Richard Tonello

Planning board recommends RV resort in rural area

January 18, 2022 By B.C. Manion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plan also includes a resort lodge and clubhouse facilities.

“We hired a landscape architect,” Wilhite said.

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

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

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

The development also will have its own wastewater treatment plant.

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

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

But opponents raised numerous issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Planning Commissioner Richard Tonello disagreed.

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

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

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

Published January 19, 2022

Planning board urges county to speed up reviews

July 6, 2021 By B.C. Manion

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

Neighbors battle townhomes near Lake Thomas

February 5, 2020 By B.C. Manion

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

Proposed Bexley Elementary boundaries raise concerns

November 9, 2016 By Kevin Weiss

Parents raised concerns about potential impacts from proposed boundaries for Bexley Elementary at a Nov. 1 meeting at Oakstead Elementary School.

Parents raised questions about such issues as school choice, transportation and programming for the new school, which draws its name from a subdivision under construction off State Road 54, in Land O’ Lakes.

The new school, set to open in the fall, for the 2017-2018 school year, will provide relief for both Odessa and Oakstead elementary schools, which are operating well above capacity. Odessa is at 131 percent capacity, and Oakstead is at 144 percent. The proposed boundaries will also expand Lake Myrtle Elementary, an older school operating at about 80 percent capacity.

Some parents were dismayed at the likelihood their children will be rezoned to Lake Myrtle, a “B” rated school built in 1984.

This is what Bexley Elementary will look like upon its completion.(Courtesy of Pasco County Schools)

“I know their school rating isn’t as high as Oakstead Elementary,” said Sarah Davis, whose daughter will attend Lake Myrtle. “I don’t know much about it, so all I can do is my research online, and since it’s not as great as a school, my concern is that she won’t get the help that she needs that’s she’s already getting.”

Dave Scanga, area superintendent for Central Pasco schools, said Lake Myrtle is “a great school.”

“It is an older building,” Scanga said, however, he added, “in terms of the traditions that Lake Myrtle has had, for a long time it’s always been top-notch.”

“I think all of our schools are good,” added Richard Tonello, planning supervisor for Pasco County Schools. “Maybe grades aren’t a reflection of the school. You go to any of our schools, you’re going to see a great group of teachers, and they’re going to look after your child.”

Other parents expressed frustration over Bexley’s current unknowns, such as staffing dynamics and school schedule.

Scanga said potential teachers will be identified in March and April, after a new principal is named in December and assumes duties in February.

“A lot will happen once we get to February, and then it’s the (principal’s) job to let them play out the rest of the hiring and selection.”

He added: “As we get closer to the start of school, there will be all sorts of opportunities for people to come in, see the building and meet the people that are going to be in the building, too.”

Betsy Kuhn, assistant superintendent Pasco County Schools, anticipates several teachers from both Odessa and Oakstead to be reassigned to Bexley.

“It’s a very exciting opportunity for teachers to come in to open a new school, so we typically have a lot of interest,” Kuhn said.

“I think you’ll have a lot of interest from teachers outside our system, in our system, both experienced and new,” she added.

Sorting out transportation issues, too, was another focus of the hour-long meeting.

Scanga said bus routes will be reconfigured to accommodate the new school.

The Pasco County School Board provides free transportation to and from school for students who live more than 2 miles away from school.

Students who are selected to choose a particular school through open enrollment must provide their own transportation.

Pasco County’s school choice open enrollment period runs from Feb. 1 to March 1, for the 2017-2018 school year. Final determinations are expected around April or May. Extenuating circumstances and family hardships will also be considered, school officials said.

For example, students entering the fifth grade may have a greater chance to remain at their current school depending on the influx of school choice requests.

“It’s hard to make a decision until they know exactly how many students are requested,” said Chris Williams, planning services director for Pasco County Schools. “In every past experience, we’ve been able to accommodate fifth graders.”

“It’s a process we go through…to try to accommodate as much as we can,” he added.

Scanga said he understands the frustration from parents, especially those who deliberately moved to a particular community for their children to attend a certain school.

“School rezoning always catches many people off guard,” said Scanga, “and also in terms of not getting what we had planned for, or hoped for.”

Scanga also noted: “One of the challenges we have—and it’s unique—is just how fast the growth is happening right here on the 54 corridor. We’re like ground zero. Much of Florida, like much of the country, just doesn’t have this challenge…of how do we continually provide the best education to children in the best facility possible.”

Last month, a boundary committee recommended boundaries for Bexley Elementary.

The committee selected an option that would include Ballantrae, Suncoast Meadows, Suncoast Pointe, Hayman/Fuentes, Meadowbrook/Sierra Pines, and all of Bexley, which are east of the Suncoast Parkway.

Bexley Elementary also would include Swan View Townhomes, Ivy Lake Estates and Toscano at Suncoast, which are west of the Suncoast Parkway.

At nearly 96,000 square feet, the new school will have a capacity of 878 students, and is expected to have 706 students.

Oakstead, which had 1,095 enrolled students is expected to have 765 students, under the proposed boundaries. Odessa, which had 1,000 students, is expected to have 780, and Lake Myrtle, which had 587 students, is expected to have 616.

Students that would be shifting from Oakstead to Lake Myrtle live in these areas: Morsani, Woodville Palms, Cambridge/Lake Linda, Oakstead Area South, Cypress Cove/Village on the Pond, Meadowview/Country Close and Foxwood/Lake Heron.

The school board is scheduled to hold its first public hearing on the proposed boundaries on Dec. 20 and its second public hearing on Jan. 17, when it is expected to make the final decision on the issue.

While the committee recommends the boundaries, the Pasco County School Board has the final word on where the lines should be drawn.

Boundary guidelines are based on a number of factors, including future growth and capacity, socio-economic balance, school feeder patterns, and transportation.

“All of these guidelines we use, it’s a little bit of a balancing act,” Tonello said.

Bexley Elementary is the first of several schools (additional elementary schools, middle school and high school) planned within the Bexley development.

When those schools are built depends on the amount of growth within the community, as well as the amount of capital funding available, Williams said.

He noted the school district has accumulated nearly $500 million in debt capital, a hurdle in building new schools.

“One of the things that we struggle with as a district is our capital funding,” Williams said. “We are constrained—we can’t always build where we want to because of funding. It might mean adding a classroom wing at an existing school.”

Construction costs for Bexley Elementary total about $20 million.

For more information, visit PascoSchools.org/planning/rezoning.

Published November 9, 2016