The Laker/Lutz News

Serving Pasco since 1981/Serving Lutz since 1964

Pasco County Planning Commission

Traffic from proposed Hudson subdivision won’t have access to Hazel Avenue

By

(Musa Haef/Unsplash)

After more than two hours of discussion, the Pasco County Planning Commission decided at its March 21 meeting to not permit vehicular access onto Hazel Avenue from a proposed subdivision in Hudson.

The commissioners agreed by a vote of 4-2 to approve a rezoning request by Gary L. Blackwell Investments Inc., with conditions, and to send it to the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The Planning Commission (PC) acts as an advisory board to the BOCC. 

If approved by the BOCC at a future meeting, the zoning of approximately 107.24 acres north of Hudson Avenue and east of Hazel Avenue will be changed from A-R Agricultural-Residential District and A-C Agricultural District to an MPUD Master Planned Unit Development. This will allow a maximum of 321 single-family detached units to be developed on the site.

Several area residents spoke against the proposed traffic interconnection with Hazel Avenue that had not been originally planned.

Members of Pasco County’s department of Planning and Development had recommended the interconnection after reviewing information they had been provided, said attorney Kamala E. “Kami” Corbett who was representing the applicant.

 “We don’t need that extra traffic on Hazel Avenue. We don’t need it and we don’t want it,” William A. Kromer said.

“I am totally opposed to them opening that road on Hazel and using it for more traffic. It’s not safe,” Kathy Kromer said.

“That connection to Hazel Avenue is not something that should be allowed,” Alisha Juanis said. She added it wouldn’t be a good thing to do even if county staff had recommended it.

“The majority of people driving down Hazel Avenue are not area residents,” Amber Tucker added. She also asked planning commission members to either deny the rezoning request outright, or to approve it with a lower density than the applicant had requested.

Planning commissioners briefly considered letting part of Hazel Avenue to only be used as an emergency access to the proposed subdivision. They decided to instead permit a 5-foot-wide sidewalk to be installed on Hazel Avenue. A crosswalk at the intersection of Hazel Avenue and Cobra Way would give students a safe place to walk when they were going to area schools.

It also was proposed that emergency access to the subdivision be provided by means of nearby Edwards Road. 

Robert “Bob” Waldo told planning commissioners he owned the property on Edwards Road that Blackwell planned to use and that he wouldn’t grant an easement for that purpose.

Attorney Corbett, of the Clearwater office of the law firm Hill Ward Henderson, said she thought that part of Edwards Road could be used for emergency access since it was on county records as being for public access. 

In other business last week, planning commissioners:

  • Approved a conditional use request for a Group Living Arrangement in an A-C Agricultural District for 471.40 acres in Northwest Pasco County made by Word of Life Fellowship/Word of Life GLA. If approved by the BOCC, Word of Life, which is an adult and youth religious camp and facility, will be able to have nine buildings constructed that can be used as dormitories for up to 440 people. This would increase the number of buildings on the property to 52 and the number of people who could stay in the dormitories to 1,237.
  • Approved a special exception requested by Hope Youth Ranch Inc., to be able to have a private school serving up to 60 special needs students in an R-2 Low Density Residential District on approximately 1 acre in northwest Pasco. This needs to be approved by the BOCC.
  • Approved a zoning amendment requested by Sandra Marie Brown, Stefanie F. and Derek L. Pontlitz for 19.841 acres on the north side of Dusty Lane to be a conditional use request, changed from an A-C Agricultural District to an R-4 High Density Residential District. If approved by the BOCC, this would allow 47 single-family residential units to be built on the property in southwest Pasco.

Published April 3, 2024

Planning commission approves zoning amendments

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission approved two zoning amendments and two comprehensive plan amendments during its March 7 meeting.

The Pasco County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will need to finalize these decisions at future meetings. This is because the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the BOCC.

(Maxmillian Conacher/Unsplash)

Discussed at length was the approval of the transmittal of a comprehensive plan amendment affecting a 92.6-acre parcel on Bellamy Brothers Boulevard to the BOCC for its adoption. The request had originally been listed on the meeting’s agenda as a consent item and such items are typically adopted with little or no discussion.

This request, submitted by Sandarben LLC of Odessa, proposed that the zoning of the property, which is currently AG (Agriculture), be changed to AG/R (Agriculture/Residential). This would enable 18 homes to be built on the property where only nine currently are allowed.

The proposal was approved by a 4-2 vote, with Planning Commission members Chris Williams and Jon Moody voting against it.

The Florida Department of Commerce (DOC) and other agencies had reviewed the request because of the size of the property in question. The BOCC received a letter of no comment from the Florida DOC.

An area resident, Ralph Barthle, asked for the request to be denied. Barthle said he is concerned about 10 traffic fatalities that had occurred on Bellamy Brothers Boulevard between 2017 and 2023. This was on the stretch of the road from the Hernando County line to State Road 52 in Pasco County. 

He told Planning Commission members five of the fatalities had been from 2017-2022 while five more had occurred in 2023 alone. People don’t drive on Bellamy Brothers Boulevard as they should and also speed around curves, according to Barthle.

The property owner’s representative defended the request. She told Planning Commission members a curve on Bellamy Brothers Boulevard near the affected site was not one that was conducive to causing a traffic accident because of its elevation or other factors.

In other matters last Thursday, the Planning Commission:

  • Approved a zoning amendment for Serene Preserve Master Planned Unit Development (MPUD) that was requested by EC-Willow Bend LLC of St. Petersburg. The property is currently zoned E-R (Estate Residential). The requested change referred to by the BOCC would permit the development of 37 single-family detached units near Willow Bend Parkway in Land O’ Lakes. 
  • Approved a zoning amendment for 1.95 acres of property located on the northeast of Tupper Road and State Road 54. The property is currently zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential District) and C-2 (General Commercial District). The requested change that was referred to the BOCC is for the entire property to be zoned C-2. 
  • Recommended approval of a comprehensive plan amendment requested by Finlay Commercial Center to permit 3.49 acres of property north of Dade City to be changed from RES-6 (Residential-6 DU/GA) to COM (Commercial). If approved by the BOCC, this would allow the property located on the east side of U.S. 301 and approximately 750 feet south of U.S. 98 to be used for commercial purposes.
  • Timber Ridge LLC of Dade City requested a continuance to the April 4 Planning Commission in Dade City of a zoning amendment it is seeking. The applicant would like to have the zoning of the approximately 48.42-acre parcel located at 15845 14th St., to be changed from R-3 (Medium Density Residential District) to an MPUD (Master Planned Unit Development. The item was originally on the consent agenda but the applicant requested the continuance. If adopted by the BOCC, the applicant could be allowed to develop a maximum of 190 single-family detached units.

Published March 13, 2024

Proposed ordinance could help spark employment growth

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission agreed to refer a proposed ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that, if adopted, is likely to help promote increased employment growth in the county.

Several amendments to Pasco County’s Comprehensive Plan are being proposed.

One of the purposes of the proposed ordinance is to streamline policy implementation and to upgrade policy approaches in response to market demands.

(Benjamin Lehman/Unsplash)

Also being considered is an amendment that would provide for better flexibility in implementing employment-generating land use classifications.

If the ordinances are adopted, authorized commercial uses and the general range of potential uses to further the intent of employment generation would be amended.

Industrial compatibility adjacent to wetlands, commercial development in general, and land uses and floor area ratios (FAR) within Future Land Use (FLU) categories are being considered.

Making changes in commercial infill development, commercial location limitations and amending calculations of residential densities would occur if the ordinance was adopted.

The county’s intent of restricting Industrial Heavy (IH) uses adjacent to wetlands would also be clarified along with clarity on where commercial development could occur. Meanwhile, provisions allowing for greater flexibility for where neighborhood commercial development could occur also would be included.

In addition, the location of commercial development being able to occur at collector and arterial intersections including collector/collector, arterial/arterial and collector/arterial intersections would be clarified.

Size limitations would be increased from 4 acres to 5 acres, to align with how commercial infill is treated.

Texts would be amended to remove prohibition of light industrial land use classifications and uses adjacent to Category 1 wetlands.

And finally, there would be provisions for amendments that would be necessary for consistency if the ordinance was adopted. 

The BOCC is scheduled to consider the ordinance for adoption at its June 4 meeting in Dade City.

Published March 13, 2024

New projects proposed for Land O’ Lakes, Wesley Chapel

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of rezoning and land use changes proposed for potential projects in Land O’ Lakes and Wesley Chapel.

The planning board’s action was part of its consent agenda, meaning there was no board discussion and no public comment. Items on this agenda are approved in a single motion, unless someone on the board or at the meeting asked for an item to have a presentation.

On Jan. 18, the planning board recommended approval of:

  • A request by Tibbetts Land at Gowers Corner to change a currently zoned master-planned unit development (MPUD) to an MPUD to allow for 300,000 square feet of retail and office, and up to 400 multifamily apartments on approximately 49 acres at the southwest corner of the intersection of State Road 52 and U.S. 41. The applicant has agreed to dedicate 10 units for affordable housing.
  • A request by EFH Holdings LLC/Elite Pavers to change zoning from agricultural and general commercial to general commercial, on the west side of Land O’ Lakes Boulevard, approximately 1,500 feet north of Gator Lane on approximately 3.8 acres. The site consists of Elite Pavers of Tampa Bay. The applicant proposes to develop the property in conformance with general commercial uses, and the applicant has agreed to a deed restriction to limit the uses to commercial uses.
  • A request by The Corwyn at Wesley Hills MPUD to rezone agricultural land to an MPUD zoning district to allow a maximum of 350 multifamily units, 7,500 square feet of office and 7,500 square feet of commercial on approximately 24.4 acres. The project is located north of State Road 54 and west of Eiland Boulevard, in Wesley Chapel. The rezoning is a companion of a comprehensive plan amendment request to change the future land use designation on the property from six residential units per acre to MPUD.

Published February 14, 2024

County planners will take another look at Lacoochee planning area

By

The Pasco County Commission — at the urging of board chairman Ron Oakley — has directed the county’s planners to take another look at long-range plans for the Greater Lacoochee area.

The county board had been scheduled to adopt a “nonbinding” plan for the area – but speakers during the public comment portion of the meeting asked the county board to send it back to the Pasco County Planning Commission for a second presentation.

Pasco County Commission Ron Oakley urged his colleagues to send a nonbinding planning document regarding the Greater Lacoochee area back to planning staff, rather than sending it back to the Pasco County Planning Commission as the planning board had requested. (File)

The planning board, at the urging of residents, had asked the county board to consider sending it back to them to allow a second presentation of the plan, followed by public comment.

Initially, during the county board’s Jan. 9 meeting, county board member Jack Mariano made a motion to send it back to the planning board, seconded by Kathryn Starkey.

But Oakley objected.

He said it didn’t make sense to send a “nonbinding plan” back to the planning board, since the plan is nonbinding.

Doing that, according to Oakley, would be a waste of time.

Instead, Oakley suggested sending the plan back to the county’s planning staff.

Oakley recommended designating some areas for a minimum lot size of 1 acre per home. He said that lot size is considered to be a rural development category.

He also said there’s a demand for homes on lots of 1 acre or more, especially among executives who want to live on lots that are much larger than those with a 40-foot frontage.

Oakley also pointed out there is land already designated for greater density and those areas need to remain that way to support workforce housing.

Oakley’s colleagues deferred to his wishes.

County planning staff is expected to bring back the results of their work to individual board members before the issue would come back to the board.

A public hearing is required before the board can make any changes to the county’s long-range land use plan.

Published January 24, 2024

Planning board recommends denial of land use change in rural protection area

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended denial of a request that would remove acreage from a county rural neighborhood protection area, and would increase its potential density.

The application by Old Pasco Townhomes seeks to change the comprehensive land use designation from Res-3, which allows up to three dwellings per acre, to Res-6, which allows up to six.

The request also calls for removing the 18.36-acre site at the northeast corner of Old Pasco Road and Hadlock Drive, from a county rural neighborhood protection area.

The county’s planning staff recommended approval of the request, but the planning board rejected that recommendation.

The planning board based its call for denial on a Pasco County policy that states the county shall recognize rural neighborhood protection areas “as areas that include existing rural neighborhoods that deserve and require special protection from the intrusion of urban uses, densities and intensities.”

The policy also notes that impacts in such areas “shall be minimized through the use of the standards and options for stepping down development and densities and transition of land uses, e.g., gradual reduction of intensity in uses, as well as additional buffer and setback standards in order to minimize visual and noise impacts on adjacent rural, residential developments.”

This case is complicated
The site is in an area designated for rural protection, but it also sits in an area the county has designated as an urban services expansion area – meaning that it is in an area that is expected to become more urban.

During the meeting, Barbara Wilhite, an attorney representing the applicant, pointed to Grantham Ranch, an existing nearby single-family subdivision. She said the proposed townhome project would be built in an area that is expected to change.

Christie Barreiro, of Heidt Design, who also represented the applicant, told the planning board: “Old Pasco Road is going to be a four-lane road, 124 feet in width. A lot of that right of way has already been purchased by the county. The county also is running utilities up Old Pasco Road for projects along (State Road) 52.

“This area, as we were saying, is in the urban expansion area, and also is in the south market area, which is supposed to be a high-density, high-intensity area. It seems odd, but it’s because it’s a parallel reliever to Interstate 75.

“So, you have Old Pasco on the west and you have McKendree Road on the east, and those are supposed to relieve the congestion on (Interstate) 75.

“So, in that corridor, it was always planned to have more intense, more dense development,” Barreiro said.

Nearby residents, however, told the planning board that they purchased large lots in the area because of its rural nature. They said they thought they would be protected from urban encroachment because their homes are in a rural protection area.

As one neighbor put it: “I don’t want to look at townhomes out my backyard. I bought 5 acres in a rural area for a reason.

“It’s an expansion area to some people. To other people, it’s their life, their house, their yard where their grandkids play.

“I don’t want to see my home considered an expansion area,” she said. “Removal from a rural protection area kind of negates the word protection. It’s not protected, if it can easily be removed.”

Planning board vice chairman Jaime Girardi, who was sitting as chairman because of Charles Grey’s absence, said the area is changing.

“You’re 1 mile from Overpass (Road), where they just built a whole intersection and a whole interchange at I-75,” Girardi said. “You’re half a mile from the school (Cypress Creek High School and Cypress Creek Middle School), half a mile from Grantham Ranch.”

The Grantham Ranch subdivision is built on land designated for three homes per acre.

Planning board member Jon Moody voiced misgivings.

He told his colleagues: “I’m having a hard time deciding this case. We clearly have a conflict in the comp plan (county comprehensive land use plan), probably should have been cleaned up in 2010, when the urban service area — expansion area — whatever we’re calling it, was overlaid over a rural protection area.

“I’m not sure whether that was a right decision or a wrong decision. I see the controversial entitlements we’ve approved east of I-75, at this location.

“So, it makes sense to me that we might see development along the west side of the interstate,” he said.

“That being said, we’re being told by the applicant, well, it’s going to be a four-lane road 10 or more years from now, maybe. There’s no money for it. And there’s still people there that still live a rural lifestyle.

“And yes, we’ve got some intrusion into that lifestyle by subdivision, single-family detached homes, but we haven’t got attached product yet.

“That’s the conundrum I’m trying to figure out.”

‘Doesn’t seem to fit with character’
Moody noted that planning board chairman Grey has observed on more than one occasion that an area must “be ripe” for development.

In this case, Moody said, “I just don’t feel that it’s ripe for (the) attached townhome product, the Res-6 (six residential units per acre).

“If this were going to come in as detached, I can see if they were going to come in as E-R (estate residential) zoning, or R-2 zoning on half-acre lots or something, that’s a little more dense than what’s out there.

“Or even some use that might require some utility services — but not down to attached product.

“This doesn’t seem to fit with the character of the area. It may be in future character, but I just don’t feel like it is for today’s character,” Moody said.

Planning board member Peter Hanzel also had issues with the request. He said the site is in a rural area. Hanzel made a motion for denial, which was seconded by Moody.

Other planning board members agreed with Moody’s assessment that the type of development being requested doesn’t fit in with the area’s current development.

Planning board member Chris Poole put it this way: “I think this is before it’s time out here.”

Poole said there are obvious issues with the comprehensive plan, but, he added: “Protections of the folks that live a rural lifestyle means something. This particular growth is ahead of its time.”

Planning board member Derek Pontlitz said from a planning perspective, the request makes sense.

“Obviously, you want your densities closer to your major thoroughfares because that’s going to put less traffic on the local roads trying to get to the 75s and the arterial stuff,” he said.

“This density will make sense at some point. I think I tend to agree that it’s probably not ready yet,” Pontlitz said.

Planning board member Chris Williams told Wilhite: “Barbara, I understand your explanation of the service area expansion. What I’m still struggling with is, everything around there is future land use Res-3.

“So, all of sudden, we’re plunking down Res-6.”

Wilhite said Grantham Ranch is a single-family subdivision and that the proposed townhome project would be a low density for a townhome development.

Girardi said he has an issue with removing a piece from the middle of the rural protection area.

“To take it out of the middle and go all of the way to Res-6 at this time is, I think, a bit of a stretch at this time,” Girardi said.

Although the planning board recommended denial, they don’t have the final word.

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

Published January 10, 2024

Pasco Schools adding capacity to address increasing enrollment

By

As Pasco County continues to grow, questions are popping up regarding the school district’s ability to handle increased enrollment spurred by new development.

Jon Moody, who sits on the Pasco County Planning Commission, raised the issue during the planning board’s Dec. 7 discussion of a proposed change to the county’s comprehensive plan.

The request is being made to set the stage for a 200-unit townhome development and commercial uses, at U.S. 301 and Roanoke River Way, in Zephyrhills.

Moody asked Chris Williams, who sits on the planning board as the school district’s representative, about the planning report accompanying the request.

“It says right now that Chester Taylor is operating at 133%, it will be 136% with the next K through 8 opening in 2029, so is there anything on the horizon quicker to give relief to the elementary school?” Moody asked Williams.

Williams, who is the school district’s director of planning, told Moody that the district currently is in negotiations with the developer of Two Rivers, a massive project between Morris Bridge Road and U.S. 301, off State Road 56, in Wesley Chapel.

“I’m not sure how that is going to wind up,” Williams said. The district would like to build an entire campus on the Two Rivers’ property, but is aiming for at least a K-8 school there.

“We’re also getting ready to rebuild West Zephyrhills Elementary and completely build a brand-new school behind the current school, and add capacity to that. And that is projected to be done, probably 2025 or 2026,” Williams said.

“And potentially, when that reopens, my intention might be to rezone those schools: Woodland (Elementary), West Zephyrhills Elementary, Chester Taylor (Elementary) — and try to redistribute some of those populations,” Williams added.

The district also plans to add a wing to Chester Taylor Elementary to increase its capacity.

“Adding a wing (at Chester Taylor) won’t solve the problem in and of itself, but adding a wing and doing some rezoning will help us,” Williams said.

The school district planning director also noted that in the coming school year the district will open the new Kirkland Ranch K-8 magnet school on the campus of Kirkland Ranch Academy of Innovation, off Curley Road in the north part of Wesley Chapel, across from Epperson Ranch.

“That could have a little bit of impact on the Zephyrhills area,” Williams said. However, he added, it likely will have a far greater impact on the Wesley Chapel and San Antonio areas.

Two Rivers is already under development and those students will begin coming to Chester Taylor immediately, the school district planning director said.

Moody noted that given the current situation, the proposed land use change would exacerbate an existing problem.

Williams agreed, but said the district is working on solutions.

“Long term, I’m fine with this (proposed land use change), but, in the short term, we’re working on those plans (to increase capacity),” Williams said.

Published January 10, 2024

Improving public notice a front-burner issue, Pasco planning staff says

By

It’s no secret that Pasco County residents want a better system to inform them of requested land use and zoning changes.

The issue comes up repeatedly, and did so again at the Dec. 7 meeting of the Pasco County Planning Commission.

Mary McKnight, who lives on Saint Joe Road, told the planning board that she deliberately went looking for public notice signs involving the Nov. 2 Cherry Hill West rezoning request, on a site off the VFW dirt road and couldn’t find any.

The attorney for the rezoning request said the site was posted, but said she will make an extra effort to ensure the notice is visible before the county board decides the case.

Planning board member Jon Moody voiced frustration over the county’s seeming inability to resolve the problem.

“I don’t understand what the holdup is, in getting the signs,” Moody said.

The planning board member, like county board members, said the signs should be larger.

“If I’m driving 50 miles an hour, there’s no way I can see a 1-inch letter written on a 24-by-36 sign. It’s unfair to the population,” Moody said.

He continued: “There was some direction to get larger signs, and I don’t understand what’s the holdup to get the larger signs. I know if I need a sign, I can call the sign shop and I’ll have it in a week. So, I don’t understand what the problem is.”

Moody said the public is constantly complaining about not seeing the signs, which are intended to provide public notice to allow interested parties to be involved in the process.

“I follow the Facebook group (regarding Pasco’s growth). There’s constant banter on the Facebook group about signs. That’s something that we really need to work faster to correct.”

“It just seems that it’s an easy problem to fix. We shouldn’t have to have constant complaints that ‘I didn’t see the sign, I couldn’t see the sign,’” Moody said.

Planning board member Derek Pontlitz agreed.

“We definitely need to improve our noticing abilities because this is not the first time that we’ve had someone come up and say, they didn’t hear about it, they didn’t see it, see the sign or whatever,” Pontlitz said.

Brad Tippin, the county’s development review manager, assured the planning board that addressing the issue is a priority.

“This is on our front burner. We are in the process of revamping the entire notification process, everything from the website, to the signs, all of it. There are some complicated aspects to it because we are transitioning a few of the pieces and how they are done.

“For example, the county currently buys the signs in bulk and everybody has to come and pick up signs and do different things. We are kind of changing that whole thing as well.

“So, there’s a lot to the process, but it is front-burner,” Tippin said.

Moody asked: “Any idea of time frame?”

Nectarios Pittos, the county’s director of planning and development, told Moody: “The time frame that we are shooting for right now is February/March, for both revamping the notification process and the signage.”

Moody wanted to know if the county will continue buying the signs in bulk, or whether applicants will buy their own signs.

Pittos responded: “That’s going to be worked out in the next couple of weeks.

“We are targeting February or March, making that public, but that’s how front-burner it is for us. Hopefully we can hit that target. There’s a lot of priorities on the desk, at the moment,” Pittos said.

Tippin told the planning board that the county is planning for a change in the size and design of the signs.

“So, we’re not going to have that small, illegible print any longer,” Tippin said.

Moody responded: “I think that’s probably the biggest problem. You know, you get a plastic sign and you get rain, and, of course, the ink runs off and the sign is blank after a few weeks, especially in the summertime.”

Tippin noted that another issue involves the placement of the sign.

“Where do you put them if you’re in the middle of a stretch of roadway where traffic is going 50 mph and there’s not a stop sign? Where do you put it, how do you put it to catch people from both sides?” Tippin said.

Pasco county board members have asked for a quick resolution of these issues.

Pittos told them during a recent meeting that county staff has been working on the issue at the same time they are planning to make a shift on publishing notifications of requested changes.

In the past, the notifications have been required in a newspaper of general circulation. But a change in state law, adopted more than a year ago, allows the county to publish those notices on its own website, which it is preparing to do.

Published January 10, 2024

Planning board advocates giving public a chance to weigh in on Lacoochee plan

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission is asking the Pasco County Commission to direct county staff to provide a second presentation on the Greater Lacoochee Plan, but this time to allow public comment to provide feedback on the plan.

The planning board received a Lacoochee Plan presentation before, but at that session, the public’s only opportunity to comment was at the beginning of the meeting — before the planning board was briefed on the plan.

During the planning board’s Dec. 7 meeting, Nancy Hazelwood, a resident who has been active for years in the efforts to preserve Pasco’s rural areas, asked the planning board to request another presentation on the Lacoochee plan.

She told the planning board: “The plan is over 30 pages long and it was only given 10 or 15 minutes to cover the material.

“Because of the lateness of the evening, the planning board had no time to ask questions or give relevant information on it.

“I don’t know how many others came to hear it or watch the meeting, but I stayed a very long time. I got there at the beginning and I stayed until 8 o’clock or 8:30, when it was over.

“The project could be a game-changer. It will be a game-changer for the Northeast Rural protected area. Presenting this plan without enough time for discussion is disenfranchising the Pasco citizens by not letting us hear the plan and make written comments to the BCC (Pasco County Commission) before it goes to that board.

“So, what’s the hurry? It’s part of the 2050 Plan (update). Let’s bring it back,” she said.

Hazelwood also noted that she was representing several members involved in developing the original Northeast Pasco Rural Pasco Overlay District. They were not able to attend because of illness or medical appointments, she said.

Nectarios Pittos, director of planning and development, told the planning board: “The plan is a non-binding concept plan. It was scheduled for presentation, I believe in October, here at the Planning Commission. It was not as a public hearing, however, just as a presentation to the planning commission that this was the plan.

“It was originally scheduled for the Nov. 14 board of county commissioners meeting, again for presentation, as it is a non-binding concept plan,” Pittos said.

That presentation was rescheduled into January because the board didn’t have time to take it up at the November meeting, Pittos said.

“The ball, right now, is with the board of county commissioners. To have it reheard at the planning commission, that would have to be a request made to the board,” Pittos said.

Planning board member Derek Pontlitz noted: “It’s a concept plan, then after that, there are workshops that are going to be held.”

Pittos added: “The non-binding concept plan definitely has ideas that can then be downloaded into the Pasco 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update. That’s going to be a work in progress over the next year or so, for the Pasco 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update.

But Hazelwood’s request resonated with planning board member Jon Moody, who made a motion to ask planning staff to request another presentation for the planning board and to accept public comment.

Moody noted that would “at least allow us to hear some public comment on it, so that it can get incorporated into any message or recommendation that needs to get delivered to the board.”

Moody said it would be helpful for the public to “be able to hear the entirety of the plan — all of the high points, the low points and the in-betweens, and to make their comments after they’ve got all of the information.”

The planning board approved Moody’s motion unanimously, with Chairman Charles Grey absent.

Two other residents attending the Dec. 7 meeting thanked the planning board for its action.

Lisa Moretti, who has been active in efforts to protect Pasco’s rural areas, told the planning board: “I know that we get called squawking chickens. I’m tired of being a squawking chicken. But I would also say, if you haven’t watched the movie ‘Chicken Run’ lately, I suggest you do, because we’re just going to keep squawking.

“I’m really grateful that you chose to bring the Lacoochee plan back. It’s very important. Some of the things that are in that plan literally gut the rural area, the Northeast Rural Area, and dramatically change some of the things.

“I know there are maps that some of you have not seen before that have been presented by the developer that move the transition area boundaries inside the rural area, rather than having them be transitions outside. I think that is a travesty. So, I’m really grateful that you are willing to hear that again and allow us to come back and bring comment.”

Moretti said it’s important to determine whether the plan is truly a non-binding concept plan, or something more.

“We have a commissioner walking around saying, ‘This is an implementation plan. It’s a done deal. You might as well just sit down and be quiet.’

“That’s not in my DNA because what’s happening is so important.

“And, if it is an implementation plan, we need to be clear on that. If it’s an implementation plan, we need to have even more public comment.

“If it’s just, ‘Here’s our plan, we’re presenting it to you,‘ we need to have comment there, too, but we still have some leeway and negotiation time.

“If it’s an implementation plan, as we’ve been told by our commissioner, I’ve got serious issues with that.

“I encourage you to really take a hard look at that plan, and clearly define exactly what it is,” Moretti said.

Published January 10, 2024

Pasco planning board recommends against cell tower

By

A request for a 155-foot cell tower in an Odessa neighborhood has met with resistance from area residents and has received a recommendation for denial from a divided planning board.

An attorney for the applicants, Joan E. Patterson/Anthemnet and Verizon Wireless, told the planning board that the request meets the requirements spelled out in county regulations and asked the board to agree with the planning staff’s recommendation for approval.

The application called for a 155-foot pole, including a 150-foot monopine, which resembles a pine tree, as well as a 5-foot lightning rod on a property at the terminus of Roland Drive, about 600 feet north of Balough Road, in Odessa.

Neighbors made their objections loud and clear during a Nov. 16 public hearing before the Pasco County Planning Commission.

Residents expressed fears about potential negative impacts on their health and also on their property values.

A request for a 155-foot cell tower, which will be disguised as a tree, in an Odessa neighborhood has met with resistance from area residents and has received a recommendation for denial from a divided Pasco County planning board.

They said the cell tower would become an eyesore in an area that boasts natural beauty.

One speaker told the planning board that if a cell tower must be approved, it would be better to have one of a different design.

He voiced concerns about the monopine’s materials deteriorating and shedding over time, posing environmental risk to people, property, wetlands and a lake.

Others expressed worries about the wear and tear that will be created as trucks come to the site to build and maintain the cell tower.

David Goldstein, Pasco’s chief assistant county attorney, told the audience that the Federal Communications Commission has preempted local governments from regulating cell towers based upon potential harmful effects on people, plants or animals from radiofrequency emissions.

The planning board’s role, he said, is to look at it from a land use and zoning perspective and not to consider any potential health effects.

Planning Commissioner Jon Moody was receptive to the argument that materials shedding from a monopine could have negative impacts. He called for approval of the request, but said the cell tower should be a monopole, made of galvanized steel.

While not being able to produce hard evidence, other speakers told the planning board they fear the presence of a cell tower in their neighborhood would deter buyers, should they ever want to sell their homes.

Planning Commissioner Jaime Girardi raised concerns about placing a cell tower in a residential neighborhood, and, in general, about the increasing proliferation of cell towers.

“Are we heading down the path that we’re going to have a cell tower every mile in the county?” Girardi asked.

Bill Compton, a technical expert for the applicant, said there are areas where the sites are needed that close together based on demand and cell tower capacity.

Girardi said he’s also concerned about this request because “it’s very close to existing residential in the area,” noting the tower would be just 100 feet from the property line.

“That’s bothersome to me,” he said. Girardi added: “I think we’re headed down a dangerous path here, if you need one of these things every mile.”

Planning Commissioner Derek Pontlitz, who voted in favor of the request, said today’s technology demands the installation of cell towers to support it.

Planning Commissioner Richard Tonello asked if the roads leading to the site will allow the equipment needed to carry the necessary materials to build the tower.

Representatives for the applicant said the roads are sufficient to gain access and any damage that occurs to the roads during the construction phase will be repaired.

The attorney for the applicant also noted that if any damage to the monopine’s fronds occurs, the applicant is required to provide repairs within 15 days.

Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey asked if the applicant would be willing to build a bell tower, rather than a monopole or monopine.

The attorney responded that the clients support a monopole or monopine, not a bell tower structure.

Goldstein asked: “Is it because of a technical reason or cost issue?”

The attorney said cost is a factor, but deferred to her expert regarding the technical question.

Compton said the types of structures used are becoming a bigger issue as different frequency bands come out.

Grey told his colleagues that he would not support the request.

“We do have a responsibility, as a board, to try to protect the people that live in that area.

“The other thing that I don’t like is that I don’t like it when a company comes and says, ‘We don’t want to do that because it’s going to cost more money.’ How it affects the neighbors is more important to me than whether it’s going to cost more money.

“I’m not sure all of the best efforts were made here to find the better location,” Grey said. 

The planning board voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the request. It now goes to the Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction over zoning and land use issues.

In other action, the planning board:

  • Approved a special exception request from Esther’s School Inc., for a private school in a high-density residential area. The school will operate on a roughly 6-acre site on the south side of State Road 52, about 165 feet east of Meadow Drive.
  • Recommended approval of a request by The Crossings at Sunlake to rezone a 3.69-acres site on the north side of State Road 52, at the intersection of Sunlake Boulevard. The property is zoned for general commercial uses and a light industrial park district. The applicant proposes a general commercial district for a portion of The Crossings at Sunlake Commerce Park. A request is pending to change the comprehensive land use designation on the site from light industrial to commercial.

Published December 06, 2023