The Laker/Lutz News

Charles Grey

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

TECO to operate solar farm in unincorporated Zephyrhills

By

Tampa Electric Company (TECO) has obtained permission to proceed with a solar farm generating up to 74.7 megawatts on a 576-acre site, east of Paul S. Buchman Highway, south of Jerry Road, west of Saunders Road and north of County Line Road, in unincorporated Zephyrhills.

The request is part of the electric company’s long-term strategy to build a grid that is reliable and meets its customer’s needs, according to background materials in the application file.

In approving the request, the Pasco County Planning Commission increased the buffering requirements to provide a better screen for residential neighbors to the site. To accomplish that, commissioners are requiring more trees to be planted to reduce visibility of the solar farm to neighbors living adjacent to the site.

Electric company officials hope to have the facility completed and producing energy by 2023, according to agenda background materials.

The solar farm will use film photovoltaic (PV) panels that absorb sunlight and directly produce electricity. It will be on a 576-acre site that includes the Palm River Dairy Farm and some single-family dwellings.

Conditions for approval included minimum setbacks, buffering requirements and noise regulations.

The solar farm will be located in the southeastern portion of unincorporated Pasco County.

The solar farm will consist of 133 acres of panels spread out over about 350 acres. The panels will be organized in arrays, and there will be grassy areas in between and beneath the solar arrays. Those grassy areas will be grazed by sheep.

The site is located next to Martin Marietta Materials, which uses are aggregate transfer facility, asphalt plant, rail spur, aggregate sorting and conveyance system, storage yard, sales and operational offices.

The solar farm will be unmanned and will be remotely monitored.

Under the conditions for approval, the applicant must  provide a decommission plan for the site, which may be reviewed and approved by the county administrator or his designee.

If the applicant ceases operations or the solar farm no longer works properly or is abandoned, the applicant is responsible for decommissioning the solar farm within 180 days.

The decommissioning shall include the removal and disposal of all material and equipment, in a manner that is consistent with industry standards and practices.

The site also must be restored to the condition that existed immediately following the initial site clearing and grading, according to background materials.

During the public hearing, one neighbor raised concerns about the potential impacts from the solar farm, including the potential for diminishing the value of his property, and the possible unknown health consequences.

Kristin Mora, an attorney representing TECO, cited research a research paper from the North Carolina State Clean Energy Technology Center, which concluded that solar farms are deemed a human health hazard.

She also cited research that determined that solar farms do not diminish property values.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey, however, disputed the finding regarding property values.

“That’s my area of expertise. I’ve been in the business for 50 years,” Grey said. “I know what affects property values and what doesn’t. I don’t think anybody in this room could say, in all honesty, that they’d love to live next to a solar panel site.

“I know that we’re trying to develop them (solar farms). I know that we’re looking toward that type of energy, but if we’re going to do it, we’re going to have to pay the price to do it. I don’t think we should expect the neighbors to pay the price.

“Personally, I think, if it were up to me, they should have to be compensated for the amount of decrease in value their property may experience because I think they will experience it,” the planning board chairman concluded.

He also advocated for additional buffering to shield adjacent residential properties from the visual impacts of the solar farm.

Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein said the planning board had the discretion to impose more substantial buffering requirements than recommended by planning staff.

“My personal feeling is that it should be not visible from the adjoining residence property owner. If I lived there, I certainly wouldn’t want to look out my backyard and see a bunch of solar panels,” Grey said.

Planning Commissioner Jaimie Girardi agreed, making a motion to approve the solar farm, but require more trees to be planted — to provide a greater degree of opacity.

Planning board members approved the motion, contingent on the conditions and the increased buffering requirement.

Published June 16, 2021

One-of-a-kind subdivision in Pasco?

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has continued until May 20 its consideration of a proposal to create a subdivision for catastrophically injured veterans, and surviving families of fallen first responders and to Gold Star families.

The Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation is seeking permission to build 115 homes on 74 acres, on the south side of Parkway Boulevard, about one-half mile east of Ehren Cutoff, in Land O’ Lakes.

The site is between the Panther Run and Dupree Lakes subdivisions.

Matt Mahoney, executive vice president of the foundation, explained the concept of the project — via a remote feed — during the planning board’s April 22 meeting.

“Our recipients are all gifted these homes. These are mortgage-free homes,” Mahoney said.

The homes will go to catastrophically injured veterans — who are missing multiple appendages or have been severely burned, he said. Homes also will be provided for surviving spouses and families of Fallen First Responders and Gold Star families.

“We have the financial wherewithal to do this. The land was donated to us,” Mahoney said. “We’re in a strong financial situation to move forward with this project.”

The foundation was established 20 years ago by Frank Siller, to honor the sacrifice of his brother, Stephen Siller, a firefighter who laid down his life to save others on Sept. 11, 2001.

“While the foundation’s previous efforts were focused on individual homes and paying off existing mortgages in various places, this is the first of the foundation’s projects to develop an entire neighborhood devoted exclusively for injured veterans and surviving spouses,” said Cyndi Tarapani, who represented the applicant.

Access to the neighborhood will be from two entrances on Parkway Boulevard. The foundation will build a northbound, left-turn lane into the project at the main entrance, Tarapani said.

The subdivision will have two lot sizes, 100-foot wide lots for single-story homes that are specifically tailored to meet the need of injured veterans, and 60-foot wide lots for two-story homes, intended for widows and their young children.

The neighborhood will have a community center and play area, and has large areas of wetlands that will be preserved, she said.

And, while the code doesn’t require it, the foundation will install a 6-foot solid fence along the common borders of our neighborhoods, Tarapani said.

The proposed project is consistent with the site’s long-range plan’s designation, which allows up to three dwellings per acre, she said.

The proposed development would have an average of 1.54 units per acre. That compares to its neighbors: Panther Run has an overall density of 1.47 units per acre and Dupree Lakes has an overall density of 1.46 units per acre, Tarapani said.

The site also is conveniently located close to Pine View Elementary and Pine View Middle schools, and is near U.S. 41 and State Road 54, she said.

Neighbors to the proposed development applaud the foundation’s mission, but raised concerns about the proposed plans.

Several expressed sentiments similar to Tim Robinson, of 6444 Paw Place, in Panther Run.

“This is a zoning issue with us. It’s not a complaint against the organization or the work that it does.

“Dupree Lakes is similar; Panther Run, is not,” he said.

“Dupree Lakes has lot sizes that would be comparable to what the applicant is proposing.

“However, Panther Run could not be more different.”

“The proposed project would back into a portion of a neighborhood that has half-acre and larger lots,” Robinson said. “It doesn’t seem to fit in with the area and it changes the entire dynamic.”

Neighbors also voiced worries about the impact to wildlife that frequents the area. They also raised concerns about increased traffic and potential flooding.

Area resident Lee Edwards said that because the proposed development site has substantial wetlands, “those houses are going to be shoved up on top of one another — and it’s going to look like it.”

Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein reminded the planning board that since the rezoning request is for what’s called a Euclidean zoning district, the planning board would not be able to attach any conditions to the rezoning.

For instance, once the zoning is approved, there is nothing to prevent the foundation from selling the land to another developer.

The planning board, however, can request the applicant to agree to voluntary deed restrictions, Goldstein said.

Planning Commission Charles Grey expressed concerns about the potential for the land — once rezoned — to be sold to another developer.

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi wants the applicant to reduce the number of homes backing up to Panther Run.

“From my perspective, from what I’ve heard today, the biggest concern seems to be the compatibility between the user to the west, in Panther Run, and the lots in this proposed development adjacent to them.

“Frankly, that the only problem I have with this whole proposal.

“I commend what’s being proposed here, in general.

“To have a 60-foot lot next to half-acre lot, I tend to struggle with the compatibility factor,” Girardi said.

Planning Commissioner Chris Williams agreed: “I’d like to see some bigger lots just right there.”

Grey told Tarapani, “As much as the board seems to like this concept and like this idea and wants to make it happen, I think, if you’re unwilling to bend on a couple of these issues, I think we only have one alternative and that’s to deny it.”

The board wants a commitment that the land won’t be sold and wants some larger lots bordering the Panther Run neighborhood, Grey said.

“I think those are two deal-breakers. I’m just reading the board here,” Grey said.

Tarapani requested a delay until the board’s May 6 meeting, to see how the applicant can address those issues.

Published May 05, 2021

Nail salon gets OK, despite neighbors’ objections

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has granted a special exception request by Amber Thomas to allow a nail salon, as a home-based business, on the north side of Carr Road, about 280 feet east of Arms Drive, in Zephyrhills.

Thomas told the county planning board that she’s a nail artist and had been doing nails as a hobby — after she had to let her salon go in August.

But, she said she was seeking permission for a home-based business because she’d been cited by the county and was informed if she wanted to keep doing nails, she’d need to create a business.

Thomas told the planning board that she does nail artistry, which involves creating designs using various materials. It typically takes about 2 hours for an appointment, she said.

County planners recommended approval of her request.

Neighbors, however, objected.

They said a commercial operation would change the dynamics of their neighborhood.

They complained that people coming to Thomas’ home have parked on the street, and that has created hazards for people pulling out of their driveways.

They said neighborhood kids play in the area and ride their bikes there, so any additional traffic could pose safety concerns.

They also raised a concern about the potential for the business to set a precedent for others to set up shop in the neighborhood.

Thomas said there have been cars near her home, but not because of her nail salon clientele.

“I’ve hosted Pampered Chef Parties for friends. I do barbecues. I have Christmas parties. I had people over — my son just got married. I feel like whenever there is anybody at my home, they’re taking it as customers. Like I don’t have a right to have anybody at my house, period,” Thomas said.

She told planning commissioners that she’s willing to limit her nail clients to one at a time, and a maximum of three per day.

She also said she will keep her driveway free, so no one will have to park on the street.

She said she is not trying to disrupt the neighborhood, and she wishes her neighbors had come to talk with her.

“This probably could have been handled differently,” Thomas said.

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi noted: “The approval does restrict one customer at a time. People have parties,” he said, and they visitors, too.

“There are times when you do exceed what you can fit just in your driveway,” Girardi said.

“I tend to agree with the applicant that she sometimes is targeted as having customers there when in fact, they’re not customers at all,” he said.

Girardi called for approving the request, with a restriction on hours of operation, a maximum of three customers per day and no on-street parking.

The motion passed, with Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey and Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel voting no.

Published April 14, 2021

Pause on multifamily moves step closer in Pasco

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission is recommending approval of a six-month moratorium on new applications for multifamily development in a portion of the county.

Planning commissioners also think the land development code should be changed to limit the ability to receive a conditional use approval for multifamily uses on commercial land.

The planning board made both recommendations during its April 1 meeting. The Pasco County Commission is the final authority on both issues.

The area shaded in pink represents the area where a 180-day moratorium is being proposed on applications relating to new entitlements for multifamily developments. (Courtesy of Pasco County)

Planning commissioners said a pause on new applications for multifamily uses is needed to give staff time to collect data to determine whether there’s an oversaturation of multifamily within the temporary moratorium area.

Commissioner Mike Moore has repeatedly warned that too much multifamily is being allowed within District 2, which he represents.

A majority of board members voted in February to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to enact a six-month moratorium on new rezoning, conditional use or land use applications that would increase the potential for multifamily, in a specified area.

That specified area, which is contained in Moore’s District 2, is generally defined as between State Road 52, on the end; U.S. 41, on the west; State Road 54 on the south; and, Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, on the east, with the boundary zig-zagging between District 1, represented by Commission Chairman Ron Oakley, and District 2.

Not everybody is sold on the idea of enacting a temporary moratorium.

Eric Garduno, representing the Bay Area Apartment Association, said that while the proposed moratorium is temporary, its objective is “to discourage the growth of apartment communities in our county.”

That’s contrary to the county’s comprehensive land use plan, and would be a mistake, Garduno said.

“Apartment communities are a key ingredient to the future success of the county.

“Their development should be encouraged, not discouraged,” he said.

“The latest information I have regarding vacancy rates for apartment communities in Pasco County, is 6.1%, which is really, really low.

“There are just under 15,000 apartment units across the whole county. By comparison, Hillsborough County has 133,000. That is 11 people for every apartment in Hillsborough, and 36 people for every apartment in Pasco County.

“Nationally, 45% of rental households are in apartment communities, of five or more units.

“Only 25% of renters in Pasco County are in apartment communities.”

Garduno pointed to a market study provided to the county board in February.

That analysis, completed by Lesley Deutch, managing principal with John Burns Real Estate Consulting, projects a need for an additional 5,380 Class A apartments in Pasco County over the next five years.

Garduno told planning commissioners: “This demand is fueled by young professionals and empty-nesters, both of whom want amenities and services in and around their communities. He also noted: “Apartments are a key economic driver for the county. They, themselves are employers. This includes onsite teams, as well as a whole host of contractors who maintain and fix appliances and amenities throughout apartment communities,” Garduno added.

“More importantly, I think, for your consideration: They provide the rooftops for commercial investment. You need rooftops, to support retail. You need rooftops to attract major employers.

“Apartment communities get you those rooftops in a small footprint that furthers the comp plan — the comp plan objectives around reducing sprawl, reducing environmental impacts and maximizing the efficient use of infrastructure,” the apartment industry expert said.

Joel Tew, a private zoning and land use attorney, told planning commissioners instead of imposing a moratorium, the county should be encouraging more multifamily development.

“Here, at the peak of unprecedented housing demand, market demand, in this country — unprecedented housing inventory shortage in this country, unprecedented number of young professionals, and empty-nesters and retirees who are wanting apartments and the high-end lifestyle that the current product provides, it is simply a bad message to send to business,” Tew said.

“We should be providing incentives to get product there, to get affordable housing, to get apartment options for those that want to live in Pasco County,” Tew added.

“This whole concept is simply ill-designed to apply to one commission district, for purely political reasons that have nothing to with the comprehensive plan, that have nothing to do with market data, that have nothing to do with market demand,” Tew said.

Planning commissioners said they see the value of the pause, to collect more data.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey put it this way: “They’re saying that this multifamily development is happening so rapidly, in order to make sure we have our arms around it and that we have the right regulations and support, we’re going to need for that, they need some time to review it and make sure they have the proper protocols in place.”

However, Grey and other planning commissioners said the data collection also should include information about vacancy rates — something the county board had not requested.

“I know from my perspective of being in that business, no developer goes in to develop an apartment project without knowing what the vacancy rates are. If the vacancy rates are 15(%) or 20%, he’s not going to build a new complex,” Grey said.

Planning Commissioner Chris Poole thinks the 180-day moratorium is needed, to ensure the county has the facts.

“We need to get it right. The data has got to be right. It’s incumbent on us to make sure we get it right for future generations,” Poole said.

Limiting multifamily on commercial land
While the moratorium is temporary and applies to only a portion of the county, a proposed change regarding conditional uses on commercial land would be a permanent change to the land development code and would apply countywide.

Planning commissioners resisted that proposal at a previous meeting, citing concerns about potential unintended consequences.

Planners brought a revised proposal to the planning board’s April 1 meeting.

That proposal would allow conditional uses to be considered for multifamily uses on general commercial land, if: the proposed multifamily meets the criteria for affordable housing; the multifamily would be part of a mixed-used development, including nonresidential uses; or the proposed multifamily development is located in the county’s West Market area.

Published April 07, 2021

Lutz neighbors oppose commercial rezoning

By

Residents of the Meadowbrook Estates and Sierra Pines subdivision, in Lutz, are banding together to fight a proposed commercial rezoning at the entrance of their communities.

Kiddie Campus University Inc., is seeking to change residential zoning to general commercial on a 1.67-acre site, on the southwest corner of State Road 54 and Meadowbrook Drive.

Area residents who oppose the change were represented by Todd Pressman, a private consultant, during a March 4 meeting of the Pasco County Planning Commission.

Pressman cited a report by a private planner, commissioned to review the request. The planner raised issues with the compatibility of a commercial use — in an area characterized by residential development.

“A request came through for this property for a day care and preschool in January ’11. That was denied 7-0, by this board. The same request came through one year later, for preschool, and that was denied,” Pressman said.

“This request would allow a gas station operating on this property. That would be nothing less than devastating for this community,” said Pressman, who presented petitions signed by 140 people against the request.

Residents from Meadowbrook Estates and Sierra Pines voiced objections, too.

They said a driveway from the proposed commercial site would have access onto Meadowbrook Drive —  a street they claim is too narrow to handle the traffic a commercial project would generate.

One opponent also raised concerns about the potential long-term environmental damage — from droplets of gasoline that seep into the ground — if a gas station is allowed to locate at the site.

The communities rely on private wells for drinking water.

Other residents pointed out the problem of delivery trucks having a hard time getting out of the neighborhood, if they make a wrong turn, because the streets are so narrow.

Despite those objections, county planners have recommended approval of both a land use change and a rezoning. Both changes are needed to clear the way for a commercial use.

If the land use change is approved, the applicant will have to meet buffering requirements that exceed those normally required by the land use code, county planners said.

Barbara Wilhite, an attorney representing the applicant, noted that the site is at a signalized  intersection, on a six-lane arterial highway, three-quarters miles east of the Suncoast Parkway.

“I think the neighbors are clear that they will object to any use other than residential,” Wilhite said, but given the site’s location at the intersection, on a six-lane arterial highway, she added, “this is absolutely not the place for a residential use.”

Wilhite also noted that the county board has adopted a comprehensive plan that specifically directs where it wants commercial land uses.

“This application strictly complies with that direction,” Wilhite said.

Charles Grey, planning commission chairman, said “I try to always put myself in the position of both property owners. The residents and the person who wants to develop the property. It’s always a balance of property rights.”

“I’m a strong proponent of property rights.

“I do think we need to provide some type of protection for the residents who live in that area. They are very, very close to this property.

“I certainly wouldn’t want people walking back and forth, from a 7-Eleven, for example, to my home, walk across my property. I know how that gets. I deal with that all of the time,” Grey said.

Planning commissioner Peter Hanzel said he would prefer to see a less intense commercial use.

“When you go to a C2 (general commercial), you open a large variety of facilities that can go there. Perhaps that’s what the residents are concerned about, going to a C2. Is there a possibility that it could go to a C1,” he said, which would limit the potential list of uses.

Wilhite responded: “My answer to that is that they opposed the day care. They clearly said today that they want it to remain a residential use. This is not a place to underutilize property.”

Planning commission Chris Poole asked about what type of use was planned.

Wilhite said a gas station is one of the permitted uses in the requested zoning district.

Grey wanted to know if the planning commission could see the buffering plan before voting on the request.

Brad Tippin, the county’s development review manager, said buffering is typically determined during the site plan review process — after the use of the site is known and the orientation of the building, parking lot and other elements are known.

In this case, because of the land use requirement, a greater degree of buffering would be required, Tippin said.

But, Grey said he would like to see the actual plans.

Tippin said creating the buffering plan before sufficient details are known could result in a less-effective plan.

Poole suggested voting on the land use plan, but delaying the zoning request until more details are available on the buffering.

Wilhite said she would be happy to work with the county on a buffering plan, and could include language that would provide flexibility to adjust the plan, if necessary.

A board majority voted to recommend approval of the land use change. The board continued the rezoning request until April 1.

Published March 17, 2021

Debate over multifamily in Pasco continues

By

A Pasco County Commission proposal to halt the use of commercial land for multifamily development has met resistance from the Pasco County Planning Commission.

The county board directed its staff on Feb. 9 to pursue modification of the county’s land development code to remove the consideration of multifamily development as a conditional use on land zoned for commercial use.

A majority of the county board members said they wanted to preserve commercial land for commercial use.

County planners drafted a proposed amendment, to meet that directive, and took it to the planning commission’s March 4 meeting.

Planning commissioners, however — as well as a county staff member and two private attorneys — raised questions about the proposed change.

Planning commissioner Jaime Girardi said, “I understand what the board’s direction here is, and the way they’re trying to go, but I’m just worried if there’s any other unintended consequences here, by moving forward with this ordinance.”

Planning Commissioner Charles Grey asked: “What is the real purpose for doing this, out of curiosity?”

County zoning administrator Denise Hernandez responded: “Based on the conversations that were had, I think the board of county commissioners want to see commercial on commercial uses. And, they also want to see an integration of uses.”

Private attorney Barbara Wilhite often appears before the county board and the planning commission on land use and zoning issues.

Wilhite told planning commissioners: “I’m not speaking on behalf of any client. I just want to make sure there’s no unintended consequences here.

“So, I raise the concern. It has to do with affordable housing,” she said.

Typically, when conditional uses comes in for a multifamily development on commercial property, it’s for affordable housing, Wilhite said.

A pending controversial request in Wesley Chapel is an exception to that general rule, she said.

“I raise the concern. I certainly don’t want to see us make it harder for us to have some of these affordable projects,” Wilhite said.

It also could make it more difficult for the county to compete for state funding for those kinds of developments, Wilhite added.

“When we apply for the lottery, we’re competing statewide for money to bring these projects to Pasco, to help our residents,” she said.

Marcy Esbjerg, director of community development for Pasco County, echoed those concerns.

“Perhaps because of (the) pandemic, because of just growth in Florida — housing costs and rental costs are all exorbitant. Right now, under the eviction moratorium and foreclosure moratorium, our markets have become extremely strained.

“Houses are selling in a day. People are having a really hard time finding housing,” she said.

Even with rental assistance funding available, it has been very difficult to find housing, to help people get out of homelessness, she added.

She urged planning commissioners to retain any tool the county has in its toolbox to increase the supply of the housing.

That is critical, she said, to create a balanced community.

“It concerns me, No. 1, that the county would be going against what would be an Urban Land Institute best practice, or a best practice, again, all over the country. But we decide to go in another direction.

She added: “It’s critical for the county, to always consider any changes in policy, how it’s going to affect affordable housing — either the amount of affordable housing or the cost of affordable housing.

“The need has exacerbated just in the 2 ½ years that I’ve been here, and to put a policy like this in place, would only exacerbate it even more,” Esbjerg said.

Preserving flexibility
Private attorney Joel Tew raised numerous concerns about the proposed amendment.

“I think the commissioner who made the motion was very well-intentioned, but I think, with respect, I think we’re getting in a little bit too big of a hurry to try to do something in a knee-jerk fashion, dealing with this multifamily apartment issue,” Tew said.

“I don’t know if any of you, commissioners, had a chance to review the industry expert presentation that was made by the private industry at the commissioner workshop, but, if not, I would suggest, if you have time, pull that up and look at the presentation about the market demand.

“It’s not only the Class A market demand, which is substantial, but also the changing demographic in Pasco County and the realities of the marketplace,” he said.

Tew also pointed out that online shopping has caused a seismic shift in America, relating to commercial retail.

“Why would you take away one tool that you have? Just because you can apply for conditional use certainly doesn’t mean that this board is obligated to approve it,” Tew said.

Planning commission Chris Poole reiterated Girardi’s concerns about potential unintended consequences.

Grey added: “My only concern was, why would you want to limit yourself in terms of what you can do?

“Are they taking away tools that we should be using in the future that can benefit the county? Is this a knee-jerk reaction to something that we don’t like?” Grey added.

Girardi added: “I think there’s a lot more commercial out there, a lot more commercially zoned properties, in light of what’s going on in the market today — a lot more commercial than there is ever going to be demand for commercial uses.”

David Goldstein, who is the chief assistant county attorney, told planning commissioners if they recommend against the change, they need to do so based on inconsistencies with the county’s comprehensive plan policies.

Tew told planning commissioners that he would be happy to provide “a litany of policies that it’s inconsistent with,” including those relating to the county’s urban service area, affordable housing and density.

Poole said he wanted time to review the board’s workshop, and made a motion to continue the issue until April, which the planning commission approved.

Published March 17, 2021

400 apartments proposed on Wesley Chapel Boulevard

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hanzel objected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published January 13, 2021