect fragile, sensitive lands.”

Lisa Moretti, chairwoman of the advisory committee empaneled to offer recommendations on commercial development in the rural area, asked the planning board to delay its decision until the committee could finish its work.

(The Pasco County Commission subsequently disbanded that board at its Jan. 11 meeting, after County Commissioner Ron Oakley complained it was not working the way it was intended.)

While residents voiced objections to the proposed RV resort, planning board members expressed support.

“Although this is in the northeast rural area, it’s an isolated area that uses a lot of the I-75 frontage. It’s in an area that has an RV park right down the street. I think this is miles above and beyond what the adjacent RV park is. That’s why I’m in favor of this,” said planning board member Jaime Girardi.

Planning board member Chris Poole said he appreciated the level of effort that Wilhite and her team put into the planning of this project.

Chairman Charles Grey said Marino’s testimony was persuasive, adding, “we have a responsibility to follow the rule of the law.”

Board member Peter Hanzel said ultimately, this project “may enhance the community, as a whole. It will bring folks to the county, will bring folks to a beautiful area of Pasco County.”

But Planning Commissioner Richard Tonello disagreed.

“This is the rural area. I think the people who live there wanted it to be that way. When we think of rural, we think of 1-acre sites, 5-acre sites, 10-acre sites,” he said.

Approval of this request, he said, “sets something in motion, as sort of a precedent.

“If commercial wants to be done, it can be done at appropriate places,” Tonello said. “This is just not the right place.”

Published January 19, 2022

Planning board delays rezoning request in Land O’ Lakes

By

A request to rezone 50.15 acres for a 108 single-family homes in Land O’ Lakes has been delayed until Nov. 18, to continue to explore a way to prevent cut-through traffic from future area development.

The request, by Darrell A. and Karen J. Renner, calls for rezoning agricultural land into a master-planned unit development (MPUD) on the south side of Bexley Road, about a mile west of the intersection of U.S. 41 and Wisteria Loop.

The Pasco County Planning Commission first heard the request on Sept. 30, but delayed it until Nov. 4 to give the applicant time to pursue the possibility of building a county “vision road,” which, in effect, would keep future area traffic from spilling into the existing community along Wisteria Loop.

County planners initially had recommended approval of the application, if the developer brought Wisteria Loop up to county standards.

During the Nov. 4 meeting, however, area resident Ray Gadd called for approval of the application to be contingent on the construction of the vision road. Another area resident, Chris Nocco, urged the planning board to take a long-term look and act now to protect existing communities. Gadd is deputy superintendent of Pasco County Schools and Nocco is the county’s sheriff. Both made a point to say they were acting as private citizens, not in their official capacity.

Shelly Johnson, an attorney representing the applicants, told the planning board at the Nov. 4 meeting that her client would be willing to construct the vision road or improve the existing road, but not both.

However, her client subsequently found out that building the vision road would cost approximately $2.7 million and improving the existing road would cost $914,000. They also learned there’s wetlands involved, so it could take up two years to obtain the necessary permits to build the road.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey said it’s not the planning board’s job to ensure that a project is financially feasible, but board colleagues Jaime Girardi and Don Anderson said they weren’t comfortable forcing the applicant to shoulder the additional costs.

One possibility would be to reconfigure three existing skewed intersections into a traditional T-intersection, a representative for the applicant said.

The planning board continued the request until Nov. 18 at 1:30 p.m., in New Port Richey, at the Pasco County government center. The delay is meant to allow the applicants to bring back a potential solution and to give area residents another opportunity to weigh in at a public hearing.

Published November 10, 2021

Traffic concerns cause rezoning delay

By

Saying they want to make sure they get the planning right, the Pasco County Planning Commission continued a rezoning request by Darrell A. and Karen Renner for a proposed 108-home development in Land O’ Lakes.

The request was continued until Nov. 4, when the planning board is scheduled to also consider another nearby rezoning request known as the Clark master-planned unit development (MPUD).

There’s a connection between the two because some right of way is available in the Clark MPUD that could help resolve a traffic circulation concern.

The Renners have requested a rezoning that would allow a new subdivision on 50 acres, on the south side of Bexley Road, about 1 mile west of U.S. 41 and Wisteria Loop.

The site presently is occupied by a residence and some agricultural pursuits, and its current zoning allows a maximum of 19 residences, according to the county’s planning staff.

County planners have recommended approval of the Renner’s request.

They said the proposed density is in keeping with the county’s future land use designations for the area. They also recommend a number of conditions. One condition requires improvements on Bexley Road and Wisteria Loop — to bring both of these substandard roads up to the county’s standards.

Under those conditions, the improvements would be required on Bexley Road, from the project driveway to Wisteria Loop, and on Wisteria Loop, from Bexley Road east to U.S. 41.

Area residents, however, urged the planning board to require a different solution to traffic issues.

They want a realignment of Wisteria Loop, which they say is part of the county’s vision road map.

Ray Gadd, who lives on Wisteria Loop, explained the current scenario to the planning board and what area residents would like to see.

“As it stands now, they (motorists) come to the curve in Wisteria (Loop), and they can go right to Tower (Road) or out to Wisteria Loop,” Gadd said.

If the realignment is constructed, the traffic flow would change.

“What it (vision road) accomplishes is that it essentially makes Bexley a continuous road. So that people coming from the applicant’s property, people coming from the Bexley property, or the future Angeline property would hit Bexley and have a continuous route, without a stop sign, until they hit (U.S.) 41, where they would make a right turn,” Gadd said.

Requiring that approach would be “effective planning,” Gadd contends.

If the planning commission wants to recommend approval of the Renner request, it should require the developer to acquire the right of way needed to make that improvement, Gadd said.

That land is within the proposed Clark MPUD.

Gadd is deputy superintendent of Pasco County Schools, but made it a point to announce that his appearance was as a private citizen, not in his official capacity.

Jeremy Couch, another Wisteria Road resident, told the planning board: “I feel that the staff’s conditions are completely inadequate for what they want to do.”

He characterized the Renner’s requested development as being “premature.”

Chris Nocco, Pasco County’s sheriff, also spoke at the public hearing. Like Gadd, he announced he was there as a private citizen, not in his official capacity.

Nocco urged the planning board to take a long view when considering the application.

“We want the community, Land O’ Lakes to grow, but to grow smartly,” Nocco said.

“Start those vision roads,” he said, because without them, existing communities are at risk.

“As we start building out Angeline (a massive development planned in Land O’ Lakes), let’s start seeing how it’s going to affect everything else because we don’t want to destroy the communities that are already in place,” Nocco said.

Matthew McClain, who lives on a 3.5-acre property just east of the proposed rezoning, raised issues regarding compatibility.

“My concern is, this will destroy that rural nature. Everything around it is large lots,” he said.

With the proposed rezoning, McClain said, “You’re going to cram 100-plus homes on 34 (upland) acres, in an area where there’s 3-, 5-, 10-acre plots of land. It just doesn’t make any sense.”

Shelly Johnson, the attorney representing the applicant, said her client can make the improvements required in the conditions, or can complete the realignment that’s being proposed.

But it can’t do both, she said.

Johnson asked the planning board to recommend approval and to send the request to the Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction on land use and zoning issues.

“From our perspective, we’re doing everything that we’re required to do that other developments do. When you have a road that’s substandard, you bring it up to standard, and that’s what my client agreed to do,” Johnson said.

“We are absolutely doing everything that we can, and that the code requires us to do, in terms of doing improvements to Wisteria Loop, which right now is our access. That’s our way in and out to (U.S.) 41.”

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey told his colleagues, the board needs to be sure “that when we do this, we do it right — we have the proper things in place.

“We can’t let an artificial date define how we handle these neighborhoods. I think traffic flow here, is extremely important,” Grey said.

Planning Commissioner Chris Poole agreed.

“We need to get the planning right on this. This is a particularly difficult area that we’re dealing with here,” Poole said.

After additional discussion, the board voted to continue the request until Nov. 4, the same day it is scheduled to consider the rezoning request for the Clark MPUD.

Published October 13, 2021

Participating in public discussions just got easier

By

The Pasco County Commission imposed a number of restrictions on its public meetings, to reduce potential spread of COVID-19.

No one was allowed in the board’s meeting room except for board members and county staff.

Meeting participants had to speak from a kiosk, from outside of the board’s chambers, or take part remotely, via WebEx.

Masks were required, too.

Those who wished to participate could send emails to be read aloud into the record.

Over time, the rules were relaxed, allowing a specific number of people to be in the meeting room — while others had to stay in a waiting area.

Now, the board has resumed its normal operations.

The kiosks are gone and emails no longer will be read into the record.

But, the board has decided to keep the WebEx option for people who want to participate in meetings remotely.

Chief Assistant David Goldstein explained the changes to the Pasco County Planning Commission at its July 8 meeting.

The new rules apply to both the county board and to the county planning board, Goldstein said.

“I think the board has gotten used to allowing WebEx as a participation option, unrelated to COVID,” the attorney said.

“For example, if someone has something on the consent agenda, they don’t want to sit here for four hours, if they can just monitor WebEx. Or, you may have a member of the public that has to work that day. Or, somebody’s sick and they don’t want to be contagious in the board room.

“There are multiple reasons why the board felt it was a more convenient option for some citizens to be able to participate by WebEx,” Goldstein said.

“The board has had some criticism by some members of the public that all of our meetings occur during the day.

“They can’t attend our planning commission or our board meetings at 1:30 (p.m.).

“So, it is an option for somebody who works all day, that they can do it from their office,” Goldstein said.

While they decided to make WebEx a permanent participation option for board meetings and for planning commission meetings, applicants with an item on the regular agenda must have a representative who is physically present at the meeting, Goldstein said.

That requirement stems from some occasions when technical glitches caused communication problems between the board and WebEx participants, the attorney explained.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey expressed concerns that the WebEx system could be logjammed, but Goldstein said he hasn’t seen any abuse of the system.

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel said he initially resisted remote models because he prefers to have people physically present, where he can see them.

But, Hanzel said he now realizes that such technology serves a useful purpose because it enables people to participate who otherwise might be unable to do so.

Published July 21, 2021

Will planning board appointments become more political?

By

Pasco County commissioners want a greater say, individually, regarding appointments to the Pasco County Planning Commission.

The issue arose at the county board’s July 6 meeting, when commissioners were set to approve two-year reappointments of planning commissioners Charles Grey, Christopher Poole, Roberto Saez and Don Anderson.

The item had been placed on the board’s consent agenda — meaning no discussion was expected and it would be approved as part of a bundle of agenda items.

But Commissioner Mike Moore pulled the item to express his desire to consider such appointments individually in the future —  instead of voting on them collectively.

Commissioner Kathryn Starkey, however, pushed for a bigger change.

She wants to discard the process that’s been used recently to choose the planning board.

Instead of soliciting applications and then voting on appointments as a collective county board, she called for individual commissioners to choose a planning board member to represent their district.

“I prefer to appoint someone to that (planning board),” Starkey said.

Jack Mariano supported the move.

“Commissioner Starkey, I agree 100%. I don’t have a single person from District 5 and there’s not a single person from District 1, either.”

Moore said he had no problems with what Starkey and Mariano were suggesting.

It’s similar to the process that commissioners used in the past to select members of the planning commission.

County Attorney Jeffrey Steinsnyder told the board that changing the selection process would require an amendment to the land development code.

Steinsnyder added: “I’ll also remind you that the reason you moved to board appointments versus commission appointments was to move forward the way most other jurisdictions do it.”

Having the entire county board select planning commissioners reduces potential for “political appointments,” Steinsnyder said.

“It is probably your most important board,” Steinsnyder said.

“That’s why I feel that the west side should be represented,” Starkey said. “They don’t have to live in a commission district. I may not find anyone who qualifies in my district,” she said. “But at least I want someone on the (planning) board who understands my district.”

Commission Chairman Ron Oakley said he doesn’t have a problem with the current planning commission.

“I think the planning commission has been operating very well. I don’t have any feeling of not being represented on that planning commission board. They’re all our citizens,” Oakley said.

However, Oakley joined in with the rest of the commission when they approved a motion by Starkey to extend the terms of Grey, Poole, Saez and Anderson for six months.

That will allow time for new commission district lines to be drawn through redistricting.

After that, commissioners agreed they would appoint one planning commissioner each, with the full board choosing an at-large member. The school board seat on the planning board would not be affected by the change.

Planning board members who already have been reappointed to longer terms would need to be addressed separately, Moore noted.

The issue was bought up at the Pasco County Planning Commission’s meeting on July 8, by Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator.

She informed the planning board about the county board’s action.

David Goldstein, the chief assistant county attorney, said the possibility remains that the planning board’s composition could remain the same — since commissioners have the option of appointing someone who lives outside of their district.

Future vacancies, he said, will be filled by individual board members, except for the at-large seat, which will be selected by the entire board. The school board seat will not be affected.

Because the change requires an amendment to the county’s land development code and because it would not take effect until redistricting is done, it might not occur within six months, Goldstein said.

“My understanding is that there’s an issue with the census data. It’s not out yet. The redistricting has to be based on the census data.

“It may not occur in six months. It may roll into the next year. I suspect what will happen is that we may need to be going back to the board saying, ‘We need to extend another six months, or something to that effect,” Goldstein said.

Currently, there are no representatives on the planning commission from Oakley, Starkey or Mariano’s districts.

“There are three planning commission members from Christina Fitzpatrick’s district and three members from Commissioner Moore’s district,” Hernandez said.

The planning commission is a volunteer board, which provides recommendations on comprehensive land use, zoning, and land development code changes, as well as conditional use requests and operational permits. It is the final decision-making body for special exception applications.

Planning Commission Chairman Grey quipped that zoning administrator Hernandez was behind the planned change.

To which Goldstein responded: “It was not the recommendation by staff or the county attorney’s office.”

Planning board member Anderson asked: “Does that (the new process) make it more of a political appointment?”

Goldstein responded: “Yes, that was one of the reasons the county attorney’s office originally recommended that it be the decision of the entire board, so the entire board could pick the best fit from an expertise perspective, more so, versus, say, they happen to live in the district, perspective.”

Serving on the planning commission requires a certain amount of expertise in real estate, planning, development and so on, Goldstein said.

“I think the county attorney’s office, and probably the planning staff as well, thought the appointment should be based on knowledge and expertise, rather than where you live,” Goldstein said.

Published July 14, 2021

Planning board urges county to speed up reviews

By

As the Pasco County Planning Commission considered a request for a special plan reviewer for the Villages of Pasadena Hills (VOPH), planning board members took the opportunity to encourage the county to find ways to speed up its development review process.

The VOPH asked the county to dedicate a specific planner to handle plan reviews within the special district, which county staff resisted.

“I think their general thought was since they’re paying an extra fee that is not paid throughout the rest of the county that that entitles them to their own reviewer,” said David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney.

But Nectarios Pittos, the county’s director of planning and development, and Ernest Monoco, manager of special districts, said having a specific planner to handle those issues is not a viable solution.

The planning board ultimately agreed with the staff, to recommend to the Pasco County Commission that it rejects the request for the dedicated VOPH planner. But they also urged county staff to find a way to shorten the amount of time needed to complete the county’s development review process.

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi put it like this: “I know it’s unprecedented times for the county, and this isn’t obviously the forum for the discussion. But I know there’s a lot of developers out there that are getting extremely concerned with lengths of review time, lengths of pre-application times. Because they see the fees that they’re paying and they know those fees are getting collected, yet there’s not allocation to hire additional staff to support the workload.

“Everybody here understands the problem, and it’s a great problem to have, but it’s out there. I just want to make sure that it’s getting taken care of.”

Girardi continued: “You have great staff here, but I feel they’re under more and more stress every single day, from everybody. I worry for the people here, as much as anything.”

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel added: “Is there a possibility you could contract with a vendor out there who could do some of the work, and therefore kind of catch you up? There’s got to be a corporation or a business or a private entity that can bring in some people, do the work — you contract that work out for a short period of time. You only need that manpower for a short period of time anyway.”

But Monoco explained: “The review is more than just the planner. You distribute the review to various entities within different departments. There’s a lot of coordination. It’s bigger than just a particular division within the planning department.”

Richard Tonello, representing the Pasco School Board on the planning board, said the school district takes part in those reviews.

“It’s a huge undertaking. People have to know the county. They have to know the land use. The land development code. There’s a lot to learn. You just can’t farm that out. It’s very difficult,” Tonello said.

Goldstein added:  “In my experience, consultants are best utilized for specific tasks, for specific projects.

“I would say that normal standard review of zonings and MPUDs (master-planned unit developments) is probably still best handled by internal staff.”

Board Chairman Charles Grey said “I think it’s important, Jaime, that you brought that to everyone’s attention. I think we all know it. Sometimes it’s a good idea to just vocalize it.”

Planning board members, Grey said, have been hearing complaints about how long it takes to go through the process.

“Of course, they (those complaining) don’t realize how much work goes into it,” Grey said.

The chairman also acknowledged Goldstein’s comment that “you can’t just necessarily hire somebody off the street to do certain functions of the review process because it takes a lot of expertise, a lot of background information.”

Planning Commissioner Chris Poole noted: “This is not unique to Pasco. All of the surrounding counties are experiencing the same thing. The county immediately to the south is much worse.”

Pittos said there are proposed initiatives in the 2022 Pasco County budget to help planning and development to obtain more resources and more people, but final action on the budget won’t be taken until September.

Meanwhile, Planning Commissioner Roberto Saez said the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County are outsourcing engineering services and it has sped up their reviews.

Published July 07, 2021