The Laker/Lutz News

Serving Pasco since 1981/Serving Lutz since 1964

Pasco County Planning Commission

Pasco is planning to update its mobility fees

By

The Pasco County Commission is expected to update the county’s mobility fee schedule — with proposed rates increasing, decreasing or staying the same in a number of categories.

The proposed fee schedule calls for a sizable fee increase in the retail category.

It also proposes the addition of two new categories — one that provides a discount for locally owned small businesses and another that establishes a rate for accessory dwelling units.

Changes are being recommended to the county’s mobility fees, which are used to help pay for the impacts that new development has on people’s ability to get around. (File)

Mobility fees are the charges which accompany new development to help cover the costs for multi-modal impacts — road, pedestrian, bicycle and transit.

Consultant Bill Oliver, a registered professional engineer, has conducted a number of mobility fee studies for the county. He managed this one, as well.

He presented the county staff’s recommended updated fee schedule to the  Pasco County Planning Commission for its consideration during the planning board’s July 22 meeting.

The Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction, is expected to consider the proposed changes at its Aug. 10 and Aug. 24 meetings, Oliver said.

“The costs of implementing your mobility system have increased over recent years,” Oliver said.

“And, according to the Florida DOT (Department of Transportation), we expect those costs to continue to increase by about 3% per year, over the coming four or five years,” Oliver said.

“The bottom line is, the mobility fee rates do need to increase,” Oliver said. “We have to recover greater costs.”

The proposed fee schedule update would:

  • Continue the existing (zero fee) incentives for office, industrial, lodging, and redevelopment and infill in the West Market Area
  • Increase most retail fees by 50% over 4 years, divided equally by year, due to cost increases and partial or full subsidy removal
  • Increase rates for apartments by 6% annually, for a total of 24% over four years due to cost increases and full subsidy removal
  • Create a new category for locally owned small businesses, with a 50% discount in standard fees
  • Continue to charge full rates for mini-warehousing and mining
  • Increase other fees by approximately 3% annually, or about 13% over four years, to address cost increases
  • Create a reduced rate for accessory dwellings, sometimes known as mother-in-law residences

Accessory dwelling units are defined as an ancillary or secondary living unit, not to exceed 900 square feet, that has a separate kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area, either within the same structure or on the same lot, as the primary dwelling.

Oliver said the new schedule also is being changed to reflect changes made in state law during the last session of the Florida Legislature.

The new law establishes that impact fee increases must be limited to every four years, with a maximum of a 50% increase in individual rates.

A 50% increase must be implemented over four years in four equal installments, Oliver added.

In presenting his impact fee study to the planning board, Oliver said Pasco began charging transportation impact fees in 1985.

It later shifted to mobility fees and decided to provide mobility fee incentives to encourage growth in specific categories.

While the proposed fee schedule calls for increasing the rate for retail by 50% over four years, it also calls for giving a discount for locally owned small business.

He said that proposal is based on private conversations he had with each member of the Pasco County Commission at the outset of his update study.

The discount for locally owned small business is based on a concern they could not absorb the increased retail fees, he said.

For purposes of the fee schedule, locally owned small businesses are defined as businesses that are not chain operations, that have 25 or fewer employees and that are 51%-owned by people whose permanent household is in Pasco, Hillsborough, Hernando, Pinellas, Sumter or Polk counties

All other fees, such as single-family residential, institutional fees, recreational fees, other land use categories, will be indexed over the next four years at about an increase of 3.13% per year, Oliver said.

Oliver also noted that: “By and large, Pasco County’s fee rates are comparable to Hillsborough County’s — slightly less in some cases, slightly more in other cases.”

He added that Pasco’s incentives offer a great benefit for office, industrial and lodging developments.

The consultant reminded the planning board, “the change we’re making now is supposed to last us for four years, unless we find extraordinary circumstances.”

The county’s planning department has found the proposed changes to be consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan and recommends approval to the Pasco County Commission.

The planning board voted to do the same, on a unanimous vote, with Planning Commissioner Roberto Saez absent.

If the changes are approved, they would take effect on Jan. 1, 2022, Oliver said.

Published July 28, 2021

Rezoning would allow 400 apartments

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published July 28, 2021

Mixture of uses proposed at Roaches Run, U.S. 41

By

A 35-acre site at the southwest corner of Roaches Run and U.S. 41 could become home to a project with an array of commercial and residential uses.

The Pasco County Planning Commission and the county’s planners have recommended approval of the request, which would allow the site to be used for retail, office/medical office; health care-related uses; light industrial; distribution; multifamily; single-family attached residential; senior retirement/assisted living; and public/institutional uses.

Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator, said the request allows a maximum of 275,000 commercial square feet.

The zoning also includes a land use equivalency matrix, meaning an assortment of uses can be allowed within the project, with the matrix determining the maximum allowable density within the project.

Conditions of approval also spell out that the minimum square footage for commercial retail is 100,000 square feet, Hernandez said.

Plus, “residential will only be allowed on the parcels abutting (U.S.) 41, if they are part of a vertically integrated mixed-use building,” she said.

In addition to the zoning change, the request includes a variance from the land development code’s parking requirements — based on the ability of different uses within the project to share parking.

The planning board recommended approval of the request, with Planning Commissioner Roberto Saez absent.

The request next goes to the Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction over land use and zoning decisions.

Published July 28, 2021

Participating in public discussions just got easier

By

The Pasco County Commission imposed a number of restrictions on its public meetings, to reduce potential spread of COVID-19.

No one was allowed in the board’s meeting room except for board members and county staff.

Meeting participants had to speak from a kiosk, from outside of the board’s chambers, or take part remotely, via WebEx.

Masks were required, too.

Those who wished to participate could send emails to be read aloud into the record.

Over time, the rules were relaxed, allowing a specific number of people to be in the meeting room — while others had to stay in a waiting area.

Now, the board has resumed its normal operations.

The kiosks are gone and emails no longer will be read into the record.

But, the board has decided to keep the WebEx option for people who want to participate in meetings remotely.

Chief Assistant David Goldstein explained the changes to the Pasco County Planning Commission at its July 8 meeting.

The new rules apply to both the county board and to the county planning board, Goldstein said.

“I think the board has gotten used to allowing WebEx as a participation option, unrelated to COVID,” the attorney said.

“For example, if someone has something on the consent agenda, they don’t want to sit here for four hours, if they can just monitor WebEx. Or, you may have a member of the public that has to work that day. Or, somebody’s sick and they don’t want to be contagious in the board room.

“There are multiple reasons why the board felt it was a more convenient option for some citizens to be able to participate by WebEx,” Goldstein said.

“The board has had some criticism by some members of the public that all of our meetings occur during the day.

“They can’t attend our planning commission or our board meetings at 1:30 (p.m.).

“So, it is an option for somebody who works all day, that they can do it from their office,” Goldstein said.

While they decided to make WebEx a permanent participation option for board meetings and for planning commission meetings, applicants with an item on the regular agenda must have a representative who is physically present at the meeting, Goldstein said.

That requirement stems from some occasions when technical glitches caused communication problems between the board and WebEx participants, the attorney explained.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey expressed concerns that the WebEx system could be logjammed, but Goldstein said he hasn’t seen any abuse of the system.

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel said he initially resisted remote models because he prefers to have people physically present, where he can see them.

But, Hanzel said he now realizes that such technology serves a useful purpose because it enables people to participate who otherwise might be unable to do so.

Published July 21, 2021

Will planning board appointments become more political?

By

Pasco County commissioners want a greater say, individually, regarding appointments to the Pasco County Planning Commission.

The issue arose at the county board’s July 6 meeting, when commissioners were set to approve two-year reappointments of planning commissioners Charles Grey, Christopher Poole, Roberto Saez and Don Anderson.

The item had been placed on the board’s consent agenda — meaning no discussion was expected and it would be approved as part of a bundle of agenda items.

But Commissioner Mike Moore pulled the item to express his desire to consider such appointments individually in the future —  instead of voting on them collectively.

Commissioner Kathryn Starkey, however, pushed for a bigger change.

She wants to discard the process that’s been used recently to choose the planning board.

Instead of soliciting applications and then voting on appointments as a collective county board, she called for individual commissioners to choose a planning board member to represent their district.

“I prefer to appoint someone to that (planning board),” Starkey said.

Jack Mariano supported the move.

“Commissioner Starkey, I agree 100%. I don’t have a single person from District 5 and there’s not a single person from District 1, either.”

Moore said he had no problems with what Starkey and Mariano were suggesting.

It’s similar to the process that commissioners used in the past to select members of the planning commission.

County Attorney Jeffrey Steinsnyder told the board that changing the selection process would require an amendment to the land development code.

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

Having the entire county board select planning commissioners reduces potential for “political appointments,” Steinsnyder said.

“It is probably your most important board,” Steinsnyder said.

“That’s why I feel that the west side should be represented,” Starkey said. “They don’t have to live in a commission district. I may not find anyone who qualifies in my district,” she said. “But at least I want someone on the (planning) board who understands my district.”

Commission Chairman Ron Oakley said he doesn’t have a problem with the current planning commission.

“I think the planning commission has been operating very well. I don’t have any feeling of not being represented on that planning commission board. They’re all our citizens,” Oakley said.

However, Oakley joined in with the rest of the commission when they approved a motion by Starkey to extend the terms of Grey, Poole, Saez and Anderson for six months.

That will allow time for new commission district lines to be drawn through redistricting.

After that, commissioners agreed they would appoint one planning commissioner each, with the full board choosing an at-large member. The school board seat on the planning board would not be affected by the change.

Planning board members who already have been reappointed to longer terms would need to be addressed separately, Moore noted.

The issue was bought up at the Pasco County Planning Commission’s meeting on July 8, by Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator.

She informed the planning board about the county board’s action.

David Goldstein, the chief assistant county attorney, said the possibility remains that the planning board’s composition could remain the same — since commissioners have the option of appointing someone who lives outside of their district.

Future vacancies, he said, will be filled by individual board members, except for the at-large seat, which will be selected by the entire board. The school board seat will not be affected.

Because the change requires an amendment to the county’s land development code and because it would not take effect until redistricting is done, it might not occur within six months, Goldstein said.

“My understanding is that there’s an issue with the census data. It’s not out yet. The redistricting has to be based on the census data.

“It may not occur in six months. It may roll into the next year. I suspect what will happen is that we may need to be going back to the board saying, ‘We need to extend another six months, or something to that effect,” Goldstein said.

Currently, there are no representatives on the planning commission from Oakley, Starkey or Mariano’s districts.

“There are three planning commission members from Christina Fitzpatrick’s district and three members from Commissioner Moore’s district,” Hernandez said.

The planning commission is a volunteer board, which provides recommendations on comprehensive land use, zoning, and land development code changes, as well as conditional use requests and operational permits. It is the final decision-making body for special exception applications.

Planning Commission Chairman Grey quipped that zoning administrator Hernandez was behind the planned change.

To which Goldstein responded: “It was not the recommendation by staff or the county attorney’s office.”

Planning board member Anderson asked: “Does that (the new process) make it more of a political appointment?”

Goldstein responded: “Yes, that was one of the reasons the county attorney’s office originally recommended that it be the decision of the entire board, so the entire board could pick the best fit from an expertise perspective, more so, versus, say, they happen to live in the district, perspective.”

Serving on the planning commission requires a certain amount of expertise in real estate, planning, development and so on, Goldstein said.

“I think the county attorney’s office, and probably the planning staff as well, thought the appointment should be based on knowledge and expertise, rather than where you live,” Goldstein said.

Published July 14, 2021

Planning board urges county to speed up reviews

By

As the Pasco County Planning Commission considered a request for a special plan reviewer for the Villages of Pasadena Hills (VOPH), planning board members took the opportunity to encourage the county to find ways to speed up its development review process.

The VOPH asked the county to dedicate a specific planner to handle plan reviews within the special district, which county staff resisted.

“I think their general thought was since they’re paying an extra fee that is not paid throughout the rest of the county that that entitles them to their own reviewer,” said David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney.

But Nectarios Pittos, the county’s director of planning and development, and Ernest Monoco, manager of special districts, said having a specific planner to handle those issues is not a viable solution.

The planning board ultimately agreed with the staff, to recommend to the Pasco County Commission that it rejects the request for the dedicated VOPH planner. But they also urged county staff to find a way to shorten the amount of time needed to complete the county’s development review process.

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi put it like this: “I know it’s unprecedented times for the county, and this isn’t obviously the forum for the discussion. But I know there’s a lot of developers out there that are getting extremely concerned with lengths of review time, lengths of pre-application times. Because they see the fees that they’re paying and they know those fees are getting collected, yet there’s not allocation to hire additional staff to support the workload.

“Everybody here understands the problem, and it’s a great problem to have, but it’s out there. I just want to make sure that it’s getting taken care of.”

Girardi continued: “You have great staff here, but I feel they’re under more and more stress every single day, from everybody. I worry for the people here, as much as anything.”

Planning Commissioner Peter Hanzel added: “Is there a possibility you could contract with a vendor out there who could do some of the work, and therefore kind of catch you up? There’s got to be a corporation or a business or a private entity that can bring in some people, do the work — you contract that work out for a short period of time. You only need that manpower for a short period of time anyway.”

But Monoco explained: “The review is more than just the planner. You distribute the review to various entities within different departments. There’s a lot of coordination. It’s bigger than just a particular division within the planning department.”

Richard Tonello, representing the Pasco School Board on the planning board, said the school district takes part in those reviews.

“It’s a huge undertaking. People have to know the county. They have to know the land use. The land development code. There’s a lot to learn. You just can’t farm that out. It’s very difficult,” Tonello said.

Goldstein added:  “In my experience, consultants are best utilized for specific tasks, for specific projects.

“I would say that normal standard review of zonings and MPUDs (master-planned unit developments) is probably still best handled by internal staff.”

Board Chairman Charles Grey said “I think it’s important, Jaime, that you brought that to everyone’s attention. I think we all know it. Sometimes it’s a good idea to just vocalize it.”

Planning board members, Grey said, have been hearing complaints about how long it takes to go through the process.

“Of course, they (those complaining) don’t realize how much work goes into it,” Grey said.

The chairman also acknowledged Goldstein’s comment that “you can’t just necessarily hire somebody off the street to do certain functions of the review process because it takes a lot of expertise, a lot of background information.”

Planning Commissioner Chris Poole noted: “This is not unique to Pasco. All of the surrounding counties are experiencing the same thing. The county immediately to the south is much worse.”

Pittos said there are proposed initiatives in the 2022 Pasco County budget to help planning and development to obtain more resources and more people, but final action on the budget won’t be taken until September.

Meanwhile, Planning Commissioner Roberto Saez said the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County are outsourcing engineering services and it has sped up their reviews.

Published July 07, 2021

New private hockey school approved in Wesley Chapel

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has approved a request by Russ and Leanne S. Henderson for a special exception to permit a private hockey school in an agricultural district, about 2 miles north of Overpass Road, on the west side of McKendree Road.

The school, which is planned on a 10.3-acre site, is limited to a maximum of 20 people, including students and employees.

In addition to the ice rink, the school will have a shop where students could get snacks — similar to a school bookstore, according to backup materials in the planning board’s agenda packet.

The ice rink will be located within the business core zone of Connected City, the application says.

It is going in next to a nonprofit equine ranch and rescue at 9249 McKendree Road.

Dr. Judy Horvath, who operates the equine center, said the facility provides therapy for both horses and people.

“Our concern is obviously for the horses, for the safety of the horses and the people that visit them,” Horvath said. “It’s an all-volunteer organization.

“We are worried about the safety of the horses because of the noise factor, of the compressors and the chillers,” Horvath told the planning board during its June 3 meeting.

“We’ve gotten verbal reassurance that those chillers will somehow be insulated, or put on the other side, which would be wonderful,” she said.

The planning board voted to approve the request, but added a requirement that the operation will meet the county’s standard noise conditions.

Horvath also voiced concern about the ice rink’s potential environmental impacts.

“There’s ammonia runoff from an ice rink,” she said. “We’re hoping that will be taken care of appropriately.”

If there is ammonia runoff, she said, “it could affect pastures, it could affect groundwater. I’m just looking for reassurances on that.”

But Henderson said, “there’s no ammonia used, in what we do.

“The ice rink is literally just water that’s put on the ground that gets shaved off,” he said.

I wanted to reassure Judy because the horses are important to me, as well.”

He also doesn’t expect much noise from the ice rink.

“All of the chillers are in the southeast corner of the property, which is the furthest place it can be, in terms of the horses and the equine center,” Henderson said.

“The chillers we’re using are brand new. I don’t think it’s going to be an issue for Judy or the horses,” he added.

Horvath was the only person, aside from the applicant and his representative, to offer public comment on the request.

The planning board, which has jurisdiction over this type of application, voted unanimously to approve the request.

Published June 23, 2021

New 122-house subdivision approved off Old Pasco Road

By

The Pasco County Commission has approved a rezoning that will allow a new 122-home subdivision off Old Pasco Road, after delaying the request last month.

Commissioners approved the request from Life Church, LLC, with conditions, including a requirement for a 1.2-acre neighborhood park and that a tree be planted in front of every home in the development. Commissioners disagreed with a recommendation by the Pasco County Planning Commission that would have required fencing near retention ponds in the development.

Instead, that fencing would only be necessary if the ponds fail to meet sloping requirements and thus trigger the land development code’s requirement for fencing.

The county board’s decision came after a delay last month based on concerns regarding the timeline for construction of the widening of Old Pasco Road.

Commissioners also wanted to know about trail and sidewalk plans along that portion of the Old Pasco Road widening project.

Tammy Snyder, of the county’s planning and development department, told commissioners that design work for the portion of Old Pasco Road near the subdivision is set to be done this summer with construction of the road widening expected by the end of 2023.

Snyder said that the road widening also includes a 6-foot-wide sidewalk on one side of the road, a 12-foot-wide multi-use path on the other side of the road and a bike lane on each side of the road.

Commissioner Mike Moore said that timing of the road widening seems to nearly coincide with the development of the subdivision.

The applicant previously had requested a reduction in the size of the subdivision’s neighborhood park, which planners had recommended.

But Commissioner Jack Mariano objected to the reduction during the last meeting and the applicant dropped that request.

The tree requirement was added at the board’s June 8 meeting, at the urging of Commissioner Kathryn Starkey.

“For me to approve this project, it’s going to require a tree in front of every house. Not in the back. Not a queen palm,” she said.

Starkey said will continue to seek the tree condition on every master planned development until the county fixes its landscape ordinance.

“Right now, we can put the tree in the backyard,” she said.

She wants the county’s ordinance to require a shade tree in front of every house in every new master plan zoning approved by the board.

One woman spoke, on behalf of her son, during the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Her son lives behind the development site.

The woman told commissioners that the road is packed with school buses, dump trucks and cars every day. She also showed video she took near the subject rezoning.

But information provided to the commissioners about the timing of the widening of that portion of Old Pasco Road seemed to alleviate their concerns about adding another subdivision along the road.

Commissioners voted 5-0 to grant the request.

Published June 16, 2021

TECO to operate solar farm in unincorporated Zephyrhills

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published June 16, 2021

‘Unique subdivision’ meets resistance

By

The idea of creating a subdivision in Land O’ Lakes for catastrophically injured veterans, and surviving families of fallen first responders and for Gold Star families has broad appeal — but even with the popularity of the cause, a proposed rezoning for the project is meeting resistance.

The Stephen Siller Tunnel to Towers Foundation has proposed the first neighborhood in the nation specifically designed to serve its recipients be located on about 75 acres, on the south side of Parkway Boulevard, about one-half mile east of Ehren Cutoff. The site is between the Panther Run and Dupree Lakes subdivisions.

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

Matt Mahoney, executive vice president of the foundation, explained the concept of the project — via a remote feed during an April 22 meeting of the Pasco County Planning Commission meeting.

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

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

The foundation has a solid track record, said Cyndi Tarapani, a professional planner representing the applicant.

But residents in the adjacent Panther Run neighborhood and members of the Pasco County Planning Commission raised objections to the proposal.

Those concerns initially were aired during the April 22 meeting, which was continued until May, to give the applicant time to respond to the concerns.

At the May 20 planning board meeting, the issues were much the same.

Would-be neighbor Tim Robinson, of 6444 Paw Place, put it like this “I can’t say enough how much I like what Tunnels to Towers is doing for our servicemen and women and our first responders, a very admirable endeavor.

“My main issue is compatibility,” Robinson said. “We would have a bunch of homes butting right up to half-acre lots and I really don’t feel that is compatible at all.”

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi also expressed concerns about compatibility.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, told planning board members that the request seeks an R-4 zoning district, a Euclidean zoning that allows up to four houses per acre. The county cannot attach conditions to Euclidean zoning requests, Goldstein said.

Instead, the county can ask the applicant to voluntarily add deed restrictions.

The planning board asked the foundation to place larger lots on land next to the adjacent Panther Run lots. It also asked for one-story homes to be built there, to address privacy concerns.

Planning commissioners also wanted to guarantee that the land would be used by the foundation’s program beneficiaries.

At the May 20 meeting, Tarapani said the foundation has agreed to deed restrictions that call for fewer lots and larger lots, with one-story homes along the edge of the neighborhood adjacent to Panther Run.

However, she said her client would not agree to ownership restrictions.

Without that restriction, there is no guarantee that the foundation won’t sell the land to another developer, Goldstein said.

Panther Run neighbors reiterated their objections.

Shelby Carrero, of 6448 Paw Place, told the planning board: “After reviewing the deed restriction, I am disheartened to say the least, that our valid concerns we have expressed several times have not been taken into consideration by the applicant.

“The fact the applicant has ignored its future Pasco County neighbors, as well as the Pasco County Planning Commission, should speak volumes as to what their plan was this entire time.

“They have refused to put in their deed restriction that they will not sell the land to a developer, or that they will not sell the homes to people that are not military veterans, first responders, or their families.

“Therefore, the applicant’s narrative doesn’t hold true.”

She added: “It was an insult to see their updated site plan. The previous plan had 22 homes lining Panther Run. The updated plan has 19.”

Finally, she said, “We cannot treat them any different than a big developer because we now know that this is a possibility.

Sabrina Fernandez, 22402 Panther Run Court, asked commissioners to deny the request.

“The truth is that this applicant has ignored the request from this board, and I do appreciate you taking our thoughts into consideration a couple of weeks ago. This is very emotional for us because it’s going to affect our lives greatly.”

Other opponents said they don’t want two-story homes on smaller lots lining up behind their large lot. They also cited concerns about a loss of privacy.

Tarapani challenged the assertion that the proposed rezoning is incompatible.

“Single family, next to single family, is by its very nature, compatible,” she said. Plus, she noted, as part of its deed restriction the foundation has agreed to erect a 6-foot buffer wall between the new subdivision and its Panther Run neighbors, even though the county’s code doesn’t require it.

County planners recommend approval of the request, but the planning board voted to recommend denial, with Planning Commissioner Chris Williams dissenting.

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

Published June 02, 2021