The Laker/Lutz News

Peter Hanzel

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

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

New 122-unit subdivision proposed off Old Pasco Road

By

Victorious Life Assembly of God Inc., is seeking a rezoning that would allow 122 single-family homes on 41.80 acres on the east side of Old Pasco Road, about 250 feet south of Overpass Road, in Wesley Chapel.

The request seeks to change the zoning from agricultural to a master-planned unit development.

Both the Pasco County Planning Commission and county planners have recommended approval of the request during the planning board’s April 22 meeting.

As part of the rezoning request, the applicant asked for variations from the county’s land development code.

The applicant is seeking a variation of a requirement to landscape the neighborhood park according to the county’s landscaping and screening requirements. Instead of placing a buffer around the perimeter of the park, as required, the applicant has suggested planting landscaping with the park.

The park, according to information in the planning board’s agenda packet, “will be designed to have an open feel and be visible from the residential development across the streets for safety purposes and aesthetics. The design will create an open feel so that it brings the community together and provides greater safety for the residents.”

The applicant also asked to decrease the required size of the park from 1.20 acres to 0.70 acres. That request is tied to a negotiation with the county for a smaller park, in exchange for dedicating an additional 1.23 acres of right of way needed for the future widening of Old Pasco Road, noted Tammy Snyder, a county planner.

She also noted that Wesley Chapel District Park is a large park, within walking distance from the proposed subdivision.

However, Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel took issue with the request for a smaller park — noting that would shortchange residents within the subdivision. He also disputed the rationale citing the location of Wesley Chapel District Park as a justification for creating a smaller park within the neighborhood.

“How does that benefit the residents that are going to live there? It doesn’t,” Hanzel said.

He also questioned the notion of people from the neighborhood walking to Wesley Chapel District Park. He cited distance and safety concerns.

“I find it difficult to have adults or children walking Old Pasco Road, especially in the future, because it’s going to become a four-lane road eventually,” Hanzel said.

Hanzel also said fencing is needed to separate the neighborhood park and the pond on the site.

“This size park, which I would refer to as a kiddie park, you would assume there would be some type of barrier between the park and the pond,” he said.

It’s needed to keep young children, who are often attracted to water, from getting into the pond, he said.

Representatives for the applicant agreed to add fencing, to increase the park size from 0.70 acres to 0.90 acres and to add an amenity package at the park.

With those added conditions, Hanzel made a motion for approval, which was seconded, and the board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning and conditions.

The request was next scheduled to be heard at the Pasco County Commission’s meeting on May 18, which was after The Laker/Lutz News went to press.

Published May 19, 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

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

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

Pasco board divided over proposed apartments

By

A proposal that would allow 400 apartments off Wesley Chapel Boulevard, at Hay Road, is being sent to state officials for review.

A divided Pasco County Commission approved the transmittal to the state, on a 3-2 vote, with Commission Chairman Ron Oakley and Commissioners Kathryn Starkey and Christina Fitzpatrick voting in favor, and Commissioners Mike Moore and Jack Mariano voting against.

The state transmittal is just one step in the regulatory process needed to allow the proposed apartment project to proceed.

The site currently has a long-range plan designation of six dwelling units per acre and light industrial. Much of the land is occupied by wetlands and cannot be developed.

The proposed change would allow up to 24 dwellings per acre, but because of the wetlands, only about 13 dwellings per acre could be achieved, according to county planners.

County planners have recommended approval of the request, characterizing the request as “an appropriate transitional land use between the single-family residential development to the north and zoned multifamily district to the west.”

The Pasco County Planning Commission also recommended approval — despite objections from Planning Commissioners Peter Hanzel and Roberto Saez, who said the area is becoming oversaturated with apartments.

Commissioner Moore has repeatedly argued against rezonings that allow more apartments in the Wesley Chapel/Land O’ Lakes areas.

He 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.

In recommending approval, county planners also noted that a proposed employment center use abuts the property, and that generally encourages higher densities to support that type of use.

Attorney Joel Tew, who represented the applicant, said the site has multiple property owners and the land has been assembled for this potential project.

Having multifamily adjacent to an employment center is consistent and supportive, Tew said.

“We submit this would be the poster child for the appropriate infill project,” Tew said.

Tew also noted that the wetlands on the site prohibit the possibility of future retail or office uses there.

In concurring with Moore, Mariano said: “I think we do have enough apartments out there. If they want to keep it residential, keep it smaller densities.

“Do I need more density right there? I don’t know that I do,” Mariano said.

A separate rezoning request is expected to come to the county board in the future.

Published February 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

Denial recommended on senior care site in Wesley Chapel

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended denial of a request for a conditional use permit to allow a residential treatment facility for up to 30 residents on Pomello Trace in Wesley Chapel.

Planning commissioners voted 5-0 against the request by Jordanes Hippolite, who is seeking permission to create an elderly care center, on a site at 29436 Pomella Trace, that’s smaller than a half-acre. The property is about 200 feet east of Caroline Drive.

The applicant proposed a single-story 4,500-square-foot facility. The application said the facility is intended for elderly residents.

In the application, the applicant states in part that, “as a Registered Nurse of 20+ years of experience, I’m writing this letter to request assistance in granting permission to build a home  for elderly care in Wesley Chapel.

“As a dedicated caregiver to elderly residents of assisted living and memory care communities  since 2000, I have worked as a nurse, where I assist residents with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease with daily living needs.”

The county’s planning staff recommended approval, with a number of conditions.

But, several neighbors urged planning commissioners to reject the request.

Jeff Kirschner, of 29431 Pomello Trace, told planning commissioners that residents frequently take walks in the neighborhood with their pets, and their children ride their bicycles up and down the roads because there are no sidewalks.

He said the proposed care facility would be more appropriate on State Road 54 and is not “congruent” with the existing neighborhood.

“This was somebody’s backyard that someone purchased and wanted to make a commercial entity because of the convenience of it,” he said.

Michelle Obregon, of 29419 Pomello Trace, lives across the street from the proposed residential care center.

“I’ve been in the neighborhood for almost 15 years. The reason I chose the neighborhood was because of it being a quiet neighborhood to raise children in. I love Wesley Chapel. I love my neighbors.

“We only have one entrance in our neighborhood.

“We already have to share the road with those coming in and out. We have to share the road with our neighbors that are walking with their children. We have to share the road for the neighbors who are walking with their dogs. We have to share the road with the children who are riding bikes because we do not have sidewalks. We have to share the road with kids that are coming off the buses in the morning and afternoon.

“I know my neighbors. I do not know the people that will be living at the facility. I do not know the families of the people that would be living at the facility.

“This is a residential neighborhood. We want to keep it a residential neighborhood. We didn’t purchase for commercial to be put in there,” she said.

Other neighbors offered similar objections. They also raised concerns about ambulances coming and going to the residential care center, and about noise, drainage and property values. One neighbor submitted a petition with 112 signatures from people opposing the proposed use.

Planning commissioners Peter Hanzel and Michael Cox raised questions about trying to fit a facility of this nature on a lot of this size — while meeting necessary parking requirements.

“It’s almost like putting 10 pounds of sugar into a 5-pound sack,” Hanzel said.

“I don’t see the space there.

“To be very honest with you, I think at some point, you need to re-evaluate your business plan,” Hanzel added. “I don’t see it mathematically working out.”

Cox said: “Even at 20 (residents), how would you provide enough parking for the families that are coming out, and your staff and the support that would require.”

Cox added: “My mother was in an assisted living manor care unit for a long time. There was about 30 residents on the floor that she was on, and seeing the support staff that they had for those residents, there is no way in God’s green earth that you’re going to be able to do that on that piece of property.”

Cox called for denial of the request, which the board adopted.

The planning commission’s recommendation now goes to the Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction on the request.

Published February 12, 2020

Neighbors battle townhomes near Lake Thomas

By

Residents living near Lake Thomas are fighting a proposed townhome project, on approximately 42 acres, on the west side of U.S. 41, about one-half mile north of Ehren Cutoff, in Land O’ Lakes.

Barbara Wilhite, an attorney representing the applicant, appeared at the Jan. 23 Pasco County Planning Commission hearing, seeking a change to the county’s land use plan to increase the potential density on the site from three dwellings per acre to six dwellings per acre.

Obtaining the land use change is just the first step in the process. A rezoning also would be required before the townhomes could be built.

Wilhite said her client is aiming for a 218-unit townhome project on the property, which represents a density of 4.8 units per acre.

She said meetings have been held with neighbors and, as a result, conditions will be included with the rezoning request to address concerns that have been raised.

Several neighbors voiced objections during the public hearing.

Shirley Schmidt, 21133 Marsh Hawk Drive, Land O’ Lakes, who lives at The Preserve at Lake Thomas, said 300 feet of her property is immediately adjacent to the subject property.

The developer has listened, but she still objects, she said.

“He’s made revisions to address many of our concerns, but there is one overwhelming objection that cannot be mitigated if this project is approved — density, and its impact on traffic.

“The Ridge Road extension project, which is going forward within a few years, will dump a huge flow of traffic onto (U.S.) 41, just north of where this project is located.

“That alone will result in an unbearable increase in the traffic volume. Now, add yet another 400 vehicles from this project, and you’ll be one step closer to total gridlock.

“The traffic light at 41 and Ehren Cutoff is dangerous already. Residents from the proposed townhouse development, who need to go north, will be turning south onto 41 and crossing three lanes of traffic in the space of approximately 200 yards, to do a U-turn. That southbound turn lane creates a blind zone for those headed north and attempting to turn into our subdivision.

“We, in The Preserve at Lake Thomas, lost a resident not less than three months ago to a horrible accident, with this exact scenario.

“Please protect the rights and safety of the existing residents with your ‘No’ vote on this project,” she urged planning commissioners.

Scott Hitt, of 21008 Little Lake Thomas Road, is concerned about impacts of intensifying development.

“You get a bunch of people piled in on top of each other and you’re going to get stuff that starts happening. Right now, we leave our doors unlocked. We have stuff all over the place. Nothing goes missing. It’s kind of a cool place. It’s a gem that’s hidden away in here.

He urged commissioners to reject the request: “It’s not a good fit.”

“We’re not against development. Development is good, just not R-6.”

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey asked: “What is good?”

“R-3 (the current land use) is good,” Hitt replied.

Joe Seidle, of 20955 Lake Thomas Road, has lived in the area since 1982.

“We’re not saying we’re anti-growth. We’re saying, ‘It’s too many units,’” Seidle said.

“I haven’t heard one compelling need to change the land use. It’s Res-3, why are we changing it?”

Kathy Eshleman, of 5419 Shell Road, turned in two petitions with signatures from 99 people who couldn’t attend, but are opposed to the request.

She voiced her opposition, and she told planning commissioners she would prefer the development of single-family homes, within the existing density.

Other speakers objected to the intensification of development and voiced concerns about the

potential impacts on traffic, drainage and the quality of Lake Thomas.

Changing Land O’ Lakes’ character?
Ed Bly, of 21117 Lake Thomas Road, asked planning commissioners to consider the precedent that change would set. “This decision will forever change all of Land O’ Lakes, not just the Little Lake Thomas community,” Bly said.

Jane Smith, of 5353 School Road, Land O’ Lakes, is worried about the impacts to the lake, as more people move into the area. “I’m concerned about the runoff, with 218 units.”

Wilhite brought a team of experts to talk about her client’s intentions for the project.

Alexis Crespo, a certified land use planner with Waldrop Engineering, said the client recognizes that a binding project plan and conditions are important, in order for his request to be successful.

Many changes have already been made to the plan, in response to concerns that have been raised, she said.

For instance, the proposed access to the site will be directly from U.S. 41.

Also, the units will be clustered internally to limit impact from the buildings on adjacent single-family residences.

The units also will be limited to four-unit townhomes, two stories in height, she said, and the project will have substantial buffering.

The conditions for the proposed rezoning also address concerns about boat access to Lake Thomas, she said.

“This will have a passive boardwalk for residents, but no motorized or non-motorized boats will be able to access the lake from this project.”

She said the proposed project is consistent with the county’s vision for infill development in areas where there are water, sewer, schools and roadways to serve it.

She also noted that townhomes represents a diversity in type of residential development, and said many beautiful master-planned communities within Pasco County regularly incorporate housing diversity within their communities.

Steve Henry, of Lincks & Associates, said the additional traffic generated from the change compared to what’s currently permitted would have a negligible effect on U.S. 41.

He also noted the developer plans to put a right-turn lane in and a right-turn out lane at the project’s driveway.

Roy Mazur, professional engineer with WRA Engineering, said the project would not be allowed to cause flooding to on-site or off-site property, or to create adverse impacts on water quality.

“Even though a lot of the site will be impervious — there will be concrete, asphalt, buildings — our discharge in the developed condition cannot exceed that the discharge of the existing condition. That’s why the (retention) ponds are there,” Mazur said.

Wilhite also noted that the installation of the boardwalk will prevent access to the lake.

Chief Assistant County Attorney David Goldstein noted that Crespo had presented a site plan that had more detail than is typically included in a master unit plan development.

He asked Wilhite if the zoning request for the master plan unit development will have a detailed plan that will be adopted with the zoning.

Wilhite said her client is willing to document commitments, but hasn’t finalized the plan that will accompany the rezoning request.

“Nobody likes us to say things and then not do them. I get that. That’s not our intent,” Wilhite said.

Planning Commissioner Michael Cox asked Wilhite if her client is committed to proposed conditions contained in the master plan unit development narrative, including no access onto Little Lake Thomas Road, no boat access onto Lake Thomas and buffering requirements.

Wilhite said: “That’s correct.”

“It seems to me that these conditions address a ton of the concerns of residents,” Cox said.

Wilhite also noted: “The boardwalk concept was put in place as a means of enforcing what we say, which is no motorized, or non-motorized access to Lake Thomas.”

It provides a barrier to keep boats out, she explained.

Chairman Grey said,  “We’re here really to talk about the number of units we want to allow on the site. Personally, I think maybe R-6 is a little bit too intense.”

The planning commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the requested land use change.

Commissioners Richard Tonello, Peter Hanzel and Chairman Grey voted no.

The issue now goes to the Pasco County Commission, which makes final land use and zoning decisions in the county.

The County Commission is scheduled to consider the request on Feb. 18 at 1:30 p.m., in the board chambers at West Pasco Government Center, 8731 Citizens Drive in New Port Richey.

Published February 05, 2020