The Laker/Lutz News

Serving Pasco since 1981/Serving Lutz since 1964

Peter Hanzel

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

Planning board makeup to stay the same

By

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

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

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

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

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

The board collectively appointed Chris Poole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning board members agreed that wouldn’t be necessary.

Published February 09, 2022

Planning board recommends RV resort in rural area

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plan also includes a resort lodge and clubhouse facilities.

“We hired a landscape architect,” Wilhite said.

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

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

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

The development also will have its own wastewater treatment plant.

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

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

But opponents raised numerous issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Planning Commissioner Richard Tonello disagreed.

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

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

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

Published January 19, 2022

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