The Laker/Lutz News

Serving Pasco since 1981/Serving Lutz since 1964

Denise Hernandez

Don’t rubberstamp projects, planning board member says

By

Jon Moody, who has returned to serve on the Pasco County Planning Commission for a second time, has noticed some things he’d like to see change.

Moody was sworn-in on July 7 to fill a vacant seat. He previously served on the board from January 2007 to November 2013.

When the planning board met Aug. 5, Moody raised some issues for discussion with his colleagues and Pasco County’s staff.

He said he’s noticed “that the consent agenda has changed a lot, since I last occupied this seat.”

The consent agenda contains a number of items that the board votes on in a single action, without discussion. Items are placed on the consent agenda when they are considered to be non-controversial because no one has come forward to object or raise questions.

“I’m frankly shocked that I see large-scale comprehensive plan amendments; 3,000-acre projects; 800-home subdivisions; 1,600-home subdivisions — all slide through on the consent agenda,” Moody said.

“In my mind, the consent agenda is for Mrs. Jones’ 5-foot variance for her shed, not for us just to rubberstamp a 1,000 homes here, a 1,000 homes there,” Moody added.

His comment drew applause from the audience.

“That needs to change,” Moody said. “I’m just going to sit up here and pull them off, and we’re going to hear them.”

He also cited an application that was on the agenda that day, which was for a request on the west side of the county — even though the planning board meeting was in Dade City.

Both the planning board and the Pasco County Commission alternate their meetings between the Historic Pasco County Courthouse in Dade City and the government center in New Port Richey.

In the past, applications were heard at the meeting place closest to the site in question.

Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein said: “The old, old policy, called the (former County Administrator) John Gallagher policy — maybe when Mr. Moody was here — was that anything on the east side of the county had to be heard on the east side; anything on the west side of the county had to be heard on the west side.

“There was no deviation from that.

“The more current county administrator (former County Administrator Dan Biles) relaxed that policy. If there was no opposition to the item, it could be heard on either side of the county.”

Brad Tippin, the county’s development manager explained: “The reason why that change was made was it was due to the volume of submittals.”

“A directive was given to us to do the first available hearing after we’re ready to go, unless there is some form of opposition. That was done to try to improve the processing time, due to the volume of stuff that is happening in the county right now.”

Tippin also noted that another part of the rationale is that anyone who wants to participate in any public meeting can do so, remotely, through the county’s WebEx system.

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel also weighed in, noting that when the staff schedule applications, it should consider not just distance from the meeting place, but also driving time.

For instance, it takes about 40 minutes for people in Central Pasco to get to Dade City, compared to about 75 minutes for them to get to New Port Richey, Hanzel said.

Moody also raised a question about public notice requirements for requests to amend the county’s comprehensive plan.

Nectarios Pittos, the county’s planning and development director, told Moody: “Comp plan amendments are noticed in the newspaper, per state statute requirements at this time.

“But we have identified an update that needs to be made to our land development code to align the notification requirements and make them similar to (master-planned unit development) notification requirements.”

Moody then asked: “How far around the perimeter of the MPUD are the notification requirements?”

Denise Hernandez, county zoning administrator, told Moody that the notification requirements vary by land use. In essence, notice must be given within 1,000 feet for properties designated for agricultural (AG), agricultural residential (AGR) and residential, one home per acre (Res-1).

For property designated for three houses per acre (Res-3) and above, the notice requirement is 500 feet, she said.

Moody asked: “Why is the notification requirement less, if the development is more intense?”

Hernandez: “If you look at the logic, it’s because the AG, AGR — those are larger pieces of property, so you’ll pick up more people, if you do the 1,000 feet.

“Typically, those properties, AG or AGR, are 5 acres, 10 acres, 20 acres, 40 acres. That’s why the notice is 1,000 feet,” Hernandez explained.

Goldstein added: “That’s why staff requires the posting of signs, because signs are supposed to be the notice to anybody that lives beyond those radiuses.”

Published August 10, 2022

Residential buildings to get taller in Pasco?

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval to a change in the county’s land development code that would allow residential buildings to be a maximum of 45 feet, which is 10 feet taller than the code currently allows.

The change is being initiated by the county, based on an action by the Pasco County Commission to direct the planning department to bring forth the modification.

The county board adopted the restated land development code on Oct. 18, 2011, and since then has adopted 54 amendments to the code, according to agenda backup materials for the planning board’s April 24 meeting.

The county board, on July 6, 2021, directed the staff to prepare the modification needed to increase the building height in all residential districts.

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel raised a question about potential impacts for firefighters.

Zoning Administrator Denise Hernandez said she would confer with Fire Rescue officials, but noted that commercial buildings can exceed 45 feet.

No one spoke for or against the proposal during the meeting.

Planners recommended approval of the change.

Published May 04, 2022

Airport area moratorium is on hold

By

Questions about potential impacts from a proposed moratorium on development near airport land have prompted a delay by the Pasco County Commission, to give stakeholders more time to weigh in on the issue.

A continuance already had been planned, to push the matter back to April 5, but Commissioner Mike Moore called for additional time to study the issue.

“I am getting way too many questions from stakeholders. A lot of questions, a lot of concerns,” Moore told his colleagues.

“I think this needs to be pushed (back) at least another month to give time for the stakeholders to get involved, on both sides,” Moore said at the county board’s March 8 meeting.

The first reading of the proposed moratorium ordinance is now set for April 19 at 1:30 p.m., in New Port Richey, with a final vote scheduled for May 3 at 1:30 p.m., in Dade City.

Concerns about the proposed moratorium initially arose during the Pasco County Planning Commission’s March 3 meeting.

The objections surfaced after Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator, gave the planning board a presentation on the proposed six-month moratorium.

The moratorium would put a 180-day pause on most development proposals near Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Pilot Country Airport, Tampa North Aero Park and Hidden Lake Airport.

Hernandez explained that county staff had been directed by the county board on Jan. 11 to do the necessary work to establish the temporary moratorium.

Then, on Feb. 8, the county board applied the pending ordinance doctrine to the airport zoning moratorium, which means that applications must be accepted and processed in their normal course, but applicants must be informed “they are going forward at their own risk and if the moratorium is adopted, their application may be put on hold for the duration of the moratorium.”

Hernandez also noted: “the moratorium ordinance may contain certain exceptions to the moratorium that would allow some applications to proceed, if certain requirements are met.”

The county also has retained a consultant to create noise contour studies around Tampa North Aero Park, Hidden Lake and Pilot Country.

Hernandez explained to the planning board that there is a 20,000-foot area around airports that is deemed to be the height obstruction area.

“Any application that comes in where something is going to be over 200 feet in height, in that area, it’s required by the state that you notify the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration),” she said.

Another part of the moratorium addresses potential applications that could be deemed to be incompatible with airport operations.

“We provide examples of what may be incompatible with airport operations,” Hernandez said.

“For example, residential uses, landfills, wildlife attractants, uses that will cause visual obstructions, such as dust, glare, light emissions, smoke, steam and/or fog.

“It doesn’t mean it’s prohibited,” she said.

It means that the county can use conditions to ensure that incompatible uses do not occur.

There’s also a noise abatement area.

“Typically, in a noise abatement area, state statute says you cannot have residential. It also says that you cannot have an educational facility unless the education facility is an airport school, that you are teaching flying,” Hernandez said.

Barbara Wilhite, a private land use attorney, who has represented clients with projects near airports, raised objections to language within the county’s proposed moratorium.

“I don’t have any issue with the Florida statutes. The Florida statutes require that you implement two types of regulations. One, you check height. And, the second one is you check land use compatibility, based upon noise generation of the airports.

“It’s two things. Pretty straight-forward,” Wilhite said.

But she objects to language in the proposed moratorium that says “uses may be conditioned, so as not to be incompatible with airport operations, such as landfills, wildlife attractants, uses that cause visual obstructions, such as glare, dust, light emissions, smoke, steam and fog.”

Wilhite urged the planning board to require more specific language and to reduce staff’s discretion.

As an applicant, Wilhite said, “You have to figure out, you and your engineers, how to comply with dealing with wildlife attractants, which is a circular that’s like six pages off the internet. You have to figure out what the heck that means.”

She urged the planning board to recommend a moratorium that focuses on the issues of noise and height, as it relates to development around airports.

“I think when we get into a real quagmire is when we go beyond that,” Wilhite said. “Make this more simple to implement. It’s very, very, very cumbersome.

“The way it is being done is not fair, is not reasonable, is not striking a balance that it should,” Wilhite added.

Jeremy Couch, a professional engineer who has handled projects near airports, told the planning board that the proposed moratorium is too broad and gives staff too much latitude.

Hernandez said there are letters of support for the proposed moratorium that have been submitted to the record.

Nectarios Pittos, the county’s director of planning and development, said the proposed moratorium still allows options for development.

Wilhite said she’s worried that the language in the temporary moratorium could be the precursor of the final ordinance, but David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, said it is not unusual for the language in a temporary moratorium to be broader in nature.

Published March 23, 2022

Pasco moratorium would affect new and used car lots

By

First, it was a moratorium in a portion of Pasco County for new applications for multifamily developments — now, it’s a proposed moratorium affecting applications involving car lots.

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of a 180-day moratorium on the opening of any new car, truck or van sales businesses — while the county staff works on modifications to the county’s land development code relating to these types of businesses.

The only exception to this moratorium are vehicle sales businesses that have an approved site plan and are operating in accordance with the approved site plan, and any county-approved amendments to that approved site plan, according to the proposed ordinance that the planning board unanimously recommended to the Pasco County Commission.

The initiative for the new moratorium is based on a directive from the county board to the county attorney’s office to pursue the pause on businesses involving vehicle sales.

Pasco County Commission Chairwoman Kathryn Starkey has been complaining for some time about the way some vehicle sale businesses are operating.

At the county board’s Jan. 11 meeting, she raised the issue again — suggesting a moratorium, which the county board supported.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, told the planning board: “The primary purpose of this moratorium is, there’s a number of dealerships that are opening up in Pasco County without going through site plan approval at all.”

The proposed moratorium, the attorney said, “would stop somebody from submitting a brand new one (site plan), or somebody from operating who doesn’t have a site plan at all.

Goldstein added: “If you’re already an approved dealership, you can open up and you can seek amendments to your site plan.”

Attorney Barbara Wilhite, who regularly appears at land use and zoning hearings on behalf of clients, said she wasn’t representing any particular client on this issue.

However, she said, she’s glad the language of the moratorium has been evolving, because she’s sure the county doesn’t want to stop approved car dealerships from opening.

“I understand that this has to do with the used car dealerships that aren’t following any rules,” she said.

The businesses are going onto a piece of property and “they just put the cars on there and turn the lights on, and off they go,” Wilhite said.

“We’ve got to balance the fact that the new car dealerships are high-paying jobs and they’re revenue generators, and pay taxes and all of those things,” she said.

Goldstein said: “We can’t just exempt anybody that submits a site plan because we’ll get a flood of junk (site plans) coming in.”

Part of the county’s dilemma is to avoid having those kinds of submittals from “fly-by-night dealerships,” he said.

Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator, said the moratorium needs to apply to both new and used dealerships, because the problem involves both.

Goldstein added: “You can’t really distinguish between new and used. Even a new (car) dealership sells some used cars.”

The moratorium is not attempting to go after any dealership that has legitimately gone through the county’s site plan approval process, Goldstein said.

“The issue we’re having is the ones that are not,” he said.

The exemption provides protection for legitimate dealerships, he said.

“If it’s a remodel of an existing dealership, it would already have an approved site plan,” he said, and would therefore be exempted from the 180-day moratorium.

If the moratorium is approved by the county board, which appears likely, a study will be conducted to determine what amendments should be made to the county land development code to ensure safe operations of such businesses.

The next hearing on the proposed ordinance will be on Feb. 22, with a final hearing on March 8.

In other action, the planning board continued a proposal for a 180-day moratorium on the submission and acceptance of applications for building permits, site plans, special exception uses, conditional uses, rezonings and comprehensive plan amendments proposing to increase entitlements within the moratorium areas.

The proposed moratorium ordinance collectively refers to three public-use airports located within Pasco County: the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Tampa North Aero Park, and Pilot Country; one private-use airport, Hidden Lake Airport; and, a portion of the conical and horizontal surfaces of the Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, as identified on that Airport’s FAA Part 77 Surfaces Map.

County planning staff requested a delay on the hearing, which is now scheduled for the March 3 planning board meeting.

Published February 09, 2022

Office zoning approved on State Road 54, at Meadowbrook Drive

By

A rezoning has been approved to allow a professional office to be built on a 1.67-acre site at the southwest corner of State Road 54 and Meadowbrook Drive, in Lutz.

The Pasco County Commission approved the request by Kiddie Campus University Inc., at the board’s Aug. 10 meeting.

The application drew opposition from some area residents, but it was muted compared to the strenuous objections that accompanied a previous request to change the county’s land use map to allow the potential for a gas station and convenience store at the same location.

That proposal fell by the wayside when a divided county board refused to change the land use, which would have cleared the way for consideration of the commercial rezoning.

Instead, Kiddie Campus revised its pending rezoning application — asking for an office use, instead.

“We amended our application to PO1 (Professional Office 1), it’s the lowest intensity non-residential use in your code,” said Attorney Barbara Wilhite, representing the applicant.

“This is the solution,” Wilhite said.

Given the site’s location, at a signalized intersection on State Road 54, its future use will not be residential, Wilhite said.

The PO1 office district is designed to be compatible with residentially developed districts, she added.

That designation allows only office uses. It does not permit commercial uses, such as a hair salon, a nail salon or other personal services, Wilhite said.

She said the applicant didn’t want to bring anything forward that was retail-oriented, so its application calls for strictly office uses.

coming forward with the PO1,” the attorney added.

Additionally, the applicant has agreed to a deed restriction that limits the building height to two stories, Wilhite added.

“I could see the residents’ concerns,” the attorney said.

The voluntary deed restriction is the only thing limiting the building’s height, said Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator. That’s because the site is located within the county’s urban service area, she explained.

The application had received recommendations for approval from both the Pasco County Planning Commission and the county’s planners.

Some area residents, who had spoken against the plan before said they are confident that developer will work with the community.

But others — far fewer than before — persisted in their opposition, characterizing the proposed development as an intrusion into a residential area and raising concerns about a potential for future flooding issues.

Wilhite addressed the flooding concerns: “We can’t make the flooding worse. There’s plenty of regulations on the books regarding flooding.”

Published August 18, 2021

Apartment project proposed on State Road 52

By

An apartment development of up to 350 units is being proposed at the southwest corner of State Road 52 and Old Pasco Road.

The 23.1-acre site currently is occupied by pastureland, some residences and some outbuildings, Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator, said at the planning board’s July 22 meeting.

“The Mango Hills master-planned unit development district abuts the subject property on the west and south,” Hernandez said. “It received approval for a maximum of 415 single-family detached and single-family attached townhome units.”

Properties to the north and the northeast, adjacent to State Road 52, are zoned for general commercial, light industrial and retail, office and residential land uses, Hernandez added.

“Apartments are a logical transition, step-down from general commercial, industrial uses — to residential uses,” the zoning administrator said.

She also noted that the applicant has requested a variance from the county’s land development code to reduce the number of parking spaces required, from 2.25 spaces per unit to 1.9 spaces per unit, which Hernandez said, is consistent with similar project approvals.

Hernandez also noted: “The Orange Belt Trail is planned to be constructed by the county within the property abutting the subject property to the north, and once the Orange Belt Trail is constructed, the subject property shall construct a bike/pedestrian access to the Orange Belt Trail, as noted in the MPUD (master-planned unit development) master plan.”

County staff has found the request to be consistent with the county’s land development code and comprehensive plan, and recommends approval, subject to conditions, Hernandez told the planning board.

Attorney Barbara Wilhite, who represented the applicant, said the maximum allowable density, under the county’s comprehensive plan, would be 24 units per acre.

“We’re looking at a 15 units per acre, maximum,” she said.

The attorney also noted that the site is in an area where “there is quite a bit of employment-generating uses.”

Nancy Russell, who lives on Jenkins Court, raised concerns about proposed traffic from the development.

Russell lives in the Tampa Bay Golf & Country Club development, which she said has 1,564 homes and about 3,300 residents.

“The community is parallel to this potential build of 350 multifamily apartments,” she said.

She said Old Pasco Road is already congested, and she mentioned safety issues that could arise from additional traffic.

Wilhite said the proposed apartments would have access to a portion of Old Pasco Road that has four lanes.

Additionally, Wilhite said, the proposed apartments are close to the State Road 52/Interstate 75 interchange, and nearby properties are planned for industrial development.

The attorney said there are no other apartments in the area.

“I hope you will support this project. It’s exactly what we need for the area,” Wilhite told the planning board.

“It’s exciting to see the employment starting to take off, so now we have the demand for housing and different types of housing, in this area, following the plans for this county,” Wilhite said.

The planning board voted unanimously, with Roberto Saez absent, to recommend approval of the request.

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

Published August 04, 2021

Rezoning would allow 400 apartments

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission and the county’s planners have recommended approval of a rezoning that would allow 400 apartments on approximately 43.42 acres at the southeast corner of Wesley Chapel Boulevard and Hay Road.

Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator, detailed the request at the planning board’s July 22 meeting.

The proposed multifamily project would be located between the recently approved Hay Road Townhomes project to the west and Compark 75, to the east.

“Multifamily apartment uses create a transition from the industrial uses to the townhomes,” Hernandez said.

The request is consistent with the county’s land development code and its comprehensive plan, Hernandez added.

The site is currently zoned for agricultural and light industrial uses.

In addition to the rezoning, the applicants also are requesting a variance from the county land development code requirements relating to parking and park space, Hernandez said.

The planning board and county staff recommend approval of those variance requests.

The planning board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning, with the exception of Planning Commission Roberto Saez, who was absent.

No one raised objections about the request during the public hearing.

The Pasco County Commission is expected to take final action on the land use plan amendment, which is required for the rezoning, and on the rezoning itself, during its Aug. 24 meeting, according to Joel Tew, the attorney representing the applicants.

Although the request has the support of the planning board and county staff, it has faced opposition in the past.

Commissioners were divided on the land use plan amendment, voting 3-2 to transmit the request to state officials for review.

Commission Chairman Ron Oakley, and Commissioners Kathryn Starkey and Christina Fitzpatrick voted in favor of the transmittal, while Commissioners Mike Moore and Jack Mariano were opposed.

Moore who ultimately persuaded his colleagues to allow a six-month moratorium, which affects only his district, has urged commissioners to ease up on rezonings for multifamily developments.

If it doesn’t, Moore predicts there will be a heavy price to pay in the future, when a glut of apartment buildings leads to high vacancy rates and buildings that fall into disrepair.

Published July 28, 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 Commission appointments approved

By

The Pasco County Commission has approved the reappointments of Jaime P. Girardi and Peter D. Hanzel to the Pasco County Planning Commission. Their term will end on Aug. 9, 2022.

They also have approved the appointment of Don Anderson to fill the vacancy created by the departure of former Planning Commissioner Michael Cox. The term for the seat ends on Aug. 9, 2021.

Girardi, of New Port Richey, is a civil engineer with more than 20 years of experience in that field. Since 2005, he has focused on private development, planning and design.

He has served on the Pasco County Planning Commission since 2015.

Hanzel, of Wesley Chapel, is retired from the U.S. Department of Justice.

He is a past member of the Pasco County Citizens Mobility Board, chairman of the Lexington Oaks Community Development District and a past member of the Lexington Oaks Homeowners Association board.

Anderson, the CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Pasco County, was among 19 applicants for the post.

Pasco County Commissioner Kathryn Starkey made a motion to appoint Anderson, which was seconded by Commissioner Christina Fitzpatrick.

In calling for Anderson’s appointment, Starkey said she thinks he “brings a really fresh perspective that’s needed to the commission.”

Zoning Administrator Denise Hernandez said the call for applicants for the volunteer post attracted considerable interest.

The pool of applicants was filled with people of varied backgrounds, including a retired employee of the Florida Department of Transportation, civil engineers, community association managers, retired Department of Justice employee, real estate investors, real estate appraisers, real estate brokers, mortgage brokers, folks that formerly served on planning and zoning commissions in other states, architects, folks that served in the public works commission in other states; one certified planner and a few contractors, Hernandez said.

That drew a reaction from Starkey, who asked if there is a way for the county can “find a way to let them have their voices heard.”

Commission Chairman Ron Oakley agreed with Starkey’s suggestion of finding other ways to encourage the applicants to be of service.

“We’re always looking for people to be involved,” Oakley said.

Hernandez said the application did inquire whether applicants would be willing to help in another capacity and many of the applicants said they would.

Published May 05, 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