Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record

PDD-24-0007

Published agenda

3 appearances between Oct 10, 2023 and Jan 9, 2024, at 2 boards.

OutcomeAdopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Jan 9, 2024
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.

Official title

An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Comprehensive Plan Amendment Amending Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 12) From PD (Planned Development) To CON (Conservation Lands) On Approximately 1,517.89 Acres Of Real Property Located South Of State Road 52, North Of State Road 54, East Of The Suncoast Parkway, And West Of A CSX Rail Corridor In Land O’ Lakes; And A Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Amending Subarea Map 2-9 (43) Project Arthur; And A Map Amendment To The Conservation Map 3-4 Amending The North Pasco To Crossbar Critical Ecological Corridor And The North Pasco To Connerton Ecological Corridor; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.

On a calendar

Oct 10, 2023 → Jan 9, 2024 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

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. 73% of 253 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

  1. 1
    Board of County CommissionersP75Public hearingAdopted
    Approved minutes

    Approved to adopt by roll call.

    Open this item →
    8m
    MarianoChair

    Aye. Item P seventy five, do we approve?

    Starkey

    Yes, sir. Uh published in the Tampa Bay Times on July nineteenth, twenty twenty three.

    OakleyVice Chair

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item B 75 is PD D 24007. And it is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment amending future land use map, map two-fifteen, and Sheet 12 from PD Plan Development to CON Conservation Lands on approximately 1,517.89 acres of real property located south of State Road 52, north. Of State Road 54, east of the Sun Coast Parkway, and west of a CSX Grill corridor in Land O' Lakes, and a

    map amendment to the Future Land Use Map 2-9, amending Sub-area Map 2-943, Project Arthur, and a map amendment to the Conservation Map 3-4, amending the North Pas the North Pasco to Crossbar Critical Ecological Corridor, and the North Pasco to Connerton Ecological Corridor and providing Providing for additional text amendments as necessary. For internal consistency, providing for repealer servability and an effective date. This comes to you with a recommendation for

    Starkey

    Recommendation of white.

    OakleyVice Chair

    Uh adoption.

    MarianoChair

    Okay. Commissioner Starkey?

    Starkey

    Hey Terry. And I was texting back back and forth with some of the folks from Angeline and Keith Wiley, who is out at a parks conference. But I just want to be sure that anything that we're doing in here doesn't preclude us from putting any trails along the edges or through it, because that's important to connect the parks area, the park in Angeline to the area to the south and to get some

    movement east west. And we never have done our um our show and tell of our trip to um Bentonville, but very you know, we want to have some trails along the edges of these, so I just want to make sure this doesn't conclude it.

    OakleyVice Chair

    Uh not to my knowledge that this would uh preclude it. Uh this is just a comprehensive plan amendment to establish the ego corridors. My understanding is that there is capability to bring some of that asset recreation. to access portions of those ego corporations.

    Starkey

    I just don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot.

    MarianoChair

    Very good. Any other questions?

    Okay. Is that all Terry?

    OakleyVice Chair

    We have a presentation if the board wants it.

    MarianoChair

    Okay.

    OakleyVice Chair

    Yes.

    MarianoChair

    It's Planner's Day, we gotta present,

    Brian Junker

    right? Yes. Good afternoon. Brian Younger. Um Long Range Planning.

    The project is uh PDD 24007, CPA 2107, Project Arthur, Eco Corridor Boundary Modification and Future Land Use Change.

    The ordinance was re into record.

    The subject project is located in the South Market and North Market area.

    The proposal is a comprehensive plan. And the future land change is going to go from plan development to conservation land. The purpose is to amend the fissure land use from PD plan development to CON, conservation land, on approximately 1,517.89 acres and a boundary update to implement. And P R N twenty. Zero zero seventeen agreement for sale and purchase. Project

    Arthur Ecological Corridor as approved on November nineteenth. Twenty nineteen. The location of the project is south of State Road fifty two. North State Road 54, east of Songcoast Parkway and west of a CSX rail corridor in Landoles.

    Here is the uh site location and our our real view.

    And here we got a context map, basically some of the um stuff that we got around the ecological corridor.

    Here is the existing fisherland use as it is right now is still under planned development.

    Here is the proposed Fisher Land Use, proposing it to amend it to CON Conservation Land.

    Government Soning. Is M P U D?

    The proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies. Got policy con 1.2 point two H, policy con one point two point one PolicyCon 1.1.3 and PolicyCon 1.2.5

    And the recommendation is find the proposed amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan and adopt by a roll call vote.

    MarianoChair

    Thank you. Any more questions for staff?

    Looks like great great place to conserve. Uh anyone from the public like to speak to this item?

    Starkey

    There was no one signed up.

    MarianoChair

    Uh I do have one person. Nancy, come on forward?

    You should name and address for the record, please.

    Nancy Hazelwood

    Nancy Hayeswood [address removed]. I've not been sworn.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    I

    Nancy Hazelwood

    mean you can do it with the legislative

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    amendment.

    Nancy Hazelwood

    Okay. Um what a wonderful thing. Uh I applaud you all for this and the staff for working so hard and of course the eLamp. Um, I'd love to see that in District One. Thank ya.

    MarianoChair

    Okay. Anyone from the public like to speak? Want to close public comment here? Is anybody on WebEx?

    Starkey

    There is no one.

    MarianoChair

    Okay. We have a another person, come on.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Hi or

    MarianoChair

    just your name and address for the record.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Rename Landson. Um

    Um We don't have worry we don't have an address, we just have a description.

    MarianoChair

    Okay.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Um it's right by the CX. How by changing it to conservation, how is it gonna affect the private landowners? Like what will happen to the property that we own now that it's a conservation? You

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    shouldn't own this property.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    It's already been a little bit more.

    So I well then I I'm a little concerned because they'd sent us a note to show up for this because it pertained to the plot of land that we had owned.

    MarianoChair

    Maybe it abuts it. What? Maybe it's next to it.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Maybe. Could be.

    MarianoChair

    Okay. Okay.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    All right. Thank you.

    MarianoChair

    Okay.

    We have a motion. Move approval.

    Starkey

    Second.

    MarianoChair

    They're broke album.

    Starkey

    District one, Commissioner Oakley. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Why? District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford. Aye. District five Chairman Mariano.

  2. 2
    Planning CommissionPC17Consent agendaNo disposition in the minutes

    An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Consent) - CPAS23 (16) Chancey Road Townhomes CPAS II– Providing For A for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Amending to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 12) From PD (Planned Development) To CON (Conservation Lands) On 23) from RES-6 (Residential-6 Du/Ga) to RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) on Approximately 1,517.89 30.26 Acres Of of Real Property Located South Of State Road 52, North Of State on the Southeast Intersection of Chancey Road 54, East Of The Suncoast Parkway, And West Of A CSX Rail Corridor In Land O’ Lakes; And A Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Amending Subarea Map 2-9 (43) Project Arthur; And A Map Amendment To The Conservation Map 3-4 Amending The North Pasco To Crossbar Critical Ecological Corridor And The North Pasco To Connerton Ecological Corridor; and Diana Drive And Providing For for Additional Text Amendments As as Necessary For for Internal Consistency; Providing For A for a Repealer, Severability, And An and an Effective Date.

    Open this item →
    33m
    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Good afternoon. I'm Kristen Keen with Planning and Development.

    I'm here to talk to you today about a comprehensive plan amendment, PDD 24-0007. This is CPAS 2316, Chansey Road Town Home 2, CPAS 2.

    This is a comprehensive plan amendment. If you feel like you are having deja vu reading these documents, that's because last year you actually approved this. We are currently asking the applicants asking it to go from res 6 to res 9. They are looking to develop 158 town homes on approximately 30.26 acres on the southeast intersection. of Chansey Road and Diana Drive. This was actually approved, adopted on September

    20th, 2022, to go from res 3 to res 6. The 158 townhomes is actually a deed restriction. What happened is that there is a category three wetland on this property, and that wetland actually delineated larger than expected. So they don't have the capacity for the hundred and fifty eight townhomes.

    This is the current site location. It is in the South Market area. It is also in an urban service expansion area.

    This is an aerial map that you can see, surrounding areas.

    This is the context map. You can see that this property is currently sitting in the urban service expansion area and it is also surrounded by an urban concentration area.

    The access to this property is going to be on Chansey Road, which is a two-lane county maintained collector road with approximately 120 feet of right-of-way.

    That right there you can see the category three wetland.

    This is the surrounding future land use.

    Here is the existing future land use. We are going to a It's currently a Rossix. Going to a res nine.

    The zoning is already taken care of. It is currently a M M F One.

    This amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Policy flu 1.2, concentration of urban densities. Policy flu 143, transitional land uses. Policy flu 919, urban service area expansion.

    Um, one thing that I do want to bring up, we did have a change in the utilities capacity statement that actually just was brought forth today by utilities. There is going to be a re uh revision with the reclaimed water. They are no longer going the development within this property will not be required to connect to the Pasco County Utilities Reclaimed Water System. And that was utilities that made that Statement. We are recommending that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent

    with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Does anybody have any questions for me?

    Chris Williams

    Yeah, I have one quick question if you don't mind.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Sure.

    Chris Williams

    What's the logic? Yeah, not connecting to reclaimed water.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Um I did not know. That was something that the applicant agreed upon with utilities, but

    GirardiVice Chair

    I can actually help you with that because I had a question unrelated to that please conversation with utilities before the meeting today. And that is because the distance is so great to connect that utilities doesn't want to have developers running Long distances of reclaim mains of which they will have to maintain over the years when there's only the

    small demand on the end of the pipe.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Yeah, in this case, Peter, the the nearest reclaim is about 4,000 feet away.

    Chris Williams

    Okay, but that's the current. Will there be development down the road, looking down the road? for additional reclaimed water. The reason I bring it up is we know we're in a water shortage.

    Planning and Development staff

    Hmm?

    Chris Williams

    Desalination plants are expensive to maintain, to build. I just see the the long range plan for the future for This will come back to hot. people who live in Pasco County because of a water shortage. And with more people coming in, The population continues to grow, which means we're going to have more homes. We're

    going to have more lawns. And to me it

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    I I think it's important to consider in in your discussion is the distance to get to that existing infrastructure. Even if even if you were gonna saddle the existing developer with Putting in all this additional reclaim pipe. the county has to maintain that additional length of reclaim pipe for years with no flow in the line. So it becomes a it becomes not only a burden on the developer but also on the county itself.

    GirardiVice Chair

    This is it's a it's a constant conundrum to deal with when you're extending utilities. For instance, we may know that in the future we could have ten thousand new homes in the area, but we're only gonna get one thousand today. So do we go and we build an eight inch pipe to deal with one thousand homes or do we do we Build a 24-inch pipe to deal with 10,000 future homes that may be decades before they get there. And then the problem that we have is that we have a water

    main that has so much capacity that it constantly has to be flushed because the water is dead and stale at the end of that pipe because there's no current demand. Stormwater pipes we can oversize, no problem. It but when we're talking about pressurized utilities, that's the constant conundrum that you have to deal with. And I I I understand your point. Is that still a problem with reclaimed water though? I mean do you have to flush those lines just to say? No, but the problem is

    is you still have to keep that line pressurized, okay? So that takes constant power and pumping to keep that line pressurized. It's constant. constant cost to operate that main when you may not have the demand to support the operation and maintenance cost of that main. Uh for this particular case this is probably moved. This is Comp Plan amendment. We don't get to condition that ye shall connect to utilities or what if there was a rezoning or something we might be

    able to do that.

    But I understand your I understand your point. I do too. I will I will tell you that you're not the only one on this board who has big concerns about the region's water supply. Um in fact I spent a couple sleepless nights about it tonight, but then after speaking with our new chairman of the county commission who's a member of the Board of Tampa Bay Water, I feel a little bit more at ease but I can understand Why there's the concern.

    Chris Williams

    We all know that additional development in this area will continue forward with either commercial or homes. And I just can see the uh I understand where you're coming from about the if you if you install the infrastructure now, it will sit for a number of years.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Peter for for this one, I believe this in this agenda item is really I mean remember this was this was approved as res six. They had to come back and they're getting approval for res nine. I believe this project is already even further down the road. I believe they already have a service connection application with the County Utilities Department. So this is really just cleaning up what has already been approved. Thank you. But I I understand your point.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Correct.

    So I

    Chris Williams

    made my point.

    GirardiVice Chair

    A question related to the application and that is How did the wetland grow?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Um so according to Pasco Mapper, the wetland is 4.16 acres. When it was delineated, it came back at 5.439 acres. So it at the current res 6 they would be 10 units short for the 158 pounds.

    GirardiVice Chair

    And they didn't move on to the right-of-way. So there's no requirement to do a jurisdictional determin I mean, you require a survey when somebody applies for rezoning, there's no requirement to do a jurisdictional determination for wetlands because that's Key to the calculation of the allowable density.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Um, I'm not sure on that, to be honest with you.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Is there someone that is?

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Barbara Terry, does anybody wanna

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    This is Terry. Um the the question is whether or not we we require a jurisdictional delineation at the time of a future land use map amendment. Or at zoning?

    GirardiVice Chair

    Correct. That's the question, yes.

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    At zoning.

    GirardiVice Chair

    So what we're seeing is okay, we're hearing that it sounds like that during the entitlement phase they made a guesstimate of how many wetlands to estimate the amount of entitlements that they could get, but then it turns out in reality that they don't actually have that entitlement because the wetlands are larger

    And so I'm asking there's no requirement for them to actually do a determination at the time of rezoning and in some ways I'm gonna say that's a little fair to the unfair to the Planning Commission and to the Board of Commissioners because if we knew wetlands were bigger, we might have had a different decision when the original case was heard.

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    Um Um Mr. Chairman M my understanding. I'm not the Chairman Mariano. Yeah. Well, my understanding of the uh of the way the development review process works is that if there is a limiting factor, such as a larger wetland, it's simply going to contain and cause the technical documents like the site plans and the engineering documents to respond to that. So the land use is if the land use is appropriate for residential, the residential land

    use is applied on the property. And then as it uh as entitlements are identified, we we determine what quantities everyone is, maximum quantities let's say everyone is comfortable with. And as the site plans come in and they try to fit those entitlements on the property once all the various constraints are considered. It shakes out to what it's going to

    Chris Williams

    uh

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    into what is ultimately going to be built. So at that point the the wetland delineations are gonna play a much greater role in the site planning phases than if we

    GirardiVice Chair

    Okay, but I guess so what I'm asking is and I understand that exactly. But so then their response to that is, well then I'll just come and ask for more density.

    Moody

    Yeah.

    GirardiVice Chair

    res going from res six to res nine and although I understand there's a recorded deed restriction if this would have happened on a property where there wasn't a recorded deed restriction. Would be offering to give them 50% more density. Because they made a mistake.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    But I I don't think if I'm unless I'm wrong, they're not asking for any more units. They're just asking I mean I guess technically they're asking for

    GirardiVice Chair

    higher density.

    So they won't actually achieve nine units to the acre, but had this been in another

    Dan Wells

    problem.

    GirardiVice Chair

    property where there wasn't I'm not looking particularly at this case, I'm looking to the future, or are there other ones out here that the same possibility exists? And do we want to get in the habit of the habit of saying, Well, we're sorry that you didn't do your homework on the front end Here we'll just give you some more density to make it all better later.

    Barbara Wilhite

    So Barbara Willheight, sixty three twenty-seven Grand Boulevard for the applicant. Haven't had this situation in twenty seven years, either time up the county or so I don't think this is a habit. I think this is just a a a circumstance that happened. The zoning, the M F one zoning has a deed restriction, one hundred and fifty eight units. So this is a request for a comprehensive plan amendment to make that consistent. This is not the rule, this is just something that happened. And um And don't get me wrong enough.

    GirardiVice Chair

    I'm not opposed to this project, Barbara. What I'm looking at is I think this is a horrible precedent to set for other developers. I mean if you if you're serious about developing in this county Then you have the obligation to go do some due diligence and I can tell you that the cost to go delineate five acres of wetland is probably chump change if you can avoid afford to build a hundred and fifty eight multifamily.

    Exactly. Right.

    Barbara Wilhite

    Well we understand all that. It It certainly certainly

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Well you you've also got the I mean Chris you could probably chime in a little further here on this too, but I mean you've also got the process process of of sending sending environmental scientists out there to flag where he thinks it is versus going through the whole process with Swift Mud and getting that formal determination and approval done. So

    GirardiVice Chair

    we do 'em all the

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    time

    GirardiVice Chair

    and I know some Some environmental scientists are better than others, but I don't see flags move by hundreds of feet when I go out there. They move by a foot or two feet.

    Chris Williams

    I apologize for bringing up the issue of reclaimed water.

    I have a passion for it, but I guess my passion is being Well my passion still isn't it.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    I'm only kidding.

    Christopher Poole

    In my experiences this is kind of an anomalous situation because typically a developer would look at the polarity wetland condition and and look at the Yeah, so this is you know to Barbara's point, this is fairly anomalous.

    Moody

    Well obviously the the comp the um concept plan had to change some in order to fit that density on a smaller piece of of dirt, I guess. So what um you know, I mean would do you have to consider shaving off ten ten units in order to fit the same density?

    Barbara Wilhite

    So No. Eric, they have full construction plans in, properties under contract, so this would hurt this property owner. And it doesn't i i yes, you know, it's it happened and we're here, there's a fix for it. Doesn't change the density it's approved, doesn't change what was approved on the zoning, and we're just asking for the fix so we don't hurt the property owner. I mean, just what it comes down to.

    GirardiVice Chair

    And there is a deed restriction on the property?

    Barbara Wilhite

    There is, cannot be changed. So ultimately doesn't change those units.

    GirardiVice Chair

    If there weren't a deed restriction I'd feel a lot differently, but it's just like

    Moody

    Exactly.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Dennis

    Denise

    Yeah, I'm sorry, I've been trying to jump in to say that there is a requirement that if a property has wetlands you have to submit a wetland delineation survey together with the rezoning action. That is a requirement.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Down done. Any idea why, what happened?

    Denise

    Um the only thing that I can think of with this one is that originally this was an MPUD rezoning application and it was transferred to a Euclidean, so there may have been I'm I'm trying to look through the record to see if I could find the the wetland delineation. But

    GirardiVice Chair

    under you're saying under the normal circumstance.

    Denise

    Correct. The application specifically I will read it verbatim. Uh proposed use development. Two sign and sealed boundary survey, legal descriptions and sketches, or property survey by a registered surveyor, including wetland, if any, delineation, to be submitted at time of application. That is a requirement of a rezoning application.

    Unidentified speakerVoice F

    Okay.

    Barbara Wilhite

    Good.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Right.

    Any other discussion?

    Barbara Wilhite

    You have public comment.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Uh yeah. So uh anybody here to speak on this item?

    Sorry about that. We got to talking about reclaimed water and wetlands so long I forgot where it

    Brenda Doherty

    was. I'm watching the clock. Uh my name is Brenda Doherty. I live at [address removed], which is south of this uh development. And my first point is that no one on Maisie Drive got any notices in the mail of the uh first meeting. We did I haven't received anything. So I missed the first meeting because the sign is very small. I don't know If you can adjust

    that sign to make it a little more noticeable. Today I looked at the sign for this meeting and it was flat up against the fence and not visible for when you're pulling in or out of Diana Drive. So Many people did not see the sign and I'm speaking for the ten people who live on Maisie Drive, which is south and behind where the townhouses are gonna be. Had I known about the earlier meeting, I would definitely have come and and uh expressed my objections

    at that time, but I obviously am too late. to the party it's already been pretty much approved. Uh the big concern we have is not only traffic but also noise pollution, light pollution, just toxic runoff into the wetlands area. Uh water, our wells are ninety feet deep. We're concerned about four hundred more people using more water there. If there's two people per

    unit that would be like 400 people, 400 more cars. In addition, all of the surrounding neighborhood is one family on two and a half to five acres. Some people have 10 acres and now we have this very incongruous townhouse population density quite quite larger than everyone the neighborhood. So

    Mary Mcknight

    Can you

    Brenda Doherty

    really have a map so we can see where she's.

    It also seems to me that because this is a commercial development basically, meaning that it's a rental I'm assuming townhouses are rentals. I have one minute. That uh the people who are renting are not gonna be the same as someone who

    Pecanda or whatever has the current residents who all care very deeply about the area. So that's another concern that these four hundred people are gonna be rentals renters rather than owners who care whether Santa Cranes are flying.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Patty did you have a map to put up are you working

    GirardiVice Chair

    on it? Ask if you'll show us where you live just in general. Townhouses.

    Brenda Doherty

    So you go down Diana Drive, there's a you go uh east towards Rio One on Shim. Similar just like a block or two actually it's two lots, so it would be two and a half acres twice. And then I live at the end of that. So Yeah. Uh it's hard to

    GirardiVice Chair

    just because they're attached units.

    Brenda Doherty

    Yes.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Townhouses. They're generally platted. The the the the occupant owner owns the land under the townhouse. Those are Those are fee simple ownership. Now not to say somebody can't rent their townhouse, but again there's no prohibition against you renting your house either.

    Brenda Doherty

    So let me make sure I understand.

    GirardiVice Chair

    But it's not an apartment complex.

    Brenda Doherty

    So basically the townhouses will be sold individually the way a condo would be sold?

    GirardiVice Chair

    Yes. Similarly, yes.

    Brenda Doherty

    Okay. I did not realize that. I thought they were just

    GirardiVice Chair

    Yes, they'll be individual owners. Now of course there's nothing that stops them from renting their property, just as there's nothing that stops you, but it's not

    Brenda Doherty

    Okay. But they don't have two and a half acres that they take care of and I it is different. I understand. And the cars, the many, many cars on Chansey Road, and on 301 and on Takes me an hour to go get my granddaughter now. What used to take me twenty minutes takes me a full hour. So

    GirardiVice Chair

    So if we weren't to approve this today

    Well, they wouldn't get a hundred and fifty eight units because They don't have the density entitlement, but they might get a hundred and fifty or they might get a hundred and forty nine, so I don't think there's any stopping the train. What we're really talking about is the last ten or twelve units here. Today.

    Brenda Doherty

    I understand that. And I know this is probably not the place or the time.

    GirardiVice Chair

    I am concerned a little bit your comments about the sign. Where did you see the sign?

    Brenda Doherty

    The sign is on Chansey Road. It's facing Chansey Road. So if you pull into our Guyana, it's back in the weeds against the fence. It's a farm fence. Okay. It's back there against the fence. Every person I I called a lot of people.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Then did you get a mailed notice?

    Brenda Doherty

    No, I got no mail notice of any kind. The only reason I knew about the meeting was actually because my neighbor who lives on Diana had written a letter about the uh ecological impacts that she was worried about. And she mentioned the meeting, I was like, What? I don't know anything about that and none of the people I talked to on Macy Drive got letters or any kind of notice of any

    GirardiVice Chair

    Which one's Mace?

    Brenda Doherty

    But Maisie is not on the main draw.

    GirardiVice Chair

    So normally in our report, in our staff report here, and I don't see one, they normally show the the radius in which they noticed the public about the hearing. I don't see that exhibit in this report today.

    Brenda Doherty

    Well, I I was disappointed. I didn't get any notice for any meeting. Not even not the one prior that was the planning one or whatever that was. And the people I talked to today, none of them had notices. So in fact I found out about the whole development off of Facebook. Someone sent me a Facebook map and I was like, What? I don't know anything about this. And of course that was already passed. the meeting, the September meeting, so It's too late for me to do anything to come and to voice

    my opinion.

    Moody

    Denise, do you have information on the notices that went out?

    Denise

    Um that was handled by Ms uh Kristen King, so she should have that information. I don't see it in the working file.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Yeah, normally there's an exhibit that shows the radius in which they sent out the notices.

    Brenda Doherty

    I don't know how

    Mary Mcknight

    to do it.

    GirardiVice Chair

    So Are you able to measure a distance on that, Denise? I uh is Maisie Drive within five hundred or a thousand I don't know what what's the noticing distance on this five hundred 'cause it's res six? That's correct. So I will do a So Maisie's probably beyond the five hundred.

    Brenda Doherty

    It it may well be, but it will affect our water, it will affect our Uh drainage and So what

    GirardiVice Chair

    is this this is gonna be on public utilities? All right, so that's not an effect on your well.

    Brenda Doherty

    Well it depends. Depends what how they set up their drainage and whether they drain water that normally would come downhill to our to our properties. But possi I don't know. I'm not a scientist, I'm just a homeowner, you know.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Okay. Well,

    Brenda Doherty

    I'm actually a retired West Several Hills elementary teacher.

    Denise

    So the noticing would pick up at least uh four parcels on Maisie Drive.

    Brenda Doherty

    Okay, I we didn't

    Denise

    If you if you live at the end of Maisie Drive you would you would have been no noticed on this one.

    Brenda Doherty

    I live right at the at the intersection of Schembler.

    Denise

    No, that that's that's out of that. Um so So it would it would have picked up [address removed] as a um person, it would have picked up [address removed]. I guess this is called [address removed] is the physical address 'cause there's a a road in the back. It would have also picked up uh [address removed], but it would have not picked up anyone at the intersection of Schindler and Maisie, because that was beyond that would have been beyond the five hundred foot notification.

    Brenda Doherty

    Okay.

    GirardiVice Chair

    I understand. I

    Brenda Doherty

    The commissioners

    GirardiVice Chair

    on Tuesday asked about signs as well. I'm hoping that I like I d didn't hear a definitive answer to that on Tuesday as to when the new signs are. This is something that's been talked about now for more than a year. I don't understand what the hold up is in getting the signs. a larger sign. Right? Now twenty-four by thirty-six, if I'm driving fifty miles an hour, there's no way I could see a one inch high letter written on a twenty-four by thirty-six sign. It's unfair

    to the population.

    Brenda Doherty

    The other issue is that the print on the signs is very light.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Yes, I I understand that. There was some direction to get larger signs and I don't understand what's the hold up to get the larger signs 'cause 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. But I I thank I see this as constant with the public that I didn't see the signs. I follow the Facebook group. There's constant banter on the Facebook group about the signs. That's something that

    we really need to work Faster. To correct.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Very good. Thank you for coming out.

    Barbara Wilhite

    Barbara Wellheit. We have noticed it I mean we noticed three times now um this property. the property just falls out of the 500 feet. There is a board meeting. Um we will go out and make sure we move the sign so it has more of an angle. Um As well as we did put the neighbor in touch with the engineer who's got construction plans in for review right now. And the offer was she's got neighbors that want to ask questions, he's made himself

    available, so by this process she actually has the ability to talk to the engineer and talk about you know, whatever it is, the questions. That's that's where she can get the answers regarding drainage and and flow of water and wetlands and stormwater ponds and 'cause they had a conversation bef before um at the beginning of the meeting. So So that process will go on. Uh And her neighbor she'll get her answers her questions answered and they'll be able to give input to um to the client and uh their engineer.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Are you good? Okay.

    Any other questions?

    Moody

    I'll echo what John was saying though. I think you know for for the BOCC and staff that's listening to us, we definitely need to improve our noticing uh abilities because this is not the first time we've had someone come up and say they didn't hear about it, they didn't see it, and see the sign or whatever. So it's definitely an It just seems

    GirardiVice Chair

    that it's an easy problem to fix. It we we shouldn't have to have constant co- complaints that I didn't see the I couldn't see the sign.

    Moody

    Right, yeah. So not our not our job to fix it, but um but for those that

    Chris Williams

    are listening. Just a second, yeah. We brought up a problem. Can we make a suggestion to I mean I seen some counties uh in the area who've had Brad, do you want to weigh in?

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    Mr. Jeremy.

    Chris Williams

    Okay.

    Unidentified speakerVoice G

    So since Jerry's hanging out of your house, I'll weigh in real quick. 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. So it's it's going. It's not forgotten. Uh it is there are some complicated aspects to it because we're transitioning a few of the pieces and how they're done. Uh for example the county currently buys the signs in bulk and everybody has to come and pick up signs and do different things. We're kinda changing that whole thing as well. So there's

    a lot to the process, but it is front burner. So

    GirardiVice Chair

    Any idea time frame?

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano.

    Um the the time frame that we're shooting for right now is February March. Okay. Yeah. For both uh revamping the notification process and uh the signage.

    GirardiVice Chair

    And then would are you still gonna be buying the signs in bulk or will they applicant by their own signs

    Unidentified speakerVoice E

    and how will that work? That's gonna be worked out in the next couple weeks. But yeah, the all of that should be we're targeting February February to March. I'm I'm making that public. But um uh that's how front burner it is for us. So hopefully we can hit that target. You know, there's a lot of priorities on the on the desk at the moment. And

    Unidentified speakerVoice G

    there's it's a change in size of the sign as well as a change in design of the sign so we're not gonna have that small illegible print any longer.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Then you get rain and of course the ink runs off and the sign is blank after a few weeks, especially in summertime. So

    Unidentified speakerVoice G

    I and there's some issues about uh you know, where do you put them. Uh if you're in the middle of a stretch of roadway where r traffic's going fifty miles an hour and there's not a stop sign there, you know, where do you put it? How do you put it to catch people from both sides? You know, there's there's a lot of things that are in there, but it's in this it's in this package that whatever you bring for.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    No, I think that'd be good. Thank you guys.

    Moody

    Yeah, I know there's some discussion in a previous workshop too about in the electronic age adding some electronic means of notification as well, you know, through whether it's through social media or what it is. So we we're a little bit archaic I think in some of the things that we do. You know, there's still notifications in newspaper which we know doesn't have the greatest readership compared to what it used to. So what newspapers?

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    All right. Is there a motion?

    GirardiVice Chair

    This is number It's

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    PC

    GirardiVice Chair

    seventeen. Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping with the program today. Right. Yes, I will move to approve item PC seventeen.

    Chris Williams

    I'll second time.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    All right, motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Last one maybe? PC nineteen?

    GirardiVice Chair

    Twenty minutes, huh?

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    We approve that. That's right.

    Unidentified speakerVoice H

    Good afternoon, Lauren Fling, Planning and Development.

    Yeah.

  3. 3
    Board of County CommissionersP55Public hearingAdopted

    An Ordinance Amending The … Plan; Providing For A Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Amending To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 12) 23) From PD (Planned Development) RES-6 (Residential-6 Du/Ga) To CON (Conservation Lands) RES-9 (Residential-9 Du/Ga) On Approximately 1,517.89 30.26 Acres Of Real Property Located South Of State Road 52, North Of State Road 54, East Of At The Suncoast Parkway, And West Southeast Intersection Of A CSX Rail Corridor In Land O’ Lakes; And A Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Amending Subarea Map 2-9 (43) Project Arthur; And A Map Amendment To The Conservation Map 3-4 Amending The North Pasco To Crossbar Critical Ecological Corridor Chancey Road And The North Pasco To Connerton Ecological Corridor; Diana Drive; And Providing For Additional … And An Effective Date.

    Approved minutes

    Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.

    Open this item →
    1m
    OakleyChair

    Item P fifty five 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-fifteen, and sheet twenty-three from res six residential six dwelling units per gross acre to res 9 residential nine dwelling units per gross acre on approximately 30.26 acres of real property located at the southeast intersection of Chansey Road and Diana Drive, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary. necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer serverability and an effective date, and this comes to you with a recommendation

    for approval and adoption of the ordinance by vocal vote. If you would like a presentation, we can make

    OakleyChair

    okay. No one has signed up for this item? Yes, sir. Should I ask the Is there anyone in here to speak to this item? Beef it's bad. Seeing no one, I entertain a motion.

    Mariano

    No one on WebEx either.

    OakleyChair

    No one wrong with it. Okay. Move approval?

    Mariano

    Second.

    OakleyChair

    I got a motion and a second. All those in favor roll call vote.

    Starkey

    Okay. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Bradford. Aye. District five, Commissioner Mariano.

    OakleyChair

    Aye.

    Starkey

    District 1 Chairman Oakley.

    OakleyChair

    Aye. Motion pass 5-0. Move on to P 56.