PDD-23-0133

Every appearance3 of 3 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and removed. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 79% of 203 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Apr 6, 2023
   Planning CommissionPC4Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Continuance) – CPAS22(09) Hilltop Vistas - Providing For A for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And and Sheet 15) From Res-1 from RES-1 (Residential-1 Du/Ga) To Res-3 to RES-3 (Residential-3 Du/Ga) On on Approximately 39.12 Acres Of of Real Property Located West Of of Happy Hill Road Approximately 790 Feet North Of County of State Road 52; And An and an Amendment To to Map 2-13, Rural Areas; Removing The the Hilltop Vistas Parcels From The the Rural Area (Area 1); Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. 1).

   Open this item →▶ Play from 21:05
   ▶ 21:051m

   Denise

   21:05PC four is PDD twenty-three zero one three three. It's a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. See Pass 2209 for Hilltop Vistas. The request is to continue the item to a date uncertain.

   Charles GreyChair

   21:15Yeah, but in present. You want to hear Dave Jack? Okay. Are your motion?

   Connected City

   21:23Motion to continue.

   Charles GreyChair

   21:25Second. Have a motion and second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, signed? Okay, motion carries.

2. 2May 9, 2023
   Board of County CommissionersP56Public hearingContinued

   An Ordinance Amending The … 790 Feet North Of County State Road 52; And An … Severability, And An Effective Date. Date

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue the item to a date uncertain.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 7:34
   ▶ 7:342m

   Jack MarianoChair

   7:34I now call back to order the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners of May 9, 2023. Please silence all electronic devices and mute your phones. We will proceed with public hearing, starting with ordinances, P56, continuance.

   Kathryn Starkey

   7:50Uh we have proof of publication of the hearing of this matter in the March 22nd edition of the uh 2023 edition of the Tampa Bay Times.

   Jack MarianoChair

   7:59Thank you.

   Nectarios Pittos

   8:00Sorry?

   8:05Item P fifty six is an ordinance amending the Pasco County comprehensive plan, providing for a small scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map two dash fifteen and sheet fifteen from res one. Residential one dwelling unit per gross acre to res three, residential three dwelling units per gross acre on approximately thirty-nine point one two acres of real property located west of Happy Hill Road, approximately seven hundred and ninety feet north of State Road 52, and an amendment to map two-thirteen rural areas removing the hilltop vistas parcels from the rural area, Area One, providing for

   8:35additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency. Providing for a repeal of reservability and an effective date. This is a continuance request to a date uncertain.

   Jack MarianoChair

   8:46They have a motion to continue P56. Move. Date certain.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   8:54Okay. Is that right? What is it, Mike 2?

   Jack MarianoChair

   8:58No, it's Date uncertain. It's

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   9:00date uncertain. Date uncertain, okay. Make that emotion. Second.

   Jack MarianoChair

   9:04All in favor say aye. Aye.

   9:10Actually we're supposed to do a roll call on that?

3. 3Sep 5, 2023
   Board of County CommissionersP45Public hearingAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 4:43
   ▶ 4:4344m

   Jack MarianoChair

   4:43Commission meeting of September fifth, twenty twenty-three. Please silence all electronic devices and mute your phones. We'll proceed with the public hearing starting with the ordinances. Item number P forty-five. Mr. Clerk, when was it posted? Or when was it noticed?

   Kathryn Starkey

   4:57We have proof of publication of this matter in the June 21st, 2023 edition of the Tampa Bay Times.

   Jack MarianoChair

   5:03Thank you. And staff?

   Denise

   5:13Denise Hernandez Planning and Development. Item P forty five is PDD twenty three zero one through three. I'll read the title into the records by week, but I believe uh this item is being pulled, so you'll need a full presentation. On the item. It's an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan providing for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map two-15, sheet 15 from res one residential one-dwelling unit per gross acre to res three residential three-dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 39.12 acres of real property located west of Happy Hill Road, approximately

   5:43790 feet north of County Road 52, and an amendment to map 2-13, rural. Areas removing the hilltop vistas parcels from the rural area, Area One, providing for additional teamments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repeaters, repealer separability, and an effective date. We're asking that you approve this item by roll call vote. This was presented to the local planning agency on July 6th of 23, who found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the board. And we do have Chris. Dimash here to

   6:13present the item.

   Jack MarianoChair

   6:14Okay, and just for clarification, so item P fifty that goes along with this was gonna be pulled from consent anyway?

   Denise

   6:20Yes.

   Jack MarianoChair

   6:20So we're gonna hear them both together then.

   Denise

   6:21We'll do them both together.

   Jack MarianoChair

   6:22Are we

   Denise

   6:22gonna do that now?

   Jack MarianoChair

   6:24Well what do you want to do?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   6:25I'd rather you do the comprehensive plan amendment and then the land development code amendment and then the zoning. You can do them one after another, but not as a consolidated hearing.

   Jack MarianoChair

   6:35Okay. All right, so continue on.

   Chris Demansh

   6:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Good afternoon. For the record, Chris Damage with the Long Range Planning Division. Next we have agenda item 45, which is CPA S2209 Hilltop Vistas.

   7:05Board

   7:05of Co

   7:08This is a small scale comprehensive plan amendment.

   7:15And the request here is a to amend the future land use maps 2-15 of sheet 15 and amend map 213 rural areas. The flu change is from res 1, which allows one dwelling unit per gross acre, to res 3, allowing three dwelling units per gross acre. The purpose is to allow 117 single-family detached homes on approximately 39.2 Subject properties located west of Happy Hill Road, approximately 790 feet north of

   7:45County Road 52. There is an accompanying rezoning application, RC7623 Hilltop Fistus MPUD, which will be heard uh later today. Subject properties located in the North Market area as well as in the Northeast Rural Area 1. This is an aerial of the subject property. You can see that it's just north of County Road 52 and west of Happy Hill Road.

   8:15Next we have the context map showing the subject properties relation to the Lake Joveda M PUD as well as village A and E of the villages of Pasadena Hills.

   8:28Uh this map here shows the subject property uh in relation to the Northeast Rural Area One. Uh subject property is in the southern portion of the rural area. Next we have a more zoomed-in view showing the subject property in relation to the northeast rural area, typically right there at the very bottom. Next we have our utilities map showing uh the subject property. Its

   8:58location is east of the Lake Javita MPUD. Lake Javita has existing utilities in place. There are some connection points that are adjacent to the subject property, which would allow the property itself to be brought on to water and wastewater upon development. Existing future land use for the prior parcel is res 1 and proposed would be res 3.

   9:27The zoning for the site is R1.

   9:31And the proposed amendment is consistent with the following policies within the comprehensive plan.

   9:40And staff's recommendations recommend the Board of County Commissioners find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and adopt by a roll call vote.

   Jack MarianoChair

   9:51Okay. Any

   Chris Demansh

   9:52questions for

   Jack MarianoChair

   9:52staff?

   Chris Demansh

   9:53This concludes my presentation. I'm available for uh uh questions along with the applicant. We also have Amy Toll who's uh available to us virtually today. Thank you.

   Jack MarianoChair

   10:05Any questions for steps?

   Kathryn Starkey

   10:06Well I I have a question on the site plan, but would that be on

   Chris Demansh

   10:08zoning?

   Kathryn Starkey

   10:09The next one?

   10:12I have no question.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   10:18Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oakley Hobby, Hobby and Hobby PA, 109 North Brush Street, Tampa, Florida. Based on how the board is taking up these items today, I'm gonna only talk about the comp plan for purposes of this discussion. So uh you have before you the proposal to take the site out of the northeast Pasco rural area and that my comments that are related to that apply both to the item that is related

   10:48to the comp plan and the LDC amendment. So I probably won't repeat these again. But the comp plan is set up in this area to Uh discourage people from uh running utilities long ways into a rural area to destroy the rural character of the area. This site has not been rural for many years and when it was sold uh in two thousand three to a residential developer plans

   11:19were made then and have been in existence since that time for a suburban form of development. And that's why when staff showed you the utility plan, uh that the county maintains, there's both stubbed out utilities and an easement through the east point phase of Lake Joveda to serve the site. The comp plan says that when you're not in a rural area or you are served by central facilities, you should come out of the rural

   11:49area because by the very fact that you have central facilities, you're not rural. Now, since the time of the adoption of the Northeast Pasco rural area, a great number of things have happened, some of which staff just alluded to, but In addition to the changes and the creation of villages of Pasadena Hills, the board approved uh not due south, but the second south site south of 52, the Grand Oaks MPUD,

   12:21which by itself has nine hundred units and three hundred and forty thousand square feet of commercial. The East Point development is essentially built out at a Res 3 density within Lake Jovita adjacent to the site. And the entire site uh portion of the county that's east of Happy Hill Road is already already Res 6 and has been before the 2006-7 changes to the Comp Plan. When you factor that in The Clinton

   12:51extension uh not only plan but the actual construction, you are not looking at a rural area. If it wasn't a rural area in two thousand three, it for sure isn't now because our studies show that within three miles of this site there's gonna be over twelve thousand residential units and over one point four million square feet of commercial. This site's adjacent to what was a state roadway and it's within a quarter mile of another state roadway.

   13:22So uh in in addition to that, as we talk about going north on Happy Hill Road and to what was a rural area that I grew up in, uh within a mile of this site going north, the city of Dade City has approved approximately 2,000 units that are suburban areas. In nature and the city of Dade City alone. within three miles of the site has approved over twenty five hundred units just in the last five or six years. So again, the site is not rural

   13:53And the comp plan is very specific that when you're not in a rural area or you're going to be at a res 3 density, which I submit to you is the lowest density this site should be, given what's happening at East Point. the fact that there's res six with multifamily directly east of the site I think this is a very reasonable thing to do, and I don't believe, given the small amount of this site, that it's going to have any adverse effect on the balance of the rural area.

   14:24This is not going to affect Trilby. It's not going to affect Blanton or any of these areas. This site in the area we're dealing with is no longer rural. It simply is not, and it's got the facilities there to serve it. Thank you. Thank you.

   Jack MarianoChair

   14:40Any questions today?

   14:43Okay. It's time for public comment. Anyone here from the public like to speak to this item, P45?

   Kathryn Starkey

   14:49We have several signed up. Um and I I apologize on this last name, Lisa.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   14:56Moran.

   Kathryn Starkey

   14:56Moran, if you would ready.

   Joseph Wells

   15:00Yeah.

   Kathryn Starkey

   15:00Thank you.

   Joseph Wells

   15:03This

   Jack MarianoChair

   15:03don't

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   15:04have to be, it's a legislative hearing.

   Jack MarianoChair

   15:05Right. So then the next items on this, on the ordinance, um P forty five, P forty-six.

   Lisa Moretti

   15:14Great. Um

   Kathryn Starkey

   15:15if you will please, ma'am, if you uh give your address for the record.

   Lisa Moretti

   15:19Yep. It's uh [address removed]. I have materials for all of you.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   15:27Okay. Move to receive.

   Lisa Moretti

   15:28Second.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   15:30All in favor say aye. Aye.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   15:31Aye.

   attorney to the tourist development council

   15:32Thank you.

   Lisa Moretti

   15:39So I'm gonna talk fast and everything sort of applies to all three pieces that are up today. Um this property is located in the northeast rural overlay on a road that was designated a rural scenic road. The commission continues to chip away at the rural area, making the overlay as defined in the comprehensive plan meaningless, even though we keep encroaching on it. More than one commissioner has ties to the applicant monetarily. I respectfully request that those commissioners recuse themselves from voting on this since either they themselves or their spouse has either been in business with or employed by Mr. Simpson.

   16:11According to the C Pasco County Land Development Code three hundred four point two, this requires a public sign notice to be erected on the subject property. It states where the matter being heard involves a specific parcel of land assigned purchased Through the county shall be erected on the property. Unfortunately, in this case, the public notice requirement has not been met. As you can see in the images that I've handed you, The picture with the white truck on it shows Lakeview Drive to the far left. Across the street from Lakeview Drive is the public notice sign, which you

   16:41can see on the far right. If you turn the page over, you'll see the yellow sticker shows where Lakeview Drive is and the public notice sign is situated. The green stickers show where the Belly Wadding property line is. The public notice is definitely not located. on the Belly Wadding property. In fact, I drove by on my way here, and the sign is still properly located. improperly located, sorry. I have an image for you on my phone if you need that as proof that I took on my way here. The public notice sign is the only public notice for this project on

   17:11Happy Hill Road. More than two weeks ago, and then on September 2nd, the sign was As You See It. I have additional photos from two weeks ago and I videotaped the drive on September 2nd as I drove both Happy Hill and around onto CR-52. They're on a thumb drive, I'm happy to give those to you. In fact, that sign has survived in its current position, unmolested, even by a hurricane. There are no other signs on the subject, property belonging to Walton Simpson, Alan Altman, and David Johnson except a trespass sign. I

   17:41can in good conscience swear under oath right here, right now, that there have been no other signs posted on that property in the past few months as I travel that road regularly. Even if there might have been signs correctly placed, the applicant has a responsibility to maintain those signs throughout the hearing process, as I've pointed out for you all in other cases. Residents should be able to depend on our County Commission to make certain that public notice requirement is met and proper public notice is given and posted before it votes on these kinds of ordinances and changes. I've anticipated

   18:12that this important requirement would have been noted by the I sorry, I anticipated that this important requirement would have been noted by the Planning Commission, but it was not. I respectfully ask that the public hearing for this project start over until compliance has been met and accomplished. If I were a commissioner, I would feel obligated to give the people of Pasco County the full measure of public notice, entitled to them by law, instead of proceeding on an issue that I knew had been improperly noticed. Thank you.

   Kathryn Starkey

   18:41Thank you. Carol Janke.

   Carol Jankey

   18:51Hello. My name is Carol Jankey and I live at [address removed]. My property's back up to Roth Lane, which when I built my home there was Old State Road 52. At the Planning Commission, I requested only two homes per acre to be compatible with Abbey Drive, Lakeview, Timber Run, and Roth Lane.

   19:17This is approximately, these streets exit onto Happy Hill Road and Roth Lane approximately 90 residents. I requested that the proposed driveway cut at Roth Lane be vacated and move farther south on Happy Hill or 579 past the first Lakeview Drive. I also suggested the parent parcel. Sittman Massey should have to allow access to Belly Walding LLC for interconnectivity to County Road 52. And the

   19:47Happy Hill exit should be closed except for emergency. There is a president. Precedent. The Sweetwater Apartments had two exits, Happy Hill Road and Janke Drive, a paved road which they owned. They were denied access to Janke Drive and Stage Road 52, closed for emergency use only. This would also protect raw flame, which is a big problem. We have requested help numerous times for no through truck signs, the latest being March

   20:179, 2023.

   20:26Anyway, um the timing and phase plan for this, the existing traffic counts were conducted during a peak season based on the 2019 Florida DOT. This needs to be redone four years later is outdated.

   20:43Happy Hill Road has seen increased traffic and two approved subdivisions. Summit View Phases 1 and 2 of 406 homes approved in 2005 without an updated transportation study. Ordinance number 2005-0905. The northwest corner of Happy Hill Road and Sarah Lynn Drive, allowing 75 homes, was approved February 8, 2023.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   21:12Thank you.

   Kathryn Starkey

   21:16Um Mr. Chairman, the next person who has signed up for P45 would be Rod Bailey.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   21:34Good afternoon. Uh my name's Rod Bailey. I live at [address removed], uh directly across from The project here.

   Jack MarianoChair

   21:46Just for the record I've met with Mr. Bailey before this meeting. I've met with the applicant as well.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   21:53Uh what I'd like to address here is uh let me get it. Oh I think it's twisted around. Got this line with there. Trying to find fifty-two and I think it's flipped upside down. There we go. There we go. Yeah. Uh this right here would be the project. The concern I have is safety for the community. affecting this project before

   22:23it even actually takes place. Currently, this is Happy Hill going up to St. Joe. This is the major project that's going on. I have no idea how many homes that are being built here. It's from St. Joe all the way up to the university up here. It it was mind boggling when I saw how many homes are gonna be built there or apartments or actually what the project is. I um unaware of it. Uh there is actually

   22:54currently this project right here well actually it's right here. So this is this is Happy Hill right here. Coming up go back to the other one please.

   23:07This is Happy Hill right where we at? Right. Right here. This is Happy Hill to Saint Joe. This is a major project with Numerous cars that are gonna be here. Two, three, four thousand cars plus I I would estimate. This right here is being built. There's thirty-three homes out of six hundred that are currently occupied. The amount of traffic that comes down here is massive

   23:38coming down to the new state road 52. What the concern is existing right now before this is all built, this is all built, and with the numbers from the applicant's attorney, you heard how many people are going to be living within 3.5 miles from here. Where are they going to go?

   23:59How are they going to get out of this area? They're going to only be able to get out of this area in very limited Roadways. The main road is gonna be to, as the attorney was saying, to get to fifty-two. So that's gonna create everyone to come down this road right here. I think it's twenty-three twenty-three feet, something like that. I don't I didn't actually measure that. But I had a uh

   24:29a s uh traffic study that done by Vin Cant, and if you could flick through to those down on the bottom. He's he just currently gave those to me, I believe, Friday. I got those in an email format. This right here, I'm not sure exactly what this is representing, these numbers and this data. I don't see the formulation in this. The next page. These are actually uh and this was sent to me Friday. I requested

   25:00this four weeks ago and I requested it to the board. To have the study. Not a traffic study, a calming study. Not a traffic study, a calming study for Roth Road. And what this is reflecting is the the amount of cars going left to right. Uh this is Happy Hill here, this is Roth, this is the project right here. All these cars that are coming up this roadway are turning right.

   Jack MarianoChair

   25:27You gonna wrap it up?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   25:28Uh yes. So b basically what I'm trying to say is I would like to see the applicant, if they're gonna in line the uh the road right here, they need to be responsible for creating some type of calming devices out here. It's gonna be directly right here. It's gonna be an intersection on a 13% grade. This right here is extremely steep. and it should be changed from here to down here on Abbey Road or up here. It

   25:59should not be on Roth Road. That's a residential road that's seventeen feet wide. Two cars cannot even pass here and we're asking this this project is asking to run this in into this. So I'm sure you're gonna have answers for me or questions because that this is big. This is some of them's gonna get hurt. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

   Kathryn Starkey

   26:24Nancy Hazelwood.

   Jack MarianoChair

   26:37Yes we do. We have a motion. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   26:45Nancy Hazewood, [address removed]. Since we are talking about three different items, I hope you will forgive me if I go over a little bit on three minutes. But

   Jack MarianoChair

   26:55We're We're

   Nancy Hazelwood

   26:56talking about one right

   Jack MarianoChair

   26:57now. We'll we'll be covering the other ones afterward. So we're just doing the land use right now.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   27:01Okay, then I'll stop where I stop and come back and start. Anyways, I hope you took into consideration what Miss Moretti said and uh dismiss this project until the proper public notice is available for the public. This is the applicant's responsibility and I think we deserve public notice. That's correct. Uh let's start with a reminder in the Northeast Rural Protected Area. It was granted to the people in exchange for Pasadena

   27:31Hills, which is now actually a part of Connected Cities. That's a vast area. Some of the same landowners in Pasadena Hills own land in the rural area and they would now like to develop at high density, not at rural density. That are allowed in rural areas. If you take away from northeast Pasco, do we get to take away from Pasadena's Hills and Connected Cities? What do we get in return? Hilltop

   28:03Vista project owned by Simpson Two Buddies is asking to take the land out of its northeast rural and triple the densities there. This is not in the Northeast Rural's best interest. So I have asked that topography and the rural road Northeast Rural Road regul landscaping regulations apply. This is what happened on Ramsey Road when they took down a hill. That's about twenty feet. Is that in the northeast

   Kathryn Starkey

   28:33room?

   Nancy Hazelwood

   28:33No, it was in a transition area. that was not considered um part of Northeast Rule all of a sudden said it was at high density, but they took down a hill and that's what could happen taller hills. It could start oppressed up. So

   29:01I don't think it's a lot to ask for the the applicant to comply to landscaping and scenic views um and topography for north for what they're doing e even if they are taking it out of northeast rural. Uh, as the newspaper said, this is Simpson project. I have heard him speak on how important agriculture is to him. I'm having a hard time believing that instead of bringing the he's r not taking

   29:31this property back to downsizing and making it add, he's tripling the density. My feeling is that someone must have given him bad advice. certainly he would not want to hurt the seas the citizens of this county by adding all to all the problems we already have. I am hoping he won't do this again now that he knows how much we care. Yeah? I made it. Three minutes. Thanks y'all.

   Jack MarianoChair

   29:59Thank you.

   Kathryn Starkey

   30:01Mr. Chairman, that's all we have signed up at this point that is present. Um

   Jack MarianoChair

   30:07anyone from the public like to come forward. Un po'. Is there anyone else please line up again, Mr. Riley?

   Richard Riley

   30:18Good afternoon. My name is Richard Riley, [address removed]. I've been here many a time before you and uh long enough so that I can remember that uh the commissioner was the only person who was on the uh uh board when the uh oral area was first presented and approved of the comp plan. The comp plan, the rural area, as far as I'm concerned, is sacred and should not be uh nibbled away, as uh uh Mr.

   30:48Hobby has suggested, uh even though it is a very small amount, a very small amount, but the next person to come to you uh in six months is gonna say, oh well, you can let that little one go in. Well, ours is only instead of 39 acres, ours is only on uh fifteen acres. Or uh we'll have a bigger one, maybe it's only on two hundred and seventy five acres. It'll nibble away on what we were promised. We were promised. As Nancy mentioned before, that uh uh um Pas

   31:20Dana Hills was going to be Allowed And this would be protected. We have been very quiet on Pasadena Hills. However, I'm going to violate that right now because I'm going to go on what uh Nancy almost suggested here. Let's take 39 acres out of Pasadena Hills. How about the middle of Miranda? How about the middle of some of the other developments on uh uh Curley Road that are in the Pasadena Hills negotiated are green. Agreement. And then we'll

   31:50let you have this little bit, you give us a little bit there, we'll divide the whole thing up, and then we'll lose our entire integrity and planning that the comp plan. Remember it's called a comp plan. Comprehensive plan. The comprehensive in this case was build down there next to Zephyrhills and below Prospect. And protect from Happy Hill up, from 52 up, Belnie Brothers over, Green Swamp in. Hernando County

   32:20Down. This is our area. I will continue to keep saying, please keep it sacred. Thank you very much.

   Kathryn Starkey

   32:29Thank you. Mr. Chairman Mariano.

   Jack MarianoChair

   32:33Okay. Does anyone else from the public like to speak of this item? Please come forward. Is there anyone else after this gentleman? Please line up behind him. Thank you.

   Jack West

   32:43My name is Jack West. I live on uh [address removed] and I have a a letter for you all. With redu uh with due respect to Senator Simpson and Mr. Altman, I wish to register my opposition to granting them zoning change within Pasco County Rural Area Plan. The Pasco County Board of Commissioners is keenly aware of the enormous effort put forth by the community to create the Northeast Pasco

   33:13County Rural Area Plan and the clear justification for its establishment. The part uh this part of Pasco County is unique. and must be protected from intense development regardless of who is behind it. Ugly. We see many examples of ugly as we travel our local roads every day. Hills ground down to heaps of dirt on Ramsey Road And Happy Hill. monotonous rows of colourless

   33:43condominiums, crowding a Hancourt Road reminiscent of public housing. Is this what Pasco County is going to be? To grant exceptions because a petitioner holds great political power or economic power. Then the rest of us is unjust and unworthy of our county commissioners. I ask the commissioners to deny the request zoning change and honor the Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Area. Thank you.

   Jack MarianoChair

   34:12Thank you.

   Sharon Hannah West

   34:18Hi. Um Commissioners, my name is Sharon Hannah West. It's been a long time before I've spoken in front of this group. Your

   Jack MarianoChair

   34:27address. Your address please.

   Sharon Hannah West

   34:29Oh, [address removed]. I know that guy. Um At any rate, years and years ago, I worked with a lot of people in the Northeast Rural Protection Plan. Commissioner Mariano, you were part of that. When we submitted that or when the county did to Tallahassee, the feedback on that was It's pretty stellar. Tallahassee said never had they seen a w cohesive effort of multi-stakeholders like they saw that went into the Northeast

   34:59Rural Protection Plan. People had to compromise. There were a lot of no-growth people there, there were a lot of developers there, and we had large landowners as well, and it was a good compromise. Um To say that or to try to make the argument and say well Adjacent to it now is no longer rural. There's a reason behind that. Part of the reason is because you stuck by the R Northeast Rural Protection Plan and you kept it the way it was. People don't want Dade City

   35:29to look like Zephyrhills. They don't want Dade City. to look like Claremont. And there's a legacy behind all of this. So this is not just one small issue at stake here. This is quite large. We've got a finger in the hole in the dike that if it's removed, the precedent is open. There can be legal arguments made. That what you did for one has to be done for another. Now, when I was

   35:59at USF, I recently retired, I taught in the College of Business graduate students, masters and doctoral levels, and we talked to our students a lot about legacies. And I am mindful that there's a huge legacy at stake here. And I'd like you to think about yours as well. Because what we need to keep intact as our legacy for our children, our grandchildren and those beyond is a piece of Pasco County the way it was. And we can't undo

   36:29that once it's undone. It's it's gone forever. And when they talk about you. And your legacy Um when your time has come, they're not gonna ask or talk about what kind of car you drove or what house you lived in. They're gonna talk about what you did. And I'm asking you to please do the right thing today.

   Jack MarianoChair

   36:53Thank you. Anyone else from the audience like to speak? And there's no one on WebEx.

   Kathryn Starkey

   37:00No sir.

   Jack MarianoChair

   37:00All right, we're gonna close public comment. Back to staff first, then the applicant.

   Chris Demansh

   37:12I just wanted to add to the record that as we get into the MPUD application, uh we have two conditions in the conditions of approval. No, sir.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   37:20You're not talking about the MQD application now. This is the comprehensive plan amendment.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   37:26Oui.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   37:31Uh understand that it is a comprehensive plan amendment. There were some uh comments made with with regard to to keeping and maintaining topography and also uh as it relates to landscaping, there are conditions of rule in the MPD that can handle that. We can talk about them in more detail at that hearing. We just wanted to make sure that it was on the record that it was a response to the comments that we've we've uh taken those matters together.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   37:55consideration. So the tet the testimony the staff wants to offer is what the board may approve in the MPUD later on in the agenda. That that's that's what what they're trying you're you're trying to tender? Correct. And Nictoria's Pitos from the Then proceed.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   38:20N I mean we could talk about that at the MPUD stage. It's just that there's conditions of approval as part of the package for this project that will take those uh topography and scenic issues into consideration. I

   Kathryn Starkey

   38:31can't I can't hear you.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   38:32Need Speaker. There there are conditions of approval in the MPUD that can take the comments that the public has made into consideration at that part of the at that part of the project.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   38:46And I and as far as My position is that that that unless they're sub-area policies of this comprehensive plan amendment. The board is looking at the reduction of the Northeast Rural Protection Area to exclude this property and the increase in density to from res one to res three and you can and when we get to rezoning you can go into detail about those

   39:16those conditions.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   39:17Correct, yes. And as we presented earlier, uh the area is

   39:25The subject parcel is adjacent to utility stubbox, which intended that this property should have utilities. And it is a best practice when we're talking about utilities to make the loop connections.

   Jack MarianoChair

   39:37Uh Terry, years ago we had looked, I believe, at this property, maybe this corner, and there was like an M P O D of some sort or even a not sure it was comprehensive plan amendment change or not, but it was something like was happening at Trinity on Little Road in Trinity Boulevard. There was a big complex coming in there that the one in Trinity got built, this one never did. Is this the same parcel of the land?

   40:02Fuck saying no.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   40:03No.

   Jack MarianoChair

   40:03Okay. All right. Um question I have is about the signage. Does the sign have to be on the property or I can address it. Okay.

   40:15So yeah, yeah.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   40:19I'm I'm asking the clerk to put up on the Elmo. We have pictures of the sign being posted on the northerly loop of Lakeview, um directly across. So that's the first picture, but if you go to the second One you can see that yellow house is on the northern end of Lakeview. And then if you go to the third picture you can see it's way up the hill and it's not on the Pittman Massey property. So I I I we have no objection and we believe we

   40:49met the notice requirements and so we're not gonna withdraw it on any notice grounds or anything like that. We're comfortable that we met the notice requirements. As the pictures clearly show. Thank you. That's all I needed on those. I'll just address a couple of things that were brought up, but again, I think it's important to remember Lake Jovita was built before in the city of Saint Leo, the town of Saint Leo, it wouldn't have been even been able to be built. in the northeast Pasco

   41:19area which it later was brought into because it has central facilities. That's the whole point of this exercise. If you have central facilities in place You shouldn't be in or considered a rural area. And also just be mindful that the board just voted within the last two, three months to rezone and change the comp plan on the site directly to the south. So the Pittman Massey site has commercial zoning and it's gonna

   41:49have, I think the cap is 157,000 square feet. Of commercial, and it was planned for commercial since at least 1975. So we've got res 6 all up and down the entire property directly east of Happy Hill, and we've got Lake Jovito with central facilities that really was built out at a res 3 density directly to the west. What we think we're doing is reasonably stepping. Down in the density from the

   42:20intense commercial and the res 6 around us into res 3, and that's why we proposed what we did. As to the changes and their effect on the northeast Pasco rural area. The board having already made the move on the uh Pittman Massy one a few years ago took that twenty acres out. What you're dealing with today is 39 acres of 61,000 acres in the northeast Pasco rural area. You

   42:51can't tell me that's having a material effect on the Northeast Pasco area. It's approximately point Zero zero four. of the entire area. It's a very it's point I think point four percent of the total acreage of it. Um the traffic and the other issues we'll address in the MPUD, but again Uh as the the county attorney has said we're not going to talk about the topographic limitations,

   43:21but rest assured they have been dealt with in the MPUD conditions themselves. We submitted a traffic study and a transportation needs assessment, and it conclusively shows there are no level of service failures on the adjacent roadway or the road. roadway network caused by the project. Other than that, again, this is just following common sense and good planning. There are facilities next to the site and there are

   43:51a significant portion of the property that's adjacent to it, essentially on two of the three boundaries that are already out of the rural area and at a higher density or intensity than what we're proposing. why we're doing it in addition to the fact that we're overlooking now County Road 52 and State Road 52 in the Clinton Avenue extension. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

   Jack MarianoChair

   44:17Any questions? I'll just make a comment. As I was here when we did the comprehensive plan many years ago, um this was an area that was part of the protected area. When you get to the cusp of an area, especially one that just had a major roadway built right to the south, when you get a connection with Lake Joveda now part of the county, not St. Leo, that abuts right up to it, and you get commercial right down to the side of it, which we looked at maybe. many years ago to approve that as well. Um I don't think this is is encroaching into anything further, but I think this here coming

   44:48forward, I actually heard there were like forty, fifty foot lots coming in and very pleased to see that it's as res three that's not going to happen. So I think it is a slow step down in density that uh mirrors what's right next door to it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   45:01I mean Commissioner, just I know it's not on the future land use, but just to give you a sense of what be what's being approved and built out there. We've got two other clients that the boards recently approved, R four zonings just across the street in the Rest Six area. Those are sixty foot lots. I mean it's residential, you can't say it's rural, and that's really what we're talking about here today. It's not You know, are we going from an area that's really, you know, in the middle of Blanton per se that has a very rural field

   45:31with no facilities near them? If if if we're in that kind of area, if we were two miles north of here, it would be a different discussion. But the utilities are there and that's the reason why all these other projects have been getting approved and they're being built. It's because the utilities are there.

   Jack MarianoChair

   45:46Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?

   Kathryn Starkey

   45:49Well I have some questions, but I think it's on the zoning.

   Jack MarianoChair

   45:52Okay.

   Kathryn Starkey

   45:53Mr.

   Kathryn Starkey

   45:54Chairman Mariano, go ahead.

   Kathryn Starkey

   45:57So I asked you this when the when the shopping center came in that's coming in at the corner. And seeing that picture, I don't know what it was, Commissioner, of where they took down the hill. And I remember when we worked on this project, we didn't want the hills being we didn't want to be Claremont.

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   46:13Right.

   Kathryn Starkey

   46:16I don't

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   46:17that was not the project. No,

   Kathryn Starkey

   46:19I I don't know where that was, but I just know that we we we tried to protect that that in the r east Pasco Rural area that the hill Only so much could be

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   46:31That's right. There's specific limitations that apply in the comp plan now and uh Mr. Steinschneider is telling you that we can't Make your decision based on what's in the MPUD, but I can't tell you that the specific language that was in the comp plan is in the MPUD conditions.

   Jack MarianoChair

   46:51Which we'll cover later. Right. So just doing Land use for

   Kathryn Starkey

   46:55now. Okay, so that's for the next

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   46:58one. I just want to answer a question. Uh Ms. Starkey, that that picture that Ms. Hazelwood was showing. is Ramsey Road and they did cut that down. That's a city project, not a county project. But they streamly cut that down, but it's supposed to be by guidelines of engineering and all. The slope's supposed to be correct. So we did check on

   Kathryn Starkey

   47:21those hill things aren't Well

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   47:23they

   Kathryn Starkey

   47:24I'm not a dangerous

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   47:25that was in the city and we didn't have a say in it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   47:27There's a long history of commissioner with with regard to that property and there's a lot of people I grew up with right down the street that weren't real happy about it but it was it was outside the county's control. Well I'm not

   Kathryn Starkey

   47:39I'm not happy about it. I I don't have to see it but that's

   Ron OakleyVice Chair

   47:43nothing to say. You don't see it from this property but uh this time I'd like to make a motion to approve. We have

   Jack MarianoChair

   47:49a motion?

   Kathryn Starkey

   47:51Second.

   Jack MarianoChair

   47:51Have a second. Any further discussion? Did you want to add something?

   Kathryn Starkey

   47:56Yes. Commissioner is Mr. West has submitted his comments in writing and wishes for them to become part of the record. So we'd request a motion to receive it in public.

   Jack MarianoChair

   48:05So moved.

   Kathryn Starkey

   48:06Second.

   Jack MarianoChair

   48:07All in favor say aye. Aye. So motion to approve on the floor. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Roll call. Is this

   Kathryn Starkey

   48:15roll call? Roll call call. As an ordinance. Okay. Uh District One, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. I District five, Chairman Mariano.