The Laker/Lutz News

Serving Pasco since 1981/Serving Lutz since 1964

Pasco County Planning Commission

Project’s impacts on jobs questioned

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has delayed a request that would pave the way for a medical office, commercial uses, apartments and a veterinary office on a site at State Road 54 and Henley Road, about 1 mile west of U.S. 41, in Land O’ Lakes.

The site currently is entitled for an assisted living facility, but the applicant wants to change the approved uses through a text amendment to the land use plan and then to follow that up with a request for a rezoning to a master-planned unit development.

The land plan request had received a recommendation for approval from the county’s planners and had been placed on the planning board’s consent agenda — meaning it would be voted on in a single action with other consent items, unless someone raised questions about it.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, asked for the item to be pulled from consent.

Goldstein asked why the agenda memo, which was part of the board’s backup, did not include an analysis of how the proposed shift would affect the site’s job-generating capacity and what type of fiscal impact it would have.

From an entitlement perspective, Goldstein said, “this seems eerily similar to parcel S-19 in Seven Oaks (a recently denied request for an apartment development).

“It’s clearly an exchange of employment-generating uses for apartments, and if staff wants to recommend approval of that, I’m not saying you can’t, but there should be some analysis.

“At least with S-19, you did an economic analysis and a fiscal impact analysis to demonstrate why it met those policies.

“I see absolutely no analysis in this memo about why it meets our fiscal impact policies or economic development policies. I’m saying there needs to be more analysis that is not in this memo,” Goldstein said. “You did that analysis for S-19 and it wasn’t done here.”

Based on the applicant’s proposal, Goldstein added, “it appears that the employment potential of this site is being reduced. For example, they’re going from 80,000 office to 45,000 office; 30,000 retail to 10,000 retail; getting rid of the ALF (assisted living facility) and, now there’s multifamily.”

According to information from both Cynthia Spidell, representing the applicant and the agenda memo, the applicant wants to create a planned development project that includes a 45,000-square-foot medical/professional office; a vertical mixed-use multifamily development, with 240 apartments and 5,000 square feet of commercial, office and retail on the ground floor and a 3,500-square-foot pet center/veterinary clinic.

Spidell, representing the applicant, said “we have a very constrained site. We have some wetlands, we have stormwater ponds that are permitted already.”

Because of that, there is a limited amount of acreage available, she said.

The previously approved entitlement is not realistic for what can be achieved on the site, she said.

Nectarios Pittos, the county’s director of planning and development, said the county “reversed-engineered, in a sense, what could possibly fit on the site” and how the different land uses could be accommodated on the irregular parcel.

Spidell said the change is being pursued because there’s not a market for the assisted living facility.

Goldstein: “I’m not disagreeing with you that the site was probably over-entitled, but just because it’s over-entitled that doesn’t necessarily mean that you take the land and convert it to multifamily.

“You can take the land that’s available and make it all medical office; you can make it medical office and retail,” Goldstein said.

Goldstein reiterated: “Did anybody coordinate with the Office of Economic Growth on this application?”

Pittos said the application was sent to the Office of Economic Growth for review and it did not object to the proposal “due to property’s site-specific environmental constraints and the restrictive remaining uplands.”

Goldstein also asked: “Why is this on the consent agenda when our board has been pretty clear

about wanting to preserve employment on the (State Road) 54 corridor?

“This is our major economic development corridor, where the board has said they want to see employment-generating land uses. It’s not obvious to me that this is preserving that mission.

‘If it’s OK, then explain why it’s OK,” Goldstein said.

Planning board member Roberto Saez made a motion to continue the item until the planning board’s next meeting, to provide time for information to be gathered relating to fiscal and job-generating impacts.

“I just want to see the data. That is simple,” Saez said.

The planning board concurred, continuing the issue until its March 3 meeting.

Published February 23, 2022

Pasco expands moratorium area, despite objections

By

The Pasco County Commission has expanded its multifamily moratorium area, despite concerns raised about urban sprawl and affordable housing.

The board adopted the new boundary areas, which are within Pasco County Commissioner Mike Moore’s District, essentially within Land O’ Lakes and Wesley Chapel.

The proposed expansion area drew pushback from two professional planners and from a chamber leader.

Cynthia Spidell, now with Stearns Weaver, a law firm in Tampa, previously worked in Pasco’s planning and capital budgeting departments.

She reminded the county board that when she worked for Pasco: “We had invited the ULI (Urban Land Institute) to evaluate Pasco County market areas.

“They came up with a proposed market area, which included the South Market and the Urban Service Area, and these areas were adopted.

“These areas include the State Road 54 and (State Road) 56 corridor, and are the intended target for growth.

“The multifamily moratorium is slowly expanding into the Urban Service Area and South Market area.

“This moratorium is counter-intuitive to this growth management strategy.

“Unintended consequences may include promoting multifamily outside the moratorium boundary, such as suburban and rural market areas; as well as unintentionally, or inadvertently, promoting smaller single-family lots, including the 40s (40-foot frontage lots), as the market adapts and seeks to achieve density in other housing products.

“These types of moratoriums perpetuate urban sprawl, do not promote getting people out of their car and lastly, during the recent PEDC (Pasco EDC) economic forecast luncheon, rent was shown to be the largest contributor of inflation.

“Restricting density on the supply side will continue to exacerbate the already high rents,” Spidell said.

Nicole Lynn, from Ardurra Group, in Tampa, also spoke against the expansion.

Ardurra provides land planning, engineering and other services.

“The expansion of the moratorium area obviously seeks to limit the housing opportunities, where the ULI Study previously had identified for concentration to be, so obviously, urban sprawl would occur,” Lynn said.

Hope Kennedy, president and CEO of the North Tampa Bay Chamber of Commerce, also voiced opposition.

“This is absolutely terrible for business. Please do not continue with these moratoriums,” Kennedy said. “We have a workforce problem and the housing crisis is directly correlated with the affordable housing.

“Moratoriums are lazy,” Kennedy added, urging the board to find more creative solutions to the county’s workforce and affordable housing issues.

Moore responded: “The majority of people that live in Pasco County are for this (moratorium), and I represent the citizens of Pasco County.”

Commissioner Jack Mariano said: “I’m comfortable with what we have in place.”

Commission Chairwoman Kathryn Starkey said she agrees with concerns raised by Kennedy about the lack of affordable housing.

“I get calls all of the time. People can’t find a place to live. We’re trying to attract companies here, and where are they going to live? There is no inventory out there for someone to be purchasing a house or renting an apartment,” Starkey said.

“I agree that we want to protect jobs, but I think we can have housing and jobs,” she said.

She pointed to vertical mixed-use developments, which include both housing and jobs.

Commissioner Ron Oakley said the apartments that are being built in the moratorium area are not affordable housing.

“These apartments are renting for $2,000, $2,200 a month,” Oakley said.

“Some of these are not for jobs in our county, but for jobs in other counties nearby,” he said.

Oakley also noted that since the moratorium was imposed, some other areas of the county have been getting some multifamily developments.

The approved expansion of the moratorium area is retroactive to Jan. 6, the date of the Pasco County Planning Commission’s public hearing on the issue.

The moratorium on new applications for multifamily developments is set to expire in April.

Published February 16, 2022

Proposed RV resort moves a step closer to approval

By

The Pasco County Commission is moving through the process necessary to clear the way for the creation of the proposed North Pasco RV Resort.

The county board voted to send the request for a land use change to state agencies for review.

That’s a step that is required before the county board can amend the long-range plan.

Once the state’s review is done, the county board can act on the requested land use change.

That action is required before the board can consider rezoning the site, to allow its development for a RV resort.

Plans for the RV resort call for 550 RV spaces and at least 10,000 square feet of resort lodge and clubhouse facilities. It would be developed on a 132-acre site bordering Interstate 75, east of Lake Iola Road and south of Blanton Road.

The site, now zoned for agricultural uses, is within the county’s Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay Area.

That overlay district 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.

Opponents to the proposed RV resort expressed their concerns during the Pasco County Planning Commission’s public hearing, but were unable to sway that board.

They reiterated their objections during the Feb. 8 county board meeting, but failed to persuade commissioners to reject the request.

Attorney Barbara Wilhite represents the applicants, VCARE Consultants LLC.

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 at both the planning board’s public hearing and the county board’s public hearing that the proposed plan is consistent with policies within the rural overlay district.

The development will have its own wastewater treatment plant and will be on well water.

Wilhite told the board that her client has been working on the project for a couple of years.

Lisa Moretti, who lives on Iola Woods Trail, spoke against the proposal.

“We already know that growth doesn’t pay for itself,” Moretti said. “The Northeast Rural Area serves a purpose beyond community protection. It is your failsafe by not having to provide services and infrastructure into the rural area; you are balancing your budget.

“I would argue that you are legally obligated not to change the urban transition service area and not to move urban into the Northeast Rural Area,” she said.

“If you were to just follow the long-range plan and preserve the rural area, you are doing exactly the job of protecting the county,” she said.

“This project could be developed with a rural appeal. A barn. Turning half of the spaces into horse-trailer pads. Putting in a pasture, instead of a water feature. You could lower the density to an acceptable level. Maintain the rural character. Create a portal to Pasco County that was inviting and rural, rather than a hillside covered in RVs and concrete,” she said, but the developer did not want to seek out residents’ input.

Other opponents raised concerns about the lack of compatibility to the rural area, potential dangers posed by large RVs traveling down the area’s roads, and impacts on the wildlife habitat for turkeys, bobcats, foxes and other creatures that dwell there.

The county board asked the developer to provide an additional paved area to accommodate bicyclists riding along the edge of the project.

The requests for the land use and zoning changes are expected to come back for a vote by the county board at its April 5 meeting.

Published February 16, 2022

New subdivision approved on Happy Hill

By

A new subdivision has been approved at the northwest corner of Happy Hill Road and Sarah Lynn Drive, in Dade City.

The 18.78-acre site, now occupied by hay fields, had been zoned for agricultural and rural density uses. The Pasco County Commission changed the zoning on Feb. 8, allowing up to 75 houses.

Attorney Clarke Hobby, representing the applicant, said the actual development is expected to have 51 or 52 homes.

County planners and the Pasco County Planning Commission had recommended approval of the rezoning.

Alisa Weaver, who lives across from the rezoned site, was the only person voicing opposition.

She urged the county board to reject the request.

“We live a rural lifestyle and not looking for close neighbors,” Weaver said, noting the development pattern in the area consists mostly of homes on 1-acre lots or larger.

“The traffic is a major concern,” Weaver added, noting she’s been run off the road and vehicles have run through her fences.

But Hobby said that a study that was reviewed by the county demonstrates that Happy Hill Road has sufficient capacity.

He also noted that his client’s site is next to an existing apartment complex, plus the City of Dade City has annexed several parcels that will bringing 1,000 to 2,000 residential units to the area.

“I feel what we’re doing is wholly consistent with the area. I’m proud of it. We didn’t ask for super-small lots, and I think it will be a credit to the community,” Hobby told the county board.

Commissioner Ron Oakley called for approval of the request.

“It fits in the property fairly well. They’re not asking for 40-foot lots and things of that nature, which would be very dense and very crowded,” Oakley said.

Oakley also noted that Happy Hill Road has the capacity to handle the traffic the new subdivision will create.

Published February 16, 2022

Pasco moratorium would affect new and used car lots

By

First, it was a moratorium in a portion of Pasco County for new applications for multifamily developments — now, it’s a proposed moratorium affecting applications involving car lots.

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of a 180-day moratorium on the opening of any new car, truck or van sales businesses — while the county staff works on modifications to the county’s land development code relating to these types of businesses.

The only exception to this moratorium are vehicle sales businesses that have an approved site plan and are operating in accordance with the approved site plan, and any county-approved amendments to that approved site plan, according to the proposed ordinance that the planning board unanimously recommended to the Pasco County Commission.

The initiative for the new moratorium is based on a directive from the county board to the county attorney’s office to pursue the pause on businesses involving vehicle sales.

Pasco County Commission Chairwoman Kathryn Starkey has been complaining for some time about the way some vehicle sale businesses are operating.

At the county board’s Jan. 11 meeting, she raised the issue again — suggesting a moratorium, which the county board supported.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, told the planning board: “The primary purpose of this moratorium is, there’s a number of dealerships that are opening up in Pasco County without going through site plan approval at all.”

The proposed moratorium, the attorney said, “would stop somebody from submitting a brand new one (site plan), or somebody from operating who doesn’t have a site plan at all.

Goldstein added: “If you’re already an approved dealership, you can open up and you can seek amendments to your site plan.”

Attorney Barbara Wilhite, who regularly appears at land use and zoning hearings on behalf of clients, said she wasn’t representing any particular client on this issue.

However, she said, she’s glad the language of the moratorium has been evolving, because she’s sure the county doesn’t want to stop approved car dealerships from opening.

“I understand that this has to do with the used car dealerships that aren’t following any rules,” she said.

The businesses are going onto a piece of property and “they just put the cars on there and turn the lights on, and off they go,” Wilhite said.

“We’ve got to balance the fact that the new car dealerships are high-paying jobs and they’re revenue generators, and pay taxes and all of those things,” she said.

Goldstein said: “We can’t just exempt anybody that submits a site plan because we’ll get a flood of junk (site plans) coming in.”

Part of the county’s dilemma is to avoid having those kinds of submittals from “fly-by-night dealerships,” he said.

Denise Hernandez, the county’s zoning administrator, said the moratorium needs to apply to both new and used dealerships, because the problem involves both.

Goldstein added: “You can’t really distinguish between new and used. Even a new (car) dealership sells some used cars.”

The moratorium is not attempting to go after any dealership that has legitimately gone through the county’s site plan approval process, Goldstein said.

“The issue we’re having is the ones that are not,” he said.

The exemption provides protection for legitimate dealerships, he said.

“If it’s a remodel of an existing dealership, it would already have an approved site plan,” he said, and would therefore be exempted from the 180-day moratorium.

If the moratorium is approved by the county board, which appears likely, a study will be conducted to determine what amendments should be made to the county land development code to ensure safe operations of such businesses.

The next hearing on the proposed ordinance will be on Feb. 22, with a final hearing on March 8.

In other action, the planning board continued a proposal for a 180-day moratorium on the submission and acceptance of applications for building permits, site plans, special exception uses, conditional uses, rezonings and comprehensive plan amendments proposing to increase entitlements within the moratorium areas.

The proposed moratorium ordinance collectively refers to three public-use airports located within Pasco County: the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Tampa North Aero Park, and Pilot Country; one private-use airport, Hidden Lake Airport; and, a portion of the conical and horizontal surfaces of the Brooksville-Tampa Bay Regional Airport, as identified on that Airport’s FAA Part 77 Surfaces Map.

County planning staff requested a delay on the hearing, which is now scheduled for the March 3 planning board meeting.

Published February 09, 2022

Planning board makeup to stay the same

By

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

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

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

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

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

The board collectively appointed Chris Poole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning board members agreed that wouldn’t be necessary.

Published February 09, 2022

Pasco moratorium area set to expand

By

The Pasco County Commission is set to expand the area where new applications for multifamily are on hold.

The county board heard public comment on the proposal at its Jan. 25 meeting, with final action set for Feb. 8. The expanded moratorium would be retroactive to Jan. 6, the date of the Pasco County Planning Commission’s public hearing on the issue.

The larger area was proposed by Pasco County Commissioner Mike Moore, who has championed the pause on new multifamily applications — to allow completion of a study to determine whether the county has an oversaturation of entitled apartment developments.

This map depicts the original boundaries for Pasco County’s temporary pause on accepting new multifamily applications, and the approved expansion area. (Courtesy of Pasco County)

Moore repeatedly has warned his colleagues about potential long-term consequences from allowing too many approvals of apartment projects.

He fears the prospect of an oversupply leading to buildings being abandoned, as renters move to newer developments. That, he has said, will set the stage for blight and increased crime.

The temporary moratorium on new multifamily applications applies only to an area within Moore’s District 2.

The temporary ban on new applications applies to an area essentially made up of Wesley Chapel and Land O’ Lakes.

The area initially was generally defined as between State Road 52, on the north; U.S. 41, on the west; State Road 54 on the south; and, Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, on the east. The boundary zigzags between Moore’s District 2 and Commissioner Ron Oakley’s District 1.

The proposed expansion includes several additional areas along the State Road 54/State Road 56 corridor.

The expansion area can generally be defined as State Road 54 to Collier Parkway to County Line Road (south) to Mansfield Boulevard to State Road 56; and from just east of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and State Road 54 due north to Interstate 75 to Overpass Road and west to the existing moratorium boundary.

The moratorium expires on April 1.

Originally, the moratorium was set to expire on Sept. 28, 2021, but the county board extended it for 185 days, to allow more time to complete the study.

The study is examining whether there’s a potential oversaturation due to existing and possible future multifamily developments, and to determine whether additional regulations are necessary.

Revised on Feb. 10, 2022

Bed and Breakfast approved in northeast Pasco

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has approved a bed and breakfast in Northeast Pasco, on the north side of River Road, about three-quarters of a mile west of Auton Road.

The planning board unanimously approved the request as part of its consent agenda, meaning no one spoke for or against the request.

The board’s action on the special exception request came during its Jan. 20 meeting. The planning board is the final decision-making body on special exception requests, unless an appeal is made to the Pasco County Commission.

In this case, the request came from S&S Ranch, which wants to create a bed and breakfast, tourist home on an 18.28-acre site, in the agricultural district.

The applicant’s narrative describes the proposed bed and breakfast this way: “S&S Airbnb is situated on 18 beautiful acres with beautiful gardens, wildlife, domestic farm animals, and tranquility. The rental unit is located on the downstairs of a two-story home. It has two bedrooms, a private bath, living room and kitchen.

“The site has many amenities and is close to Dade City,” the narrative adds.

“The entertainment venue is located on 18 beautiful acres and has a covered pavilion ready for your gathering of up to 100 people,” the narrative continues.

“The pavilion is beautifully decorated for any event and you can add your special touch for your event. We have tables and chairs to accommodate your guests.

“The pristine gardens and amenities make gorgeous settings for your photos to make lasting memories.

“S&S also provides educational events for children and adults. Educational events such as

preschool field trips where children learn about a working farm, animal husbandry and nature,” the narrative concludes.

Under the conditions for approval, the bed and breakfast is limited to two bedrooms.

The conditions also note that the “event venue shall be limited to the exempt agrotourism activities in Section 570.86, Florida Statutes, as may be amended.”

Another condition states that the property “may be subject to review under the Pasco County code, which shall include building and building regulations, fire prevention and protection, and health and welfare, at the time of site plan review.”

Another condition notes that “the owners/applicants may be required to pay additional impact and mobility fees associated with the change of use from a single-family dwelling unit to a bed and breakfast, tourist home.”

And, “If applicable, the owners/applicants shall pay all associated impact and mobility fees associated with the change of use prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.”

Before any development activity occurs, the applicant must receive approval of a preliminary site plan.

Other conditions say that, if applicable, the applicant must comply with all the requirements for public lodging under local, state and federal regulations; that the owner must maintain all  required county and state permits, licenses, individual health certificates and inspections.

Also, the owners/applicants shall comply with the requirements of the County’s Tourist Development tax collections.

The conditionals also note that county staff may initiate enforcement actions for violations of the conditions of approval.

Published January 26, 2022

Pasco county board disbands rural advisory committee

By

The Pasco County Commission has disbanded the Northeast Pasco Rural Advisory Committee.

The committee was formed to develop recommendations and guidelines for commercial development within the Northeast Rural Overlay District.

The advisory panel was approved by the Pasco County Commission and was empaneled by Commissioner Ron Oakley — whose district includes the area — and the Pasco County Planning and Development Department.

At the county board’s Jan. 11 meeting, Oakley told his colleagues that the chairwoman of the advisory committee had appeared to speak at a Pasco County Planning Commission, during a case involving a proposed RV resort.

Lisa Moretti, the chairwoman of the advisory committee, asked the planning board to delay the RV park request until after the advisory committee completed its recommendations.

Oakley said: “I don’t think anyone directed her to do so (speak at the planning commission meeting in her advisory panel role), but she did.

“I don’t think that’s the way that this advisory committee should work,” Oakley said.

He then expressed frustration about the way the advisory committee had been operating.

“To let you know, we’ve had three or four meetings. We haven’t gotten a lot of good advice from this committee —  to say the least —  to be able to advise you on much of anything.

“Most of the answers from it (the committee) are negative, are ‘No, we can’t do that. We don’t want to do that. We don’t want traffic down County Road 41.’

“That’s an arterial road (County Road 41) from the Interstate (75) to Dade City. We have to have traffic on that.

“But they’ve said ‘No’ to that. They don’t want any development around that intersection, which is a major intersection of Pasco County, as you come from the north, down (Interstate) 75.

“They don’t want anything there.

“I’m not getting advice. I’m getting negative, Nos, about a lot of things,” Oakley said.

When the committee began, Oakley said he told panel members he didn’t expect them to say yes to everything, but also didn’t expect them to say no to everything.

He said he told them: “You’re an advisory committee. I want your advice about how things should look in this area, or how you would like to see it look, for the best of all of the citizens.

“Closing the whole area off just doesn’t work,” Oakley said.

Commissioner Mike Moore noted: “We have a planning commission that gives recommendations to the board when it comes to items we’re actually going to vote on. I think the last thing you want to see in an advisory role, or an advisory committee, is debating on projects that are going to come in front of us for a vote.”

Moore then told Oakley: “Listen, if you’re asking this board — I don’t know if you are, or not — to do away with it, I’m on your side, man. It’s your call. If you want to be done with it and move on, be done with it.”

Commission Chairwoman Kathryn Starkey asked: “Is that what you’re thinking?

“We have the rural protection ordinance for residential and we do not have the rural protection ordinance for commercial.

“I thought you were working on the commercial rural protection ordinance because we do need to address that,” Starkey said.

Oakley said the initial meetings were not productive, but they did give him an idea of how development should occur in a rural area.

“The only way you could have development of any significance in that area, you would have to have numbers. You’d have to have density.

“But I think there’s a way to have density, in areas you don’t see from a roadway,” Oakley said, through the use of trees, landscaping and setbacks.

“My vision has been — you ride down Trilby Road, which is a collector road, from Lacoochee/Trilby area, that goes all of the way to Blanton.

“You could ride down that road and maybe you’ll come a nice entrance into some property, but you don’t see any houses. You don’t see houses next to each other … because that setback has landscaping and things of that nature …”

At the same time, Oakley said: “It would allow property rights for those who have property in that area, to develop something.”

Moore told Oakley the panel could be disbanded, if it’s not taking the advisory role that was intended.

He continued: “We’re here to support you as a district commissioner,” adding, “if you don’t feel it’s a good use of your time or staff’s time, be done with it.”

County Attorney Jeffrey Steinsnyder told the board that it’s their advisory committee, so the board can disband it, if so desires.

Typically, when the board forms an advisory committee, it is to review staff work or a consultant’s work product, Steinsnyder said.

Oakley made the motion to disband the committee “because we’re not getting anywhere with it.”

He said he would meet with staff to “try to come up with something better than what we were trying to do. It’s not working.”

Starkey said: “Let’s have staff and commissioner Oakley come back to us with ideas of how to move forward with the East Pasco Rural Protection Ordinance for the commercial because we need that.”

Later in the meeting, Steinsnyder asked the board to repeal Resolution 21-137 that established the rural advisory committee, which board members did.

Published January 19, 2022

Pasco moratorium area to expand?

By

The Pasco County Planning Commission has recommended approval of a proposal that would expand the area where new applications for multifamily are on hold.

The planning board voted to recommend approval of the expansion during its Jan. 6 meeting.

The larger area was proposed by Pasco County Commissioner Mike Moore, who has championed the pause on new multifamily applications — to allow completion of a study to determine whether the county has an oversaturation of entitled apartment developments.

This map depicts the original boundaries for Pasco County’s temporary pause on accepting new multifamily applications, and the proposed expansion area. Approval of the expanded area appears likely, as the Pasco County Commission, which has final jurisdiction on the issue, directed staff to initiate the process for amending the map. (Courtesy of Pasco County)

Moore repeatedly has warned his colleagues about potential long-term consequences from allowing too many approvals of apartment projects.

He fears the prospect of an oversupply leading to buildings being abandoned, as renters move to newer developments. That, he has said, will set the stage for blight and increased crime.

The temporary moratorium on new multifamily applications applies only to an area within Moore’s District 2.

The temporary ban on new applications applies to an area essentially made up of Wesley Chapel and Land O’ Lakes.

The area initially was generally defined as between State Road 52, on the north; U.S. 41, on the west; State Road 54 on the south; and, Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, on the east. The boundary zigzags between Moore’s District 2 and Commissioner Ron Oakley’s District 1.

The proposed expansion includes several additional areas along the State Road 54/State Road 56 corridor.

The expansion area can generally be defined as State Road 54 to Collier Parkway to County Line Road (south) to Mansfield Boulevard to State Road 56; and from just east of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and State Road 54 due north to Interstate 75 to Overpass Road and west to the existing moratorium boundary.

The planning board’s recent recommendation follows Moore’s request to apply the moratorium to areas that became part of his district as a result of redistricting.

(The board recently adopted new boundaries for commission districts in response to population changes recorded by the 2020 U.S. Census. Redistricting is an exercise that aims to balance out population within individual voting districts.)

The call for expanding the moratorium area does not include a request to extend the April 1 deadline on the moratorium.

Originally, the moratorium was set to expire on Sept. 28, 2021, but the county board extended it for 185 days, to allow more time to complete the study.

The study is examining whether there’s a potential oversaturation due to existing and possible future multifamily developments, and to determine whether additional regulations are necessary.

It aims to identify how much multifamily already is entitled and to examine market demand, occupancy rates and other issues.

A housing market research firm is preparing the report and will present it to the board.

That report will cover the current quantity of multifamily dwelling unit entitlements and the current acreage of land zoned for multifamily dwelling units, including the acreage having potential for multifamily units upon approval of a conditional use.

It also will include the potential number of multifamily dwelling units available through existing land use equivalency matrices to accurately calculate and determine the true potential for the oversaturation of multifamily dwelling units within the moratorium area.

If the expansion area is approved by the county board, it would take effect on Jan. 6 — the date of the planning board’s public hearing on the topic.

In extending the original deadline, county staff said the extension was justified because of procedural delays, staff shortages, and the complexities associated with accurate data collection.

In its original approval of the ordinance allowing the temporary pause on new multifamily applications, the county board described the action as being “in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, and (noted) that it advances a valid and important public purpose.”

Published January 12, 2022