PDE-26-0031

Every appearance4 of 5 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. 84% of 765 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 1 of the 5 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1Oct 2, 2025
   Planning CommissionRES1Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 08) From AG/R (Agricultural/Rural) To RES-1 (Residential 1 - Du/Ga) On du/ga) on Approximately 19.69 Acres Of of Real Property Located On The on the North Side Of of Blanton Road Approximately 2,150 Feet East Of The of the Intersection Of of Blanton Road And and Trilby Road; And and A Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.86 7.1.61 – Blanton Road MRS; … 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(86) 2-9(66) Blanton Road MRS; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. MRS

   Open this item →No recording
2. 2Nov 6, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC4Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Consent) – CPAS24(19) Blanton Road MRS – Providing For A for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And (2-15 and Sheet 08) From Changing from AG/R (Agricultural/Rural) To to RES-1 (Residential 1 - Du/Ga) On du/ga) on Approximately 19.69 Acres Of of Real Property Located On The on the North Side Of of Blanton Road Approximately 2,150 Feet East Of The of the Intersection Of of Blanton Road And and Trilby Road; And and A Text Amendment Creating … Map 2-9(86) Blanton Road MRS; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. MRS.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 13:08
   ▶ 13:081h 9m

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   13:08The only item that we have on consent today is PC4. They'll be sitting at the local planning agency for this item. It's PDE 260031, a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS 2419, Blanta Road MRS, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 8, changing from AGR agricultural rural to Res1, Residential 1 to Unit per gross acre on approximately 19.69 acres of real property located on the north side of Blanton Road,

   13:38approximately 2,150 feet east of the intersection of Lanton Road and Trollby Road, and a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.86 Lanton Road MRS, and a map amended to the future land use map 2-9, adding sub-area map 2-98. Blandin Road MRS. We now have individuals signed up to speak on this item, and we ask that this item be moved to the regular agenda.

   GreyChair

   14:06Pull that one. Okay, so we're pulling PC four, right?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   14:12And that's the remainder of the consent agenda.

   GirardiVice Chair

   14:16Well there is no consent agenda.

   14:20Okay. Okay. Nothing from nothing leads nothing.

   14:25Good sound.

   GreyChair

   14:30So is uh the applicant here on PC four? Anybody here to speak? Probably should hear from staff or anybody here to speak else to speak? Okay. Yeah, I just want to see who's here. Um

   14:46Alright.

   Amy Heiler

   14:51All right, good afternoon. Amy Toll, Planning, Development and Economic Growth. Today before you is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAS 2419 CPES Blanton Road MRS. The item before you is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. It is requesting to be uh amended from AGR Agricultural Rule to Residential One or Res One, Residential One Dwelling Unit for Gross Acre. The intent of this amendment is to allow

   15:22for the development of an MRS on one of the parcels. The proposed amendment is going to be on two parcels currently. The MRS is going to be on one of the parcels. There is also a companion sub-area policy that's ensuring that lot sizes are no less than 2.5 acres, with the exception of one of the parcels. One of the parcels is currently part of another platted subdivision. It's sitting at about 1.7 acres. So through the sub-area policy, we

   15:52are still insurance. That remains at 1.7 acres cannot get any smaller than that. However, if they need to vacate roads or add additional acreage to that parcel, they can do so. The subject site is located north on the north side of Blanton Road, approximately 2,150 feet east of the intersection of Blandon Road and Trollby Road. And again, there's a companion sub-area policy, 2-986 in the name of Blandon Road MRS, that's running alongside this proposed amendment to Res 1. Here's

   16:24a county location map. As you can see it is located in the North Market area. It is also located in Rural Area One, which is northeast Pasco rural area. Here's a context map showing the subject site in proximity to Blanton Road and Trilby Road. There is a it's basically surrounded by excuse me, it's surrounded by agricultural lands, medium density residential, low density residential, with Dade City to the south. Here's a transportation map uh highlighting

   16:55that on the south side of Blanton Road there is a 12-foot multi-use path.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   16:59Mm-hmm.

   Amy Heiler

   17:01Here's an aerial view that kind of zooms in just a little bit more for you. What this is highlighting is that the lot sizes surrounding the proposed site range between 0.84 acres to about 23 acres. So there's a lot of changes of differentiating lot sizes in this area.

   17:23Existing future land use of AGR. Proposed future land use of Res One. As you can see there's already Res One and Res 6 in proximity to the subject site.

   17:35Here's the sub-area policy that's ensuring that the level of development that's being proposed cannot exceed six dwelling units. So the subject site or the subject parcels cannot exceed six dwelling units for the overall development. There is one parcel that's about 17.98 acres. The current density on that parcel equates to about three lots. The proposed amendment is allowing for five lots. So they're asking or requesting two

   18:05additional lots on that site. Additionally, this is also taking into consideration the one lot that we are setting aside that's still part of a previously platted. Subdivision at 1.7 acres. So the overall Belantin Road MRS development cannot exceed six dwelling units, and you'll see a conceptual plan submitted afterwards. Additionally, we added development restrictions to ensure that the development remains compatible with the character of the area being Northeast Rural.

   18:35So we brought in development standards for lighting, scenic roadway, and in accordance with the minor rural subdivision, which pursuant to our code is prioritized within the Northeast Rural area. Here is the Blankton Road MRS proposed conceptual plan. As you can see, the lot sizes range from 2.35 acres to about 3.99 acres. So they're still fairly large lots. Again, the subject or the

   19:05one point, can I do a little clicker? 1.7-acre lot is here. This is already existing in a previously platted subdivision. So through the establishment of the sub-area policy, it's still honoring the size of the lot. However, the applicant is looking into vacating fourth AV. They have been in coordination and communication with a real property. Once that process has happened, that portion of the right of way will be absorbed into the 1.7 acre

   19:36lot.

   19:39Here's a consistency policies that were established. The following uh policies are or the comprehensive plan amendment proposed amendments consistent with following comp plan policies. And these are in your agenda memo? Additionally, I would like to highlight in section flu A6, which is our comprehensive plan, it establishes the land use categories within the flu designation, specifically through Table 2-1. Res1 is classified as a rural land use pursuant

   20:09to our comprehensive plan.

   20:12So with that we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comp plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

   GreyChair

   20:19Alright, Amy,

   GirardiVice Chair

   20:20any questions? Yes, they are. Um Amy has the file number, the PDE file number for this matter changed at all?

   Amy Heiler

   20:29Yes, uh between twenty-five and twenty-six.

   GirardiVice Chair

   20:33Okay, so it changed because we're in a new fiscal year basically. Okay. But the

   20:41The location, legal description of the matter, none of that has changed

   Amy Heiler

   20:45none of that has changed. Uh this was previously heard back in August. The change was reducing the uh amounted density that they were requesting.

   Connected City

   20:54Okay. Okay. So just going back to the concept plan, um I noticed that there's the twenty five foot scenic roadway buffer on the east or the west side of the property there. Is that also gonna apply to that one point seven acre parcel on the or is or does it not because that's part of an existing

   Amy Heiler

   21:14Platted subdivision.

   Connected City

   21:15Platted subdivision. Correct. So the the 25 foot buffer does not apply there.

   Amy Heiler

   21:21Um well generally it would apply in this visual so you can see where the highlighted area is. Um because it is part of a previously platted subdivision, they're not they still have to plan for the scenic roadway. They're not going they're not grandfathered out of that requirement essentially. Okay. So but it is still contemplated. Yeah. Yeah. The um site itself is actually a little oh a little over one. 1.7, it's 1.73. So in the sub-area policy, it's contemplating 1.7. We rounded down to give

   21:51that flexibility. Additionally, with the vacated portion of the parcel or right-of-way, that will add, I believe, 0.21 acres to the site. So it's going to be about just under. Um eight, one point eight, just under.

   Moody

   22:10Okay. Amy, what's the necessity to Change the flu designation for the existing lot of record. I'm looking at the flating section in the land development code. And this would be seven hundred point three I allows the construction of a single family dwelling on any parcel of land recorded by deed as of June sixteenth, nineteen eighty nine, but not to include lands platted on or bef after

   22:41May first, nineteen seventy four. I looked at the plat, that was nineteen twenty something. And it looked like this was recorded by Deed in 1976 or so, so why the it appears that there's already an entitlement to build a single family home there already.

   Amy Heiler

   22:58Correct. Yeah, they do have the ability to construct a single family home like you stated. Um their intent is to eventually bring this into the overall MRS design. So they're most likely going to they're gonna vacate the right-of-way, consider vacating that portion of the plat, and then they're actually from and I can have Jair speak to that if necessary, but uh they're actually proposing to potentially down zone the existing zoning district to make sure that the overall development aligns

   23:28with more of a rural character rather than higher density.

   Moody

   23:33The last time this was brought to us, this was pitched to us as a family compound. So what's different?

   Amy Heiler

   23:43Yeah, so from my understanding the intent is still to to pro give these lots to their family members. Um previously the challenge was through the limited family lots subdivision proposal there they weren't direct Family Like they weren't directly related to the family. So they couldn't qualify. Right. So they couldn't qualify. Um so they proposed to reduce the density, the

   24:13lots from that time. Still the overall intent from my understanding. So I can have Jaris speak to that if necessary, but they that is what is being proposed to us is that they are still intending to use these lots for the daughters and sons and family members.

   Moody

   24:34So it's uh well, I guess we can ask the applicant, but I recall it was one non family member. And it would seem that there's an existing lot of record that the non-family member could buy that lot and then a limited family division could be used for the family members on the remaining land, but we'll hear from the applicant.

   GreyChair

   24:55Sure.

   24:57Okay. Any other questions from Amy? No?

   GirardiVice Chair

   25:00Okay. Amy is the right-of-way for Fourth Avenue included in the change?

   Amy Heiler

   25:08It is part of the change, yes.

   GirardiVice Chair

   25:10if it's vacated it'll just be part of it'll also be

   Amy Heiler

   25:14Correct. It'll be absorbed into the one point seven parcel, acre

   GirardiVice Chair

   25:18parcel. But i it's it's its flu is being changed as well. Correct. Okay, thank you.

   Moody

   25:24You're

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   25:25welcome.

   GreyChair

   25:26All right. If you come forward, give us your name

   Moody

   25:28and address please. Can I ask a question before you go back? Sure. So d is that right away the titles vested in the county?

   Amy Heiler

   25:38Correct.

   Moody

   25:39So how does the applicant get to apply to change the land use on a county piece of property?

   Amy Heiler

   25:44Uh we've coordinated with pr real property.

   Moody

   25:48But it's not vacated yet.

   Amy Heiler

   25:49Correct. It's in the process of being vacated.

   GirardiVice Chair

   25:52Well, the counting. Remember the county's approv if the county approves it, the county can decide to change the land use on its own property.

   Moody

   26:02Yeah, I understand that. But it just seems like the card's a little before the horse.

   GirardiVice Chair

   26:08If the county commissioners don't like it, they could always exclude it. Mm-hmm.

   26:13I just wanted to know whether it was being

   GreyChair

   26:14included or not.

   26:17Okay, maybe you have some more comments on that, but yeah no problem.

   Amy

   26:21Jarrus Barbie uh Symbiosis Planning Consulting 10117 Kingsbridge Avenue Tampa Florida Um Appreciate You Guys time and thank you for hearing this out again. Um yes it still is the plan of the family to essentially ha have have lots and share it across the family but one of the people does not meet the requirements of the limited family lot division. So that still is the plan, yes. Um why why

   26:51are we kind of treating this uh southeastern parcel separately is because we're not trying to lay out policy to establish what the board has to do. So the board still has a prerogative to vote against the vacation of that right away. So we're not asking for policy to be created to force their hand to do so. If it is in their prerogative to save that right away for some uses, that is in their prerogative. And um As far as

   27:22the legal description, I believe you are correct. I don't believe that right-of-way is included in our legal description that is for this sub-area policy, nor the uh the comprehensive plan map amendment. So, yes, you are correct. I think there would be some slight discrepancy there for that particular thing. But that's not, we have no control. Control over that, that's going to be on whether or not the board votes to actually vacate that right-of-way. So that's why

   27:52it's been presented as such. What we've tried to do is reduce the lot count by one more lot to show that you know we are okay with trying to give up something to still proceed forward in this endeavor. And I believe the lots that we've Shown um as far as sizes do fit a rural um character and size. Um they're larger than some of the lots that are in the area and middle to the size of some of the other ones.

   28:22Um so so that's what we've decided to proceed forward with. Um

   Moody

   28:30The the five lots that'll be on the larger parcel, those are gonna go to family members?

   Amy

   28:37Uh yes, sir.

   Moody

   28:39Okay.

   Amy

   28:40So I I only believe that three houses would be built right away by the families. All right. And then the other two parcels would be given to some of the children that could then you know build a house and and do something with it as they grow up. We're talking about some children that are very young still, so less than teen. teenager's age, so they're not gonna go right in there and build a house for a teenager.

   Moody

   29:09Okay, so what I'm what I'm trying to figure out is I've got Five lots for family members. The Limited Family Lot Division allows me to have

   Amy

   29:22But they don't but they don't qualify for the limited family lot division because he's not a direct family

   Moody

   29:30member. Why can't the non-direct family member buy the one that already has an entitlement to or have the lot that already has an entitlement to build?

   Amy

   29:38Well, I I believe it's because they want a larger piece of property for themselves. So they have planned to basically the the founding members of this subdivision would get the largest lots and the remainder of the lots would be left for the children.

   Moody

   29:58Yeah.

   30:01So

   30:04I'm still not understanding this. I've got five lots for five family members and one non family member and I've got land. here that I don't even need to be here for a public hearing today for. I can avail myself of the land development code as it is with the with the land use and zoning that's in

   Amy

   30:24the zoning the same

   Moody

   30:26I can accomplish my goal of getting five lots for my five family members and one lot for my non family member.

   30:35And we were concerned the last time here That the problem is is the story that's getting pitched to us today is that this is for a family compound But yet we're setting this up to be a subdivision that well if I change my mind and my family doesn't want it, then I can just sell these lots off to any Joe Joe Q public. I think that's

   Amy

   30:55the issue

   Moody

   30:55the issue at hand.

   Amy

   30:58I I understand what you're saying, Mr. Moody, and um There's nothing in the county that that says anyone at some point can't get of rid of property. So unl unless it were tied through a limited family lot division and that is a headache for the planning department to try to track that as it goes on in history as well. But

   Moody

   31:24Well there's lots of headaches.

   Amy

   31:26We can't we can't move forward with that on that parcel as it sits now because it has AC zoning, which requires um ten acres if I'm not mistaken. Correct? So that parcel is seventeen point nine six acres. So it can't be legally split now with the zoning that's in place. That's why we're proceeding forward with this and if and if this doesn't work out we would have to come back for a rezoning for that particular parcel to allow

   31:57for a zoning district that would allow for that type of split anyways. So we can't do that as it sits now.

   Moody

   32:08So Mm-hmm. Where does the limited family lot division say that the five lots has to comply with the minimum size of the zoning district?

   32:21Mm. Okay. Alright, actually it does. I do see that.

   32:29So you're saying that's zoned A C today?

   Amy

   32:31Yes, sir, correct. The the smaller parcel is zoned R two and it should be original zoning um based off of that plated subdivision.

   Moody

   32:39The large piece is zoned A C.

   Amy

   32:42Yes sir, correct, which is one per ten. Why

   Moody

   32:44aren't we here just asking for a rezoning of that property so that you can use the limited family?

   Amy

   32:49Because we're contemplating giving the family ability to have Additional parcels where they could possibly give them to family members. That's what we're contemplating today.

   33:02Well we all we all have every landowner in in the county has a right to to file an application to ask for a change in in land use or zoning. So the landowner is is just you know, exerting its right to file.

   Moody

   33:17Well,

   Amy

   33:17okay.

   Moody

   33:18There's

   Amy

   33:18a right to

   Moody

   33:19file and he's his and he's getting his public hearing. Yes,

   Amy

   33:24sir.

   Moody

   33:25Doesn't mean he has a right to a recommendation of approval.

   Amy

   33:30I'm I'm I'm not telling you what what to do, Mr. Moody. I'm just simply stating why why I'm here today.

   Moody

   33:36I'm just completely confused. and baffled as to The code already has provisions to accommodate the situation you've described, but this is the second time we've come back here. trying to create a subdivision and With all due respect I'm in the northeast rural area and I'm sure that these people behind you are all gonna get up and tell me about it, about how they wanna have their minimum five

   34:07acre and ten acre tracks out here. And I agree I appreciate that you've agreed to two and a half acres, but at the end of the day the kind of standard out here is already five acres.

   Amy

   34:17Well, I I have included something in my presentation on page It would be page number, excuse me.

   34:29Fourteen. which I did a GIS analysis of the entire northeast rural area. and identified the land use categories and and show here that res one Covers approximately eleven thousand five hundred and seventy two acres, which is fourteen percent of the entire rural area. And as you can see, there are other things that are like res three is in there, res six, res

   Moody

   34:59nine.

   35:01seventy-two point nine four acres were changed to res one by the property owner. Were those eleven thousand five hundred and seventy-two point nine four acres? of Res1 created with the original comprehensive plan.

   Amy

   35:19I I don't have that answer, Mr. Moody.

   35:23But I would say that we've tried to go above and beyond to do something that is rural by further restricting ourselves from Res One. into this sub-area policy that simply asks for a density increase from 0.2 dwelling units per acre to 0.312 dwelling units per acre. So that that is the request that we're coming forth with. We're proposing to do whales and septants in in

   35:53accordance with some other comprehensive plan policies. We're not proposing to extend any services for water or sewer. We're trying to do larger lots. The scenic roadway buffers will be in place. Other buffers that are required um through through the um The other code in 604 will be provided, so that's a 20-foot width between any buildings

   36:23and roadways and 30-foot buffer between any buildings and adjacent properties. And and the goal of this landowner is to save as many of these existing trees that are on the site. to to do this, you know, with with respect to whatever, you know, has to be leveled for pads and might have to be altered um to accommodate stormwater. So I I think that we're trying to

   36:53propose something that is is rural in character and nature and and we've shown um evidence of of how we we meet the comprehensive plan policies that are in place today.

   GreyChair

   37:14Okay, anybody else? You have a do you have more of a presentation because

   Amy

   37:18No sir, I would reserve my time for any questions and and

   GreyChair

   37:23do we have any other questions right now? Okay, you have a chance to come back up. All right, thank you sir. All right. So uh do we have people on the list that wanna speak to this one?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   37:33Uh yes Mr. Chairman the first individual we have signed up is Mr. James Navarro.

   GreyChair

   37:39Hello Mr. Navarro, if you just give us your full name and address please. Yes, uh

   James Navarro

   37:44James Navarro Senior [address removed]. I live adjoining to that parcel that uh uh uh Mr. Barbie Spoken of and thank you so much for uh listening to us. I've been here before. Um I do want to clarify something that maybe might be some confusion here. As I um spoke to Mr. Barbie uh this week, and as I understand it.

   38:15um the daughter of the owner is not planning to move next door, so I don't know what they refer to as a family compound. Um maybe he can correct that. Maybe I misunderstood. But I'm here also to tell you guys that the water quality right now is terrible. I have a an image that I showed here of the uh what I have to go through to get decent

   38:45water. And even then I'm having a lot of uh tannin and uh rust in my house. You're adding an additional uh five, six units, it's going to create more strain. Um The other problem is a runoff, or we get a lot of uh flooding coming off boats, especially during hurricanes. coming off the the crest of the hill as it goes in. Our neighbor across the way, Mr. Lorenko,

   39:16he's not here today, couldn't make it, but he's had to put bags of uh sand in order to prevent the runoff. again, uh I get flooding towards the back part of my property as well. So I do see that uh we're gonna be seeing more trees down more asphalt and also more uh roof coverings. So this is gonna create a an issue as far as runoff is concerned,

   39:46I think in my personal uh point of view. Again, I have nothing against uh the Fernando uh family. I they're lovely people. They sat at my t at my table and we discussed uh this. But originally, as I was understanding, they were only going to use uh three three lots. They were gonna build three lots. One for the daughter, one for the p uh father. And their neighbor. Thank

   40:17you so much.

   GreyChair

   40:18Okay, thank you. Any questions? No? All right, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   40:29The next individual we have signed up to speak is Mr. Paul Gandolf. Gandalfy. I apologize if I messed that up.

   GreyChair

   40:44Uh Paul, if we can

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   40:45have your full name and address, please. Yes. Uh Paul Kendolphy, 34953, Blanton Road. We uh have 10 acres just to the north of the subject property, separated by 24 acres. My concern, this goes to Res1, the person who owns the 24 acres north of this property, has voiced his intent to eventually sell his 24 acres. If this moves to one acre parcels

   41:15that 24 acres could follow and then we'd be st um have a subdivision on our southern border. Uh I object to it. I think there's I'm suspicious about the reason for Res One. I think there's could be a developer waiting in the wings. Or it gives the owner the possibility of eventually selling for uh m uh multiple money collots for a nice profit. So That's really what I've got to say. Um

   41:49That's it?

   GreyChair

   41:51Thank you. Uh yes. Are any questions for Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   41:58The next individual we have signed up to speak is a Ms. Cindy Gandolphi.

   GreyChair

   42:09And who's next so they can maybe come to the front bench?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   42:13And Ms. Nancy Hazelwood will be next.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   42:17Uh Cindy Gandalfi, 34953, Blanton Road. That was my husband. This development doesn't fit in our area. Most of us have lived here 20 to 40 years with the intent of, because of the zoning for all of the parcels around us, a subdivision not coming in. We fear that once, and I say fear not concern, that when small property owners just as this starts to chop up their property, then

   42:47it's just going to open the door to other areas doing it. You know, it's bad enough we have to be concerned on the larger development coming into the area, and now we have to start being concerned on small private landowners. He knew what his zoning was when he purchased the property. I don't know why he just doesn't sell it and go buy some property that will accommodate his requirements. He's still asking for res

   43:18one. We have no guarantee that if it does get past a res one, it will stay at six lots. Once you're in res one, then that opens up the door for one lot per acre, and that's not what fits in in our area. Thank you very much.

   GreyChair

   43:37Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   43:42The next individual we have is Ms Nancy Hazlewood, and we have no other individuals signed up after that.

   GreyChair

   43:47Okay.

   43:51There's no one else that wants to speak to this one? Okay.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   43:57Nancy Higgswood, 34110, a nice place. Um Yes, I'm waiting for a map to be put out. But I'm going to say that going from AC to Res One is the problem. It's not how many units he's gonna put in. It's changing the land use in the protected area. And once that map goes up, you will see it it shows it very clearly. Um

   44:30This makes everything pretty much fair game for anybody else to come in that wants res one or higher.

   GreyChair

   44:48Oh Star.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   44:53I'm waiting for my wonderful staff of the county.

   GreyChair

   45:01There we go. It's right with the world now.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   45:05Okay. So The part uh on the bottom is the Grandfather Den, six units per acre I believe, and then right across the street is theirs. If you look at that, if you can pull it all the way out, you see that the dark green all the way around there and three-fourths of the area. is all higher land uses. And you're gonna stick a res one right in the middle of all those

   45:36large acreage and that's not gonna help protect the northeaster area in any way, shape, or form. Sticking res one in the middle of Add. And as you can see there's a lot of egg there. What's that going to do to it? It's gonna start making people want to change their land use in the Northeast rural area plant. Well of course they get And they can always ask. But there are things in your comp plan

   46:06that says we need to protect Northeast Sprill and hopefully they're going to hold up here. And uh I'm just hoping that this doesn't go through. Thank y'all.

   GreyChair

   46:19Thank you.

   46:25So just to get the straight and you had that map up there. All that green area was northeast rural.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   46:32Yeah.

   GreyChair

   46:33Okay. I'm just there were some lots shown there right next to that property. What what's that? Those aren't um is that these lots right here?

   Nancy Hazelwood

   46:44No the um light brown ones are um kind of there you go. The ones to the left, that's the old grandfathered in area. But

   GreyChair

   46:56the ones at the bottom right down there.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   46:58Um yeah. I'm not sure what the agreement.

   David Engel

   47:07But that was

   GreyChair

   47:09an old plan.

   Moody

   47:11Nineteen twenty eight

   GreyChair

   47:12or something. I quickly looked it up. Yeah. I'm just curious. Are are those all built on?

   Nancy Hazelwood

   47:18Yeah, there'd be one house per acre, yeah. What

   GreyChair

   47:22is that?

   Nancy Hazelwood

   47:22And that goes up to like one per twenty in the area. The rest of the area.

   GreyChair

   47:32You know better.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   47:33Sorry. Anyways, um the rest of the area around there is one to five, one to twenty. You know, they're they're all area where there are homes in there and people were very happy and they want it that way. So We would appreciate it if somehow we could keep that land use from changing.

   GreyChair

   47:58So but Amy, this area over here that's been parceled up into smaller tracts. Correct. That's been there for a lot of years.

   Amy Heiler

   48:08Yeah, it's it's predates the uh establishment of the Northeast rule. Um Patty, if you could zoom out please, right there and turn on the future land use.

   Connected City

   48:20I was just gonna s suggest doing the same thing. I would zoom out even more.

   48:27There's a lot of res one in the south.

   Amy Heiler

   48:29Correct.

   48:32As you can see there is substantial res one in proximity to the area already.

   Moody

   48:37How much of that res one though? Predate was changed by the property owners from an ag designation to Res One or those original comp plan designations?

   Amy Heiler

   48:50I can't answer that right now, but we can run an analysis if that's necessary.

   Connected City

   48:55Can

   Moody

   48:55you zoom out a little bit more too on

   Connected City

   48:56that map just to show?

   Moody

   48:58I'm just not believing there's been eleven thousand work acres worth of applications of people up there. Changing their future land use designation up there.

   GreyChair

   49:06Oh I'm just I'm just wondering how long it's been there.

   Amy Heiler

   49:13Yeah, it does appear that that Res One polygon is its own appre its original. Yeah. So

   Connected City

   49:23I

   49:23mean

   49:23all the all the res one's contiguous, so it looks like a comprehensive

   School District Representative

   49:27plan. And they're not one acre parcels anymore. Right. They're not one acre parcel. Right. Oh the data

   Amy Heiler

   49:33it's not. So if you look at the polygon. If you select, um Patty, if you can click on the polygon, please. The big uh where's the mouse?

   GreyChair

   49:44Do we have something that shows what the boundaries of the Northeast Rural are up there?

   Amy Heiler

   49:50Yes, you can turn on the northeast rule boundary as well. So as you can see it highlights that whole polygon. So in the GIS data, that means that's that has not changed. There's not there has not been any amendments in that area.

   50:11Amy Cass.

   GirardiVice Chair

   50:14Um I'll wanna wait till this question is done, but I have a different question. But it's somewhat related.

   Amy Heiler

   50:20Okay.

   50:23We'll turn off the flu.

   50:26Just click Land News. Here you go.

   Moody

   50:32So the green shaded area is the northeast rural area?

   Amy Heiler

   50:36Correct.

   Moody

   50:38Yeah. Okay. And then Amy, I quick question sub-area policy.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   50:44Sure.

   Moody

   50:46I'm not saying exclusive by asking this question, but don't we generally have sub-area policies associated with PD land uses?

   Amy Heiler

   50:57So PDs require a sub-area policy because they do not define density intensity. However, a sub-area policy can apply to any land use because it it's it's essentially the Comp plans version of an MPD condition.

   GreyChair

   51:14Right. David, you got a question?

   GirardiVice Chair

   51:17Yeah, is there any way you could pull up um flu policy of one point one point three?

   Moody

   51:50One point one

   Amy Heiler

   51:51point

   Moody

   51:51three.

   Amy Heiler

   51:53Limiting the pro proliferation of scroll.

   51:58Yep.

   GirardiVice Chair

   52:01So my reading of this policy is it's basically saying that Res One is a sprawl category.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   52:07Correct.

   GirardiVice Chair

   52:09So what is your thoughts about

   52:14This change in light of that policy.

   Amy Heiler

   52:16Um so res one generally is a sprawl land use. Uh however this is not going to one dwelling units, larger lots. So the idea in this scenario is is it aligns more with the role and ag size distribution?

   GirardiVice Chair

   52:37D says developed that it grows residential density. Not exceeding one unit per five acres of land. So it seems to be saying that if it's one for five, that's not sprawl. It seems to be saying that if it's conservation subdivision, that's not sprawl. It seems to be saying if it's NTD, that's not sprawl. I recognize that there's an exception in A if it's less than 300 acres, but That almost seems like an arbitrary distinction

   53:07because it somebody came in with a series of fifty acre tracks that all added up to over three hundred acres that you could effectively create sprawl I mean th I don't even know why we have that exception in there because you you you might indirectly create sprawl just by a series of small tracks that added up to more than three hundred acres. So I mean I don't B, C, and D make sense to me, but I don't know why we have an A quiz. I guess what I'm saying is if we think that res one

   53:38is a sprawl is creating sprawl

   53:44Why do we have an acreage threshold an exception?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   53:48I I can't speak to why Nicktar's Pito's planning development economic growth. I can't speak to why flu pol policy flu 113 has letter A in it. But I do the policy is correct that Res One is considered a sprawl density throughout the county except for in Northeast Rural because in uh section flu A six, the official future manuscript, the appendix A six, um I guess it would be under provision three. No. Under

   54:20table two dash one Provision three. Within the Northeast Pasco rural area, Res 1 future land use classification is deemed to be a rural land use classification. So the Copperheads of Plan is already considering Res One in Northeast Rural as not sprawl, but as a rural density, or excuse me, rural land use classification.

   GirardiVice Chair

   54:44That's odd to me. So we're saying that it's rural, but it's so we have one policy on the compliant saying it's rural. But another comp line policy saying it's brawl.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   54:54If it's outside of Northeast Rule, it's considered sprawl. If it's inside Northeast Rule, it's considered the maximum density potential. of the overlay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   55:04I'm asking you as a planner, do you consider the res one the res one flu to be scroll?

   55:13In general.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   55:14In general, yes. Yeah, it w it is it's a sprawling th and that's consistent with the rest of the comprehensive plan, but there's an earmark in the comprehensive plan that considers r res one as not as a rural not sprawl but as a rural land use in northeast rural.

   Moody

   55:34Well. Well wouldn't it have had to have been? I realize you weren't here at the time. Yeah. But if the giant polygon that she highlighted on the screen was an original flu category which predates the northeast rural area. then we would have had to have when we created the northeast rural area, declared that, hey, all you Res One are still considered rural because they were already there existing with that flu category.

   GirardiVice Chair

   56:02Yeah, I mean how do we know that wasn't the intent when that was put there was that we were trying to invest the res one that was already there and say that we weren't trying to prohibit Whereas one that was already in Northeast Rural, but New new res one that It's still sprawl. I mean I no, that being said, I recognize there's this three hundred acre exception, which to me doesn't make any s sense,

   56:33but but And I would do encourage you, Gary, when you when you relook at ROWs, the ROS element, we probably need to fix this issue because

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   56:46In in in the PESCO 2050 update, uh Res1 is translated over into a new feature land use category called RDR, Rural Density Residential. Um in It ex the R D R flu is combining Some of the uh skipped over densities that exist between where HGR is today and all the way up to what the comprehensive planet today considers what you

   57:16would think about it as res two, but we don't have an actual Res two, but technically speaking the RTA, the Rural Transition Area which is to the west of the Rural Northeast Rural Area, talks about two dwelling units per acre. Um But Uh so RDR is trying to cover this gap. that we've been silent on for so long. But in the northeast rural area specifically We're we're proposing a cap to keep it at one twelve unit per equal so that there's no status so that the status quo remains In North

   57:46East Rural. So if you have the R D R designation within Northeast Rural, That means you were likely a res one previously. and you are going to remain capped at one 12 unit per gross acre. That that's how currently if we're trying to figure

   GirardiVice Chair

   58:00out how

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   58:00it's

   58:00a

   58:01twenty fifty update is working.

   GirardiVice Chair

   58:04If staff firmly believes that a res1 density is sprawl, how are you going to avoid the proliferation of that sprawl under the newcom plan?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   58:16Well we can craft there's no policy in the comprehensive plan right now that says thou shalt not do new or

   GirardiVice Chair

   58:22something. Somebody tried to do it with one point one point three. I mean the uh the only thing that I think they maybe missed the mark on was this three hundred acre exception because I I mean To me, that's subject to abuse because you could just have a 10-acre track and a ten-acre track and ten acre track and then you can have a sprawl. Um PD and conservation subdivisions, I can kind of understand those because you can craft those to avoid sprawl. But makes some sense because those are really five-acre tracks.

   58:52But Somebody thought it was a bad idea to have one acre that that was wrong. I mean somebody but I just think that The the A the exception A sort of swallowed the rule. Um

   GreyChair

   59:07Can

   GirardiVice Chair

   59:07you put

   Moody

   59:08that policy

   GirardiVice Chair

   59:08back up?

   GreyChair

   59:10Yeah, I think they sort of I think the idea was is they n they saw those existing units there and rather than have them be non conforming uses, uh can scroll up the screen so they can see the entirety of the policy. That's how they addressed it. They included them in the so they wouldn't be grant they sort of grandfathered but So Gaben.

   Moody

   59:34And although your argument might be helping the position I have on this case, I'll just Say read this again. It says Pasco County shall limit the proli proliferation of large lot sprawl development pattern over large expanses of land by evaluating That's why the less than three

   GirardiVice Chair

   59:55I agree with you, but the the my concern from a planning perspective is that

   1:00:04If you have if you allow it on a ten acre track and then the next ten acre track and then the next ten acre track, suddenly you it's over a large expanse of land. Absolutely. That that's the problem. And so now you have a sprawl. And so the problem is that exception of s a series of small acre tracks is swallowing the rule. That's the problem. And so I'm suggesting that maybe if we're going to retain this policy, we get rid of that exception. Otherwise you there's no point to the rule.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:00:33You're you're saying get rid of one one three A.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:00:36Yes, because you're you're

   1:00:40I mean I understand why you needed to recognize the res one that already existed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't keep what people legally already have the right to today. Right. But if if you firmly believe that res one is a sprawl category, why are you continuing to Who? Proliferate it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:01:02It it has been understood. based on the precedence that we've seen that Res One was not considered sprawl in North East Rural but as the maximum density allowance in the rural area. So I mean to the I'm asking you to

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:01:17put your planner hat on and if you think it's sprawl

   1:01:22I'm saying I'm talking about for bros when we took well.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:01:25And that's what I was going to say next.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:01:26Yeah, I I'm I'm talking about this case. I'm talking about when we fix bros. Right. Maybe we need to look at actually s stopping the proliferation of res one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:01:36Sure.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:01:37Even in Northeast Rural is my point.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:01:39Sure. I mean if that if that's a consensus. Uh that wasn't the target of update and we were gonna maintain status quo in North East Rural. But if that's a if that's a policy direction, we can explore that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:01:54I suspect if you ask the people in Northeast Rural if they want us to stop the proliferation of res one, they'd probably say yes.

   1:02:04I know we can ask Nancy Hazel a little bit.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:02:06Sure.

   GreyChair

   1:02:11I think we already know what Nancy's gonna say.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:02:13I but I'm uh forgetting what Nancy would say, I know what she would say. I'm asking you to put your planner hat on and you're telling me if you think it's a if it's a sprawl category we as planner, why shouldn't we be stopping that? Sure. I've had Reverend Barbara Will High get up here and say It's a sprawl category. It is.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:02:30Um, again, the idea for Pasco Groves was to maintain status quo in Northeast Rural. If we want to change this piece of s of the status quo We can change that piece of the status quo. I would

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:02:41argue you're not changing the status quo because there's already a policy on point that says that it's brawl. It's just that we have this exception in there That's swallowing the rule. And get rid of the exception.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:02:54Sure, yes, we could get rid of letter A. But I'm also thinking about section flu A six. But I think you could limit

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:02:59that you could limit

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:03:00that

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:00to just the res one that exists today.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:03:03Correct,

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:03yes.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:03:05Right.

   1:03:09But as it stands, the current count plan doesn't have that kind of um distinction built into it. Right.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:16But my guess is that probably was the intent. But I mean 'cause I don't know how else you reconcile that with one point one point three. Which basically says the res one sprawl.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:03:28I think the way it's been reconciled is that this is for the rest of the county. At the overlay Mazakar Bow.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:37Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:03:38so

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:39I'm just trying to think if that makes common sense though. Like why are we saying that it's sprawl in the rest of the county but it's not sprawl in northeast rural?

   1:03:49I I wasn't thinking it's almost like you're saying we're gonna treat Northeast Rural R worse than the rest of the county.

   GreyChair

   1:03:54Yeah, we re we we realize it wasn't here you weren't here when that happened. Yeah,

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:03:59I

   GreyChair

   1:03:59I can't

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   1:03:59speak to why they're

   GreyChair

   1:04:00I think we can only blame Amy for that.

   1:04:05We'll we'll be Nancy. Nancy.

   Connected City

   1:04:07Nancy did it. It's always Nancy's fault.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:04:12Okay, anyway, that's an issue for grows. Well I just wanted to it's somewhat relevant to the current application, but I admit that the current application is less than three hundred acres in size, so there's not much we can do about that particular policy. So

   GreyChair

   1:04:25So anyway we need to give the applicant an opportunity to come back up. Um

   Amy

   1:04:33Uh thanks again everyone. Um I I will make a statement as a planner myself as well. I do think that there is a difference in between fully maxing out Res One and having one acre lots proliferated across a large land area and what we're trying to do by proposing a sub-area that is directly tailored to how this land are

   1:04:59So if it were to ever be contemplated to be changed, it would have to come in front of you to be voted on at that time And um i if if there is anything that we have missed, we have that opportunity now to add something into there if you think that we have missed the mark. on protecting the character by this proposed intrusion. I would argue that this is not an intrusion This

   1:05:30is just a development that would allow in-between sizes of the most dense allowed in Northeast Rural and normal, typical density in Northeast Rural. So we have proposed a transitional lot size to those existing very small lots that are across the road. I would contemplate that this would set a precedent for other things if they were to

   1:06:00apply for Res One. That they have seen how you guys have expect people to treat the Northeast Rural Area and to propose additional things to protect these residents. And that and that's what we have proposed to do by proposing the sub. Yeah. which goes above and beyond the typical regulation.

   Moody

   1:06:22What you just said is that I'm drawing a roadmap that others can use to develop the northeast

   Amy

   1:06:28area.

   Moody

   1:06:29Hold on. The gentleman got up and gave testimony that he's 10 acres, there's 24 acres between your property and his 10 acres. Alright? So what you just said is I'm drawing a roadmap showing the next guy that wants to come in here and ask for res one on his 24 acres. Well look if you just create a sub-area policy and limit your lots to two and a half acre size, you can basically double the density in the Northeast Rural Acre, right? Is an AGR one unit per five acres? Now it's one unit for 2.5 acres.

   1:07:00I just doubled the density. By j by using this, by using your roadmap, which I'm I'm sorry and Amy, I'm sure you guys worked hard on this and maybe you'll consider this derogatory, but I think the sub area policy amounts to what I'll call comp planeering. We're we're engineering the comprehensive plan with a sub-area policy.

   Amy

   1:07:23Well, I I'm sorry that you feel that way, Mr. Moody, but I truly feel like that what I have done as an agent for this landowner has tried to propose something that is feasible and and reasonable. Um And that's through further limiting uh what the MRS actually allows. So in this situation, if if we were to just get Res1 approved and to do a minor real subdivision,

   1:07:54we would be stuck at a max of 10 lots. Now that that max of 10 lots would apply if it was a 20-acre parcel, a hundred-acre parcel. or a 300-acre parcel if they were being developed as a minor rural subdivision. Now not all subdivisions may not have to be developed as such if they have or are proposing connections to utilities, but I am making the statement that the comprehensive plan dissuages

   1:08:24that type of development from even happening and proposes and purports that people should should do individual whales and septic, which, in my opinion, would mean that people should be doing minor rural subdivisions when developing in the northeast rural area. So we We have stated if we're gonna propose to do a minor rules subdivision, but we're gonna further limit ourselves. than that ten lot maximum.

   Moody

   1:08:55You still haven't convinced me why you need an MRS. This is my family compound. You've told me the family compound, the lip the limited family division allows you up to five lots. You've told me you've got three lots that you need today. And two that may go. So those you can you can create and then someone can do another limited family division to give it to their gr child or grandchild later.

   Amy

   1:09:23We would still be having a lot

   Moody

   1:09:24that the non family member that has a building entitlement that the non family member can have. So I'm trying to figure out why has why must it be this way. There's already a code section that you can avail yourself to accomplish your goal. You still have to come back here for a rezoning, right? Yes

   Amy

   1:09:41sir.

   Moody

   1:09:42You could have just come gotten the rezoning and you veiled yourself of the limbs.

   Amy

   1:09:45But we didn't. We decided to To propose this.

   Moody

   1:09:48Right,

   Amy

   1:09:48because

   Moody

   1:09:49this opens the door to create a subdivision that I can sell to any Joe Q public out here instead of creating the family compound that you're purporting to want to build.

   Connected City

   1:09:59Does the non family member want a larger lot than the Montpoint Correct, yes sir. So that's why you have to do that.

   Moody

   1:10:07Yes,

   Connected City

   1:10:07or

   Moody

   1:10:07they vacate the right away or

   Connected City

   1:10:08be larger. Yeah, but it's still it's gonna be three acres versus three acres, so

   1:10:19That's the that's what I assumed was the issue. So

   Moody

   1:10:23what happens when the daughter or the son decides they don't want this lot? I'd rather have the money, Dad, just sell the lot.

   Amy

   1:10:34I mean a as it would sit now there there would be no further protection but there's no there's no comprehensive plan policy in the northeast rural area that says that no one can sell land outside of the family. That's that's not a policy that the county takes and says I mean uh

   Moody

   1:10:54the

   Amy

   1:10:54policies

   Moody

   1:10:55are to tr to try to prevent the development of the land and the subdividing of the land. We made some carve outs so that families can leave a legacy for the children.

   Amy

   1:11:07Well

   Moody

   1:11:07we're trying to prevent the development of

   Amy

   1:11:10I would I would contemplate that this action would leave the land in its finished state of use. So it would not be contemplated to be further subdivided. It would simply have to Operate in the form as as intended by this sub-area policy that we propose.

   Moody

   1:11:31And do we have an ADU ordinance?

   Amy

   1:11:35In the county, I I believe you guys have an ADU ordinance.

   Moody

   1:11:38Right. So so after I s after you subdivide these properties, can then I just avail myself of adding an ADU to my lot too?

   Amy

   1:11:47I mean the rest of the county can. I I guess you could. I mean if that's something like that's something that you guys want to contemplate and changing, you're you're we're more than welcome to. We have a sub area policy here to do so. But That I mean that is going above and beyond the treatment of every other parcel in the county um if you want to do as such. Well

   Connected City

   1:12:11the ADUs aren't separately platted, you can't sell them separately, so it's not

   Amy

   1:12:16correct. And they have a maximum square footage of I believe twelve hundred square feet if if I'm correct. So it's not really Unless you're a spectral sex one. So like I stated I'm I'm happy to try to work within the policy to help with the compatibility issue if that's the true the true thing that you guys see the issue is But I've I've tried to do my best. We

   1:12:46originally started with with nine lots shown in in the minor rule subdivision and one lot of that existing 1.7. and then now here we are at at six max. So I've I'm trying. I'm I'm trying. I I promise ya. I I don't have any ill will against any of these families. I love them just like everyone else.

   Moody

   1:13:09I don't think you have any ill will. I think you're a planet here representing a client. I don't think this isn't a personal attack on you.

   Christopher Poole

   1:13:19Could we put the flu map back up on mapper?

   1:13:24I

   Moody

   1:13:27You're I don't believe you're understanding my point. You d they came to us and said, this is we want to build our family compound here. And every time I offer them the chance here, here, go build your family compound. Just a limited family. I then there's a there's a lit of all the reasons in the world why I can't do it. Well, is it because I don't want it to be my family compound?

   1:13:51I either I want it or

   1:13:52not

   1:13:52to code

   Amy

   1:13:53the

   Moody

   1:13:54code's already set up for you to do it.

   Amy

   1:13:55Mr. Moody, I've made plain and clear statements that it is my it is my understanding that that they want larger lots for the founding family members of the subdivision and that is their intent. Yeah. I I don't know what else to say. That's why they they want to do

   Moody

   1:14:14founding family members. They're either family

   Christopher Poole

   1:14:16or they're not family.

   1:14:19I mean for me when I look at that flu map, I mean it's the same thing that I said last time. I mean it's just everything to the north of there, the subject of precedent setting comes up because I mean everything to the north there to the Hernando County border is AG or AGR. I mean I understand that there's proximity, there's res three and res one in that area that's that's I I get that, but anything everything north of Blanton Road up to the Hernando County border is aging agr. And I think you know to to John's point, all the

   1:14:49points that are made here, we're just we're setting a bad precedent with doing this. And it's nothing against what you tried to accomplish there and in the sub-area. Policy and the like, but I just I I really have heartburn with with this one.

   Amy

   1:15:03Understood. Well, I I'll just make I guess my final statement. I believe that the comprehensive plan policies that are in place, as well as the companion land development code, do help protect the proliferation of Res One in this entire area. This particular case.

   1:15:23uh doing uh a size in between the typical agricultural lots and the typical residential one lots and it will be served by Well and Septic as in compliance with several policies from the Water Comprehensive Plan Policy Section, the Sewer Comprehensive Plan Policy Section, and the Flu Comprehensive Policy, uh Comprehensive Plan Policy Section. So that that is what I've tried to put put together for

   1:15:54this application to support this proposal.

   Christopher Poole

   1:15:56Yeah, and I think I mean you've done your job certainly. It I just think you know from me sitting here looking at this, you said it before, you didn't mean to say it this way, but you're setting a precedent as as Mr. Moody said that's you know this is a roadmap for for others in the future to to use and I just I can't wrap my arms. My

   Amy

   1:16:15I was simply meaning that from the purposes of the sub area policy being sub-area policies being able to be employed to further protect those things. I

   Christopher Poole

   1:16:24understand you didn't say that but it's that's understood. Sitting sitting up here that's way that's way we're

   Amy

   1:16:31understood. Well I'd be happy to take any other questions if if there were otherwise I'll let you guys Are there

   GreyChair

   1:16:36any

   Amy

   1:16:36other questions?

   GreyChair

   1:16:38Ready, buddy? All right. Well thank you very much. I appreciate you. Thank you for the presentation. God bless that.

   1:16:47Okay, so do I hear a motion?

   1:16:56Sure. For purposes of discussion or otherwise? Yes,

   Moody

   1:17:00for purposes of discussion I would move to deny the recommend denial of the petition.

   GreyChair

   1:17:07Okay, we have motion. We have a second. All right. Discussion?

   Moody

   1:17:13Um I'm I think I said it and I'll just take away again with with Chris. I think he's exactly right. You stood up here and said I'm creating a road, basically creating a roadmap for the next guy to come along, whether it be twenty acres or fifteen acres. We'll Change the comp plan to res one. I'll create a special sub-area carb out of the comp plan for my subdivision. And Why wouldn't why wouldn't every other property owner along Blanton Road go ahead go and do this if we if

   1:17:44we push the first domino over right here.

   Christopher Poole

   1:17:49Yeah, I'd additionally say I mean I think it's our obligation to protect this area is you know, i the residents that are sitting here, I mean we so we're committed to doing this and I don't think that Mr. Barby's done anything wrong. I think he's done his job. It's just like I can't accept the precedent that it sets for this area.

   Unidentified speakerVoice H

   1:18:09Yeah, and I mean it should be noted that I mean there was there was a lot of effort made. I mean it wasn't strictly came in and and asked for res one. Um there were the sub area policies that were discussed, but again I'm I'm in the same position. I think it just sets a precedent on everything on the north side of Blayton Road. Um Is either AG or AGR like's already been said, so

   Connected City

   1:18:29For me, I mean it's um you're you're talking about a difference of two units. You know, th or as it is as it stands now they can build four units on that land and we're talk they're asking for two extra units. So it's not a tremendous impact to the area. I think they did a good job with coming up with sub area policy. I can see how it could potentially be abused, but we would review those cases on a case by case basis whenever that comes up and we can see that happening and and take appropriate action at that time. So, you know, I think we need to look at this on the merits of its individual

   1:18:59case as opposed to what might happen in the future. So it's I I kinda disagree with the rest of the body because of that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:19:08Matt, do you have anything? Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how to say what I'm thinking, but um

   1:19:16You could just vote,

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:16you don't have to say anything. It's up to

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:19:18you though. I'm just saying

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:20you're not compelled to say anything.

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:19:22My wife tells me that all the time.

   1:19:28since the comprehensive plan amendment, what what are we saying it's inconsistent with in the comprehensive plan is my question.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:34Well, to be clear, for comprehensive plan amendment it's a legislative decision. So You pretty much can just Deny it because you think it's

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:19:47So there's not a bad idea. When we do a land

   Moody

   1:19:49development code amendment we get to we decide whether it's

   Unidentified speakerVoice I

   1:19:53the criteria.

   1:19:55All right.

   GreyChair

   1:20:01Okay, well if there's nothing further then let's uh

   School District Representative

   1:20:03I just I was just gonna add this is almost to me it's almost like a line in the sand. And it's either gonna be rural or not rural in the The area to the north or to the south, excuse me, those small lots, it looks like they were built in nineteen eighty, which is like forty five years ago. That's a long time ago. So I just um

   1:20:24A lot of a lot of the county as we know is developed and there's not much left that isn't developed so It's just in my opinion, let's keep it protected like it should be.

   GreyChair

   1:20:34Okay, so well we bet we better all wait till we vote before you clap. So so um okay. So we have a motion, we have a second, and we're

   Christopher Poole

   1:20:45voting.

   GreyChair

   1:20:47Pardon me? We're voting for the motion. The motion is for A is for denial. So so if it if it's aye, that means you support the denial? Okay. Let's make it clear. So all in favor of the motion can signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign?

   Connected City

   1:21:06Nay.

   GreyChair

   1:21:07All right, we have one nay and the rest aye. The motion passes.

   1:21:14Now you can clasp. And I'm very sorry that yeah, I think you presented a uh a good case. And you know, I don't know.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:21:22I want to be clear with the audience that the Planning Commission is your recommending body on this item. So the final decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners.

   GreyChair

   1:21:29Yeah, so make sure you attend that meeting. Okay.

   1:21:35All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thanks for your time.

3. 3Nov 12, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersP58Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:03
   ▶ 2:031m

   StarkeyChair

   2:03All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you. P fifty eight.

   StarkeyChair

   2:08We have approved the publication in the Tampa Bay Times uh July twenty-third, twenty twenty five, supplemented by affidavit to certified mailings and site postings for the September third uh Board of County Commissioners meeting where it was continued to today.

   Oakley

   2:28Uh this item is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment uh to the future land use map from AGR agricultural rule to Res One Residential One Dwelling for Gross Acre in the Northeast Rural uh Pasco County Rural Protection Area. This item is being requested for a continuance of the January 6, 2026 Board of County Commissioners meeting at 1.30 P. M. in Dade City.

   MarianoVice Chair

   2:52Move to continue time certain. Second.

   StarkeyChair

   2:54All in favor?

   StarkeyChair

   2:55Aye.

   StarkeyChair

   2:56P fifty nine.

4. 4Jan 6, 2026
   Board of County CommissionersP61Public hearingAdopted

   An Ordinance Amending The … Road And Trilby Road; And A Text Amendment Creating … And An Effective Date.

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by roll call vote with Commissioner Weightman and Commissioner Yeager voting nay.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 12:34
   ▶ 12:341h 3m

   Starkey

   12:34P61 we approve of publication in the Tampa Bay Times on July 23rd. 2025 supplemented by affidavits of certified mailings and site postings for the meeting of September 3rd. twenty twenty five where it was continued to November twelfth where it was continued to today.

   MarianoChair

   12:52Okay. Amy?

   Amy Heiler

   12:53Good afternoon. Amy Toll, Planning Development and Economic Growth. Uh item P61, which is PDE 26-0031, is the adoption hearing for a ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. Providing for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map 2-15 and sheet eight from AGR Agricultural Rule to Res One, residential one-dwelling unit per gross acre, on approximately

   13:2419.69 acres of real property located on the north side of Blanton Road, approximately 2,150 feet east of the intersection of Blanton Road. Trophy Road. This is also coming with a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.86 Blanton Road MRS, a map amendment to the future land use map 2-9 amending or adding sub-area map 2-986 Blanton Road MRS, providing for additional text amendments as necessary

   13:54for internal consistency, providing for appealer subrability and effective date, and this comes. With your recommendation of approval. We did receive opposition emails that were sent to the clerk's office. We would like to have those filed, received and filed as well, please.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   14:09Move to receive file.

   MarianoChair

   14:10Second. All in favor say aye.

   Amy Heiler

   14:12Aye. Okay. And then I do have a presentation for you, if so desired.

   14:19The range.

   14:22So here's the proposed ordinance that was just read into record. This item was actually heard on November 6th at the Local Planning Agency. At that hearing, the local planning agency denied the proposed amendment 5 to 1. They denied it based on the proposed sub area policy and res one flu. It is not consistent within the Northeast Rural Protection Area, and they did not want to set a precedent by creating a sub-area policy that would allow. For a Res1 Flu amendment with regulations

   14:52that require the area to be developed as an MRS with limited lot sizes. So again, this is a comp plan amendment. It is a small-scale amendment from AGR, Agricultural Rule, to Res1, Residential One Dwelling Unit per Gross Acre. The applicant is requesting the future land use amendment to allow for the development of a minor rural subdivision with lot sizes of no less than two and a half acres, with the exception of one single parcel that has already been platted at 1.7 acres, so

   15:23it cannot be any smaller than that. There's a total of 19.69 acres. It is on the north side of Blanton Road, approximately 2,000. 150 feet east of the intersection of Blanken Road and Troby Road. And again, there is a companion sub-area policy with this, helping to limit and ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the rural area. So as you can see, the property is located in the North Market area and within Rural Area One.

   15:54Just some context of the area. So you have agricultural lands surrounding the area. There is medium density residential across the street, which is a res six. That res six, just for note, predates the con the establishment of the rural area. So it was in place before the rural area was created. Here's your transportation map. As you can see, it's on Blanton Road and Troby Road. There is a 12-foot multi-use path on the south side of Blanton Road, and it

   16:24is part of the Orangevelt Trail pending alignment.

   16:29Just a zoomed in version of the aerial view?

   16:35So uh just for note, um in this area there is a range of lot sizes between 0.84 acres uh and 23 acres in proximity to the site.

   MarianoChair

   16:47Give me if I could while you're on the slide. So when you say the the twenty four acres, that's the site like a right below it?

   Amy Heiler

   16:53The air those areas below it, correct. Okay. Yep.

   16:58existing future land use is AGR.

   17:03Proposed future land use of Res 1. As you can see, there's agricultural in the area, Res 6 to the south, and existing Res 1 already within rural area.

   17:14Here's the sub-area policy that was negotiated and agreed upon between the property owner and the county. What is happening here is even though the comprehensive plan is proposing an amendment to Res 1 on 20 acres, the subject site is being limited to only six units. So only six lots. Currently they can get four lots as is. They're requesting to just get two more lots. With this, it's approximately 0.3 density,

   17:45so it's well under the res one density that would be permitted without the sub-area policy. Additionally, there are development restrictions that ensure the area is developed in accordance with the Northeast Rural Scenic Roadway Plans as well as the Northeast Rural Plans LDC Section 604.

   18:10With the sub-ary policy, the applicant also provided a conceptual plan. As you can see, most of these lots are above 2.5 acres. The lowest lot is going to be the 1.7 acre, which is the exemption. But the second lowest lot is 2.3 acres, with the remaining lots being above three acres. The proposed amendments consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies.

   18:37And with that, we would like to accept public comment and adopt the proposed amendment by roll call vote.

   MarianoChair

   18:42Okay.

   Amy Heiler

   18:43Uh the applicant is also here, I'm sorry, with the presentation if necessary.

   MarianoChair

   18:48No. Let's hear from the applicant.

   Amy

   18:55Hey, good afternoon, Commissioner appreciate your time today. Hope you all had a very Merry Christmas. Um And

   MarianoChair

   19:02didn't name the company when?

   Amy

   19:03Yeah, Jaris Barby, um Symbiosis Planning Consulting. I'm an AI C P certified planner. So I'm just gonna run through some of the slides here and then I would be happy to take and answer any questions uh as they arise.

   19:22So as as Amy had mentioned, we're requesting this land use amendment from the AGR to Res1 and having the sub-area policy in place to restrict the development rights even further than what a minor rural subdivision would be. In in any other location, the minor rural subdivision would allow up to ten ten units to be developed underneath a minor rural subdivision. So we have proposed to further limit

   19:52that and propose the two and a half acre uh minimum. Um the smallest lot as shown on the concept plan which I'll put back up here was two point five three acres and uh The stormwater tract that is shown on the on the concept plan was put in a separate tract, but it it may be able to be done via easement, so those lots might even be larger than the 2.5 acres. It was just shown to be the maximum uh development

   20:22restriction.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   20:25What no I'm sorry. What do you mean by d by easement?

   Amy

   20:29It within a minor rural subdivision, uh stormwater uh may be done in easements rather than specific separate tracks.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   20:39Does anyone else understand what you mean? Yeah. Y'all do? You mean on each lot they would

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   20:53I'm kind of

   Amy

   20:54correct.

   20:57It it is just shown for the absolute worst case scenario if any additional water quality and and treatment may be required uh along with that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   21:08I I don't think those are necessary in a minor

   Starkey

   21:10little substitution.

   21:14Is

   21:14that right? That's why I'm comp

   Amy

   21:16There there would be a road that would be going in there and it it was intended to capture any stormwater runoff that may be collected off of the paved roadway.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   21:26But are you required to have that?

   21:30Can any in does anyone in my staff?

   21:34Sorry.

   MarianoChair

   21:35Why don't we go through the presentation? We'll get to that.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   21:37Okay. Okay. You can just say yes or it depends on the engineer as well.

   21:46Yeah, yeah.

   MarianoChair

   21:48No worries.

   Unidentified speakerVoice L

   21:49Uh Patrick Dutter, Development Read Director, it depends on the engineering that goes behind it. Most minor rural subdivisions don't require any kind of engineering or infrastructure or stormwater ponds, but it's just depending on the scope and the may they may require stormwater ponds. It's probably unlikely with this site, and I think that's what Jaris is trying to say.

   Amy

   22:11Correct. And I

   22:12am

   22:12not an engineer for the for the record. I've just drawn up a conceptual plan thinking of worst case scenarios.

   22:21Yeah.

   22:24Um so here you can see the the plan again. Um the lots range from 2.53 acres to three point four three acres. We've in uh shown the scenic roadway buffers and each um of the lots would also have to have some other buffering that would be accompanying that. So within the Northeast Rural Area they require a type A buffer between buildings and

   22:54any roadways and type B buffer between buildings and adjacent properties in a in addition to the the external property buffering.

   23:11Um we propose

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   23:12I'm not sure why you're getting this detail.

   Amy

   23:16Understood. Um And then we're we would plan to have just one single access to the project.

   23:27This is again just showing that the minor rules subdivision would typically allow up to ten lots and we're proposing six with this plan.

   Starkey

   23:36Um

   Amy

   23:37Mr. Starkey.

   Starkey

   23:39Trying to understand your drawing. So um I don't think you're supposed you need that pond, but um what is what are the lines here? Is that the road that's in the dark frame?

   Amy

   23:50Correct, yes. And

   Starkey

   23:51what's the Other lines.

   Amy

   23:54The other lines would be setbacks.

   Starkey

   23:57Why? Wow, I don't know. Maybe I'm not well versed on minor rural subdivisions. I don't know. Okay. But that but the the total acreage does not include the subject or does include the subactors.

   Amy

   24:10The the acreage would include all the way to the to the center of of the roadway. Um the roadway is in an easement in minor rural subdivisions.

   Starkey

   24:20I've never seen that we buffered residential. So you don't have buffering within the subdivision.

   Amy

   24:27Well, i it there are specific buffering regulations called out within the Northeast Rural Land Development Code in the in the Rural Area Land Development Code.

   Starkey

   24:39Um I think there are along the front of the pro uh along the front, but not well I'm sorry, go ahead Mr. Go ahead.

   Amy

   24:49Um and the method of utilities would be uh well and septic in compliance with with these two policies that were noted.

   25:00and we we demonstrated consistency with with several several references from the comprehensive plan. And I I just wanted to end with with a statement um that that shows uh the goal of the protection of rural areas in the Comp plan. It establishes Pasco County's framework for preserving the rural lifestyle, agricultural viability, environment environmental resources and low intensity

   25:31development pattern within the north northeast Pasco rural area. Um this goal emphasizing managing growth in a manner that protects rural character for existing residents and and remains available to future residents. I I would propose that this proposal meets the intent of Gold Flu II protection of rural areas by significantly limiting the density below the Res 1 category, maintaining rural lot size, avoiding

   26:01urban infrastructure expansion, and preserving compatibility with surrounding agricultural and residential uses. This six-lock configuration represents a conservative, context-sensitive rural subdivision that aligns with Pasco County's adopted comprehensive plan and long-term vision for the Northeast Pasco rural area.

   MarianoChair

   26:24Let me ask you a question. Um The 1.7 acre parcel that's platted, does that mean that was done before the comprehensive plan?

   Amy

   26:32Yes, sir. Correct. And and the reason why it was treated separately in within this uh proposal in in the um sub-area policy is because For us to include it, we would have to come to you all to ask for a right-of-way vacation for it to be combined in into one larger project, which I believe uh my landowner, the landowner for this project does intend to file for that, but he wanted to go ahead

   27:02and and file this application. Um

   27:12you guys having the opportunity to decide upon that.

   MarianoChair

   27:16And if you take out that one point seven acres that's already approved for the density that it's got, the others would be that then if you take the average out, add the one point three acres to the smaller site, ever every site's well over three acres.

   Amy

   27:35Correct, yes sir.

   MarianoChair

   27:36Well I think that's I mean I'd I'd be phrasing it that way. Now rural subdivision, if you follow different rules you can get to ten by and that'd be th more

   Amy

   27:45density.

   27:54Okay, but currently you don't have the rights to get ten acres. I mean ten units. Not unless we were proposing it without a sub-area policy, um, which we have proffered up that to further limit it below the ten units that would be allowed if it were adopted without any sub area policy. But but is

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   28:13density is going

   28:14to

   28:14be limited by his zone. not not necessarily by the maximum under a minor subdivision, but I'm not sure why we're having this in-depth conversation about a minor moral subdivision. It's you're Putting a new future land use quest because you're raising the future land use quest to make sure REST one. And then whatever the zoning is currently on the property, unless they are coming in for a rezoning, it would would be your limiting factor.

   28:44But

   MarianoChair

   28:44rent's plan would zone. Yeah, so I

   28:46mean

   28:46it it is extra detail we d normally wouldn't get to, but I'm just trying to be trying to understand the one point seven acres with my primary understanding primary thought. Yeah any other questions?

   28:57Okay. Uh does staff want to comment anything? No? Okay. Alright, so now's the time to go to public comment.

   Starkey

   29:06Yes, we do. Uh Nancy Hazelwood.

   29:12And how many people know this do you know? Um five.

   29:16Right now one of four plus one on mine.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   29:21Good afternoon, Nancy Hazewood, [address removed]. Uh I don't know how we got here. I can't believe that i you're saying you're gonna protect the r rural area by putting res one right in the middle. What about the next guy that picked up? Where is res

   Starkey

   29:41one?

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   29:43This is you're changing the comprehensive plan to res one if this goes through.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   29:47Okay, but there are three three agent three different one.

   MarianoChair

   29:51Can we have an open discussion please?

   29:54I lost five seconds.

   Nancy Hazelwood

   29:58Anyways, so Res one right in the middle of Northeast Rural. Res one should be used sparingly and if at all at the edges of Northeast Rural, not smack dab in the middle where the next person can come along and say, hey look. I should get this too. So how you turn down the next person. Um This is not gonna this p it's not gonna ensure any type of compatibility with Northeast

   30:28Rural. And the only thing around it that is not ag is an old HUD development. that was grandfathered in. Everything else around them's ad. And the other thing is the minor rural subdivision is coming up on the tree ordinance and it's gonna be exempt from Trees. So they can clear cut every tree in there. I understand they're putting a buffer on the outside, but that doesn't mean that we need every single tree cut inside. This

   30:59is the Northeast Rural, and Rural usually means trees. The Planning Board and and the SIC turned the project down and they said is not consistent with Northeast Protected Area. They did not want to set a precedent by creating a sub area policy that would require Res one FLU amendment with regulations that will require the or to be developed with an MRS and limit the

   31:29size a lot. So I suggest that We uh go with what Planning Board said. I just don't trust what this could create right in the middle. Let's think about what we're doing with our growth again. Thank y'all. Appreciate it.

   Starkey

   31:45Thank you. Julia Bartunik.

   Julia Bartunik

   31:50Julia Bartinick, [address removed]. And I concur with everything that Nancy Hazelwood stated. And uh this change uh will definitely uh be an unfortunate it will establish an unfortunate precedent for the rural area of Pasco County and and it will encourage developments to follow

   32:21suit. Thank you.

   Starkey

   32:26Kathleen Sch uh Schneider.

   Unidentified speakerVoice M

   32:39Do I need to be sworn in? No. No? Okay. Um, Kathleen Schneider, [address removed].

   32:50I took a little bit of time last night. And I'll show you what I've got. I went from James Road to the college on Blanton Road and I wrote down every parcel that was this size or larger. This size. There were There are 30 and and I am not going way out. I'm being conservative. This is direct access to Blanton

   33:20Road. There are 33 parcels. Guess how many acres there are? 1155.66 and that's being conservative. It's not even including this property.

   33:37This if you say yes to them Every single one of these property owners are gonna say, you did it for them, you can do it for us. And what are we going to be left with out here? A big major mess.

   33:57I'm concerned what you're gonna do. You've got a chance to stand firm with us and say, no, this does not belong in this area. This gentleman bought this property knowing how it was zoned. Now he wants to come along and change everything. We lived here for years and years and years and this is not what we need in our area. Mr. Oakley, you know it? Mr. Wakeman, you know it? Jack,

   34:29do you know it? Mr. Steinschneider, you know it. Katherine Starkey, you know it, and Lisa, you know it too. And it's about time that you stood up for the people that live out here and say no to this stuff. It's enough already. Thank you.

   Starkey

   34:53Cindy Gandalfi.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   35:07[address removed]. A tough act to follow. Um we have lived out here over 20 years and we've all bought the property knowing that we would not have to worry about subdivisions coming in because of the already created zoning in our area. Uh this is the ordinance ordinance that will kill Northeast Pascoal rural area. One acre is not considered rural. This development doesn't fit in in

   35:38here. Um It's hard enough to keep up with all the large buildings, subdivisions going in, let alone some small landowners. He knew again by what he was buying for and he wants to change it. Uh we have no guaranteed. He's still looking for Res One. We have no guarantee further down the road. He's already changed his mind several times. This is I don't know how many meetings we've been to with this gentleman.

   36:07The Planning Commissioner's recommended denial. We hope and pray that you will do the same thing. And one of the commissioners actually said that they did not want to stop this domino effect. And once you start, it's going to be hard to say no. Thank you.

   Starkey

   36:27What's that? Paul Gandalf.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   36:42Good afternoon. My name's Paul Gandalfi, [address removed]. Excuse me, [address removed]. Um, I'm obviously opposed to this. I don't see the reason for res one. They're asking for two and a half acre lots covered perfectly by res two. So I'm suspicious about the reason they're going for res one. I've raised this uh argument twice

   37:13before. They have not answered it. I've suggested there's a developer waiting at the wings or they're looking for a quick way to sell this and make a profit for more money because of the increased concentration. So I'm asking to reject this, please. There's a 24-acre lot between our property and the subject property. We're about 1,000 feet north of his. And if this property goes to Res One, because

   37:43the owner of the 24 acres has told me that he plans to sell sometime in the future, the chances are this will go the same way. So we'll have a bunch of houses on our southern property line. forcing us to move and give up our plans for our retirement there. So please consider your residence on Blandon Road. It's important to us. We do not want the concentration of buildings and traffic. in our neighborhood. Thank you

   38:13very much.

   Starkey

   38:15That's all that have signed pre-signed for this item.

   MarianoChair

   38:19Okay, so I know there's a few other people that didn't get to sign up on time. So if anybody wants to speak to this item, if you would please come line up one by one and we'll give everyone a chance for the speaker for three minutes.

   38:34So no one else wants to speak other than this one gentleman? If you do, please line up. All right, so please line up behind him. And your name address sir for the record?

   James Navarro

   38:45Uh uh good afternoon. Uh my name is James Navarro Sr. and live at [address removed]. Uh my input, I mean all of it's been said, we've been here uh This is the third time, and I guess it counts with you guys. My input is I live right next door to the subdivision. And right now the water is terrible. I've

   39:16had to have color good system, I have four tanks. And we're still getting uh rust

   39:24Add more to that particular property? It is crazy. Plus, right now it is a dangerous road. You're adding more entrances. Please please consider um rejecting this proposal. Thank you.

   Starkey

   39:49Who's no crap? Your name and address for the record, please.

   Unidentified speakerVoice N

   39:53Maggie West, [address removed]. And kind of going over what everybody else said also. I live right behind this property. My entrance to my property, which I own the road, That road right next to it is my road. So As I pull out a blanking every day I already take since all the development going on, it took me twenty minutes to get out of my property the other day because of all this traffic in our area. I thought we were a rural protection area. I thought we didn't have to worry about that. But They're

   40:23talking about putting a driveway on that hill and if any of you are familiar and know Mr. Oakley is that hill it's gonna get somebody killed. It's it's just there's no way to put a driveway really in that area. Um we moved here several years ago to retire also with uh Mr. Gandalfe and other folks in this area and we were under assumption when we bought in the area several years ago. Then we didn't have to worry about it because of rural protection and five acre minimums. And now they're talking about this guy just bought this property a couple of years ago. And

   40:54he wants to change everything. It's not fair to us people that have been paying and living in this area for many years to just change zoning. Because I'll tell you heads up right now, like Mr. Gandalfy said, the property behind him is thirty five acres. He's gonna sell that soon. So what you've done is you set a precedence. If you let these folks build, then he's going to open up his because he's waiting to hear what's going on here. He's already made that comment. And he said if you open that up, they're more likely going to open his 30-something acres. So now we're looking at 50 acres of homes that

   41:25we don't want to see. And it's just we just beg you guys that please buy by the Royal Protection Zone. and keep us the way we are. We love Dade City. But if this happens, you're gonna get nothing but homes and all those folks that bought all this property out this way years ago are gonna sell it and then you're gonna get more property. Because I don't wanna live here. You guys, you know, I mean I honor and respect every one of you. I worked my whole life in government, but This isn't the place for me and my family

   41:55anymore. We all got grown kids, but I I don't want to deal my property. Because they don't want to live in traffic either. So we just beg you guys to listen to us, you know, taxpayers and people that love this area. I'm sure everybody in here loves Dade City. That's why we moved here. But if it goes up like this, you're gonna see a lot of homes for sale. Because we can't live in this. Thank you for your time and I hope you guys please listen to everybody that's speaking. You know, not for the money, but people that love this area and continue to love it. Thank

   42:25you again.

   MarianoChair

   42:31Uh so I don't see anyone else, so we're gonna close public comment. Is there anyone online?

   Starkey

   42:36Not for this item.

   MarianoChair

   42:37Okay. Uh back to the board. Do the staff want to comment maybe on the res one, res two?

   Amy Heiler

   42:43Yes, you read my mind. Uh Amy Toll Planning Development and Economic Growth. So there's three points that I would like to just have some clarity on. First is the one dwelling unit per gross acre. Yes, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment is changing to Res1 FLUM. the sub-area policy is limit limiting it to six units. Six units only. So when the zoning comes in, they cannot get any more than the six units. If they wanted to get more than the six units, they would have to come back in through the hearing process

   43:13and do a text amendment to change it, which is also three public hearing. It's treated as the large scale. So that one would go to the state if they needed to come in and ask for more units or more density. Excuse me. Res 2 currently, our future land use for rural areas is AG, AGR, and Res1. We do not have a Res2 flu. The next flu would be a Res 3. So the opportunity to cap it at a 2 would be the same tool or

   43:43using the same tool currently as a sub-area policy to go to a Res 3 and then cap it as a Res II. In this scenario, we're doing a res one, capping it at six units, which is 0.3 dwelling units per gross acre, so it's a third of an acre. Lastly, there was a comment that stated the Northeast Rule is a minimum of five acre lots. That is not an accurate statement. There's various areas within the Northeast Rule, that's a RES One. Our current comprehensive plan classifies Res One as

   44:14a rural land use classification in the comprehensive plan. So those are my my topics.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   44:20Mr. Chairman Mariano. One more one more thing if you would clarify, Amy. So Well there's been all this talk about What a minor rural subdivision allows in res one. The current zoning for this property is A C?

   Amy Heiler

   44:35Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   44:36So it's minimum ten acre lots unless they come back for a rezoning.

   Amy Heiler

   44:40Correct. They would have to come back for rezoning. Um however the sub-area policy would limit it to two point five acres and six units. So when they come in for rezoning to do the MRS, they would be limited to those provisions in the sub-area policy.

   MarianoChair

   44:57Sure. Um Mr. Waylors.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   45:01No.

   MarianoChair

   45:03You want me to ask my question? Doesn't matter. All right. If they d tell me why they wouldn't just have gone to the motor minor rural subdivision instead of going this way.

   Amy Heiler

   45:13So, in their current AGR form, the minor rural subdivision wouldn't allow them to get the two and a half acres. So this was the next option. So the Res One with the Minor Rule Subdivision and the CAF.

   MarianoChair

   45:27If you take out the one point if you take out the 1.7 acres, it comes to an average of four acres lot. They couldn't get four acres a lot in the minor rural?

   Amy Heiler

   45:33Um right now it's one point one to five currently. The current future land use is a minimum of five acres. Um if they ended up doing the minor rural subdivision, there were provisions that wouldn't get I mean they could they could do less through the minor rural subdivision, but

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   45:48Mr. Chairman, as I've as I've tried to indicate, I think the minor rural subdivision question for this is a lost leader. The future land use classification for this property is AGR, which is

   Amy Heiler

   46:02One to five.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   46:03One to five.

   Amy Heiler

   46:04Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   46:05So They can't They can't if they do a minor rural subdivision. It's five acre lots.

   Amy Heiler

   46:11Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   46:13As they currently sit. Except they're in AC, which means it's ten acre lots.

   Amy Heiler

   46:18Correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   46:19So

   MarianoChair

   46:21the Okay, so but that argument was Not valid.

   Amy Heiler

   46:25Yeah, unfortunately the tools that we have in our toolbox being the comprehensive plan and the land development code don't really give us the options to to do two and a half acre lot subdivisions like this. So these are the tools that we have in our toolbox to allow for them to do smaller lots, but still maintain the rural character.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   46:43Okay. Commissioner Weightman. Thank you, Chair. So

   46:48When it's all this and watch the Planning Commission Ordinarily, I think we'd all be like, yeah, this is a a really nice project to see in our county. Huge fan of minor rural subdivisions. the the precedent setting tone to this. Say this goes through and we have a set two and a half acres. So that means Future property owners come in And

   47:18it opens it opens the opportunity for them to come in and then do exactly the same same process because precedent's been set. I I guess when you Look down the road.

   Joel

   47:34Oh we

   WeightmanVice Chair

   47:35Oh no, I I I'm concerned with the precedent setting nature o of this. The project I said it's a nice project, ordinarily it'd be great to see in our county. I guess the what I'm asking is Sh should we be taking a look at the properties within that one to five range? to have a mechanism that allows this scenario to happen. That way it's not one-off and it's clearly defined and property owners

   48:05know what they have and uh what they may or may not be able to do with their property in the future. Is that my am I making sense?

   Amy Heiler

   48:14Yeah absolutely. So um a couple couple comments for that.

   48:22With respect to setting the precedent, they're always going to, they can, any, any applicant can apply for a comprehensive plan amendment. Doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be approved. It'll have to go through the board's review and the board's discretion to accept it or or not. Um so so yes, y in this scenario you could approve it, but something could change next week and no longer be applicable.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   48:51So follow f follow up to that. Thank you, Chair. Mm-hmm. Based on what the county attorney said. Where it's one five and this is kind of going taking a different road, different path to get here.

   49:06What what was the mechanism for staff then to bring this forward the way that it is? The meaning order. Right. So the sub area policy allows you all the flexibility.

   Amy Heiler

   49:18to control it outside of the scope of our STEM standard process. Yeah. At least through the comprehensive plan. Additionally, just for the board's understanding, as you all are very much aware, we're going through the 2050 change. And within our PASCO 2050, we are not allowing or the proposal, once it goes through the review, it's got to go through the state and get approved. But our current trajectory is to not allow any additional res one flues after twenty fifty is

   49:48adopted.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   49:49So when are we voting on that? Spring. Of this year.

   Amy Heiler

   49:52Correct.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   49:54Right now it's a twenty twenty five horizon. So it's right around the corner and this one could potentially skirt in before that change. All right. Thank you.

   Oakley

   50:02Mr. Oakley. Okay. Amy, correct me if you will, back uh I'm gonna say about a year ago. the property just on Blandon Road, just to the south and to the s and the west side of the road, or on the right side if you're going back toward Dade City. There was a property in there with the Phillman family and they zoned that two and a half acre lots. And it was approved by the Plan Commission and the Board. It came through it.

   50:33It is two and a half acre lots, which is not very far from where this is, probably a couple miles or so south of where this property is. And what confuses me is the rural group with Nancy Hazelwood and and some of her folks were all in favor and and agreeable to that being two and a half acre lots. So I don't know what changed from that being okay at two and a half acre lots. To this not being okay. And this is a good project. When they first came to me about it. I

   51:03looked at it, but they wanted 10 lots. And I thought that was too small for the rural area. But two and a half acre lots I mean a one acre lot is two ten by two ten, a very big nice lot. you've got two and a half times that. on these properties which make them a very nice lot. So and they have trees on there. Nobody's going on that land where they're gonna build a house. If there's a tree in the way of where they need to put their house, I'm sure they're gonna talk about take getting a permit, take

   51:34that out. But most of the trees I think they'll they'll wanna keep in this neighborhood. But it's it it's designed out. But I'm kinda confused where the real group is 'cause one minute they want it and it's okay and the next minute they don't want anything. But the fact of it is two and a half acre and larger lots. keeps the density down from from getting expanded to one acre lots.

   Amy Heiler

   51:59Sure.

   Oakley

   52:00Yeah.

   Amy Heiler

   52:00I think the confusion that's occurring is with the f the res one flu. And so at face value, yes, the color on the map is res1. But it's not your standard just flat res one approval, meaning you have 20 acres, go into res one, you can have 20 lots. That's not what's happening here. We are allowing or we are proposing to amend the flu to res one. only because we don't have any other

   52:31option to achieve that middle ground. And so that's where now we've added an additional regulatory document being the sub-area policy. Any zoning that occurs is required to be consistent with the comprehensive plan of that time. So by adopting this with a sub-area policy, if they wanted to change it and increase their density, they will have to come back in for a text amendment, which is like this is a small scale, so we only went two public hearings. It's administratively or courtesy

   53:01sent to the state. A text amendment changing That is actually going through a transmittal review, state has their review, provides their comments. It's a three-month versus a two-public hearing. It's a much more extensive process to make that change. So, from our tools that we have, and from the county's perspective, by establishing or adding a sub-area policy, they're only asking for two additional lots. It's restricted to two. two and a half acres, so they will not be able to get one acre lots

   53:31here. And any a change to that will have to come through the public hearing review again.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   53:37Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I study attorney if I may. Um

   53:43It appears based on the maps that you've been provided that east of Adelia Street, maybe pronouncing that wrong, um has been zoned ER2. So that's what I think the commissioner was referring to when it was you said it was two and a half acres. Right. All of that property Um shown on the map to the that sort of goes to on the west side of Blanton. after

   54:14you get to Adelia is ER two. everything to the west of Adelia, um

   54:26is sort of a hodgepodge of zoning categories, but it is all um A G R. Or A G.

   Oakley

   54:37So to answer you back on on the property I was talking about, it's right there next to the uh solar farm. It's actually just to the north in Platte Road. And the that's where that property got zoned. Uh it's a hayfield right now because they have not so many lots. But they're two and a half acre lots is what they're doing.

   Starkey

   54:56Well w can you be more specific, 'cause I'm on my maps. What what intersection? Blanton and Wolf?

   WeightmanVice Chair

   55:02Plant Road and Blaton. It's called on Google Maps it's called Mountain Mountain View.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   55:08I think what do you think?

   Starkey

   55:09Well Mountain

   WeightmanVice Chair

   55:09View solar farm

   55:11well. Flat.

   Oakley

   55:13Yeah, plant right.

   Starkey

   55:14Can we see where that is? Can somebody put that up? Flat road then urine.

   Oakley

   55:25And that's that came force probably a year, year and a half ago.

   55:32Which I was surprised at that they uh they were for that. I d I didn't Pick up on that. Most of that's five acre lots or bigger.

   Starkey

   55:41I see Mr. Plummel's house. Two point seven one acres.

   Starkey

   55:46Yeah. For the south

   Starkey

   55:47and west. Okay. Two point six four I'm just trying to

   Unidentified speakerVoice M

   55:57Oh

   Starkey

   55:58Hannon two point six four

   56:03And I think

   Oakley

   56:04Fillman family still owns that land.

   Starkey

   56:07Two point nine one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   56:21I mean what were we so I'm looking at the land users and with that development is right below it is all red six?

   Amy Heiler

   56:29Correct.

   MarianoChair

   56:30And then below its res one. Why would it be that way? I would think it would go the other way.

   Amy Heiler

   56:34Um those were grandfathered ends. So there was a future land use change for the Res 6 that occurred prior to 2006.

   Jasmine Forkin

   56:41Okay.

   Amy Heiler

   56:42Uh the rural area created was created in 2006-ish, around that time frame. Um so that future land use predates the rural area.

   Oakley

   56:52That that property you're talking about there that That that project was done thirty or forty years ago. I don't know why they did it, but that's that's when that was it's kind of interesting though. Um Bingham Realty actually did it. So why don't it record my day?

   MarianoChair

   57:07Are we waiting to see any more up there? Yeah. So win for the road?

   Starkey

   57:18So um a question uh Commissioner Oakley. May I ask that question?

   MarianoChair

   57:24Yeah, but before we go, are we are we waiting to see where Platte Road is or is it shown?

   Amanda Hill

   57:28Is it shown? Plat Road.

   MarianoChair

   57:33Where

   Joel

   57:33are we going?

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   57:38You did say in the spring we're like we're gonna be moving towards this if we when we vote on the new Comp Plan amendment. Correct.

   Amy Heiler

   57:46Yeah, so um uh so actually I may retract that. When you say moving towards this So

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   57:51meaning like this would just get this if this goes through it would be done right before we approve the new

   Amy Heiler

   57:59attendant. Correct. But it would be So this would be essentially not going in that direction. I know that direction. I understand

   58:06So Commissioner

   Starkey

   58:07Starkey? Well okay, then now I have two questions. Originally the applicant came into your office and they were looking for ten acres. I mean ten

   Oakley

   58:16acres? They actually had started out wanting ten. They were talking about family units and their family was big or they wanted ten units but I I didn't I didn't agree to that and didn't want to agree to that and I was more set on two and a half acre lots because it's bigger and nicer lots and I thought that was better for the rural area.

   Starkey

   58:37But these are um these potentially are four acre lots.

   Amy Heiler

   58:43They're a minimum of two. They cannot be smaller than two acre lots. So however they subdivide, they could have it bigger.

   Starkey

   58:50Wait, if they g if they don't have to do the pond there could be four acre lots, is that right?

   Amy Heiler

   58:54Correct.

   Starkey

   58:55Um They

   Oakley

   58:56don't want to do a pod. Right?

   Starkey

   58:58They won't they won't have to do that.

   Oakley

   58:59They won't need a pod.

   Starkey

   59:00Yeah, so they're can you put up your numbers again? Um but my my other question while they're putting those up Did you put those up? Did you say So the issue here and the and the fear for everyone and I understand it is res one.

   Amy Heiler

   59:16It's the color on the map, correct.

   Starkey

   59:18But you say right now res one is allowed? I mean I know res one as sprawl.

   Amy Heiler

   59:22Correct. Yeah so res one, um pursuant to section flu A6, Res One is defined as a rural land use classification.

   Starkey

   59:31Yeah, and I I d I mean I don't want to see one acre out here. But I don't ha I don't object to further. There's not

   Oakley

   59:37gonna be there's gonna be two and a half acres of fact.

   Starkey

   59:39There

   59:39are

   59:39only gonna be four acres. That's what I think.

   Oakley

   59:42I kinda

   Starkey

   59:43see that

   Oakley

   59:43the bigger lots. Yeah. There's folks out there right now that have been planting that are on four acres rather than five. And yeah, very hold of a nice nice big piece of property.

   Starkey

   59:53I've been pulling up the um Property appraisers map and looking at all the land around it. Actually there's a lot of homes on Landon that are two acres.

   Oakley

   1:00:02Yeah. Alive. But that's from years and years ago that people moved there and they only had a certain amount of acreage and were able to do that back then. Yeah.

   Starkey

   1:00:10Um Okay, so let's look here. So if you got rid of one point three acres of stormwater and I don't understand what what's going on with that corn that parcel in the in the front?

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   1:00:22Mr. Chairman Mariano. I would highly advise you not to use this document for anything.

   Amy Heiler

   1:00:29It's conceptual.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   1:00:30You just use the Staff has provided you with a sub-area policy. That is what you're limiting the and if the sub-area policy can be put up for the commissioner. That's what Which was part of the the PowerPoint. Um that's what you're limiting there it is. That's what you're limiting that if you make this decision that's what the res one will be limited to.

   Starkey

   1:00:57Okay, so s so set the uh I d I'm still trying to understand that piece in the front because when I did the math 1.78 acres is that piece in the front. Correct. The piece in the back is 17.96. I got to stop the property print. That comes out to 19.74 acres. Correct. So if you divide that by six, you're getting, yeah, over three. Well, you gotta do the road too. But they would own the road to the middle. So every time.

   1:01:31Okay, so and and that was the gentleman kind of was meaning. So basically it's twenty acres.

   Amy Heiler

   1:01:36It is a twenty acre. The flu change is approximately twenty acres.

   Starkey

   1:01:41So six. So six lots in there is a over three acres per house.

   Amy Heiler

   1:01:46And um for math purposes, uh the 17 acre lot would be five units because the 1.7 acre would be part of those six. And the one point seven acre is controlled because it's platted, so it can't be we're it's basically an exemption to the m two point five minimum. So out of the 17 acres you're gonna have two and a half minimum lots and you can only have five. And then they

   Starkey

   1:02:13get one on the one point seven.

   Amy Heiler

   1:02:15Correct.

   Starkey

   1:02:19And now I'm going to do it.

   MarianoChair

   1:02:24This comment for county attorney.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:02:29Yeah. My short three years doing this I've never really heard apprehension in your statements. We've seen

   1:02:42Your tone's different on this one. You seem a bit apprehensive in the decision that we're gonna need to be make is uh is there some kind of legal precedent.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   1:02:55I don't know. It's just normally. What are you worried about cotton votes for? Let's go. So I'm trying I'm trying to stay not done this before. I try and do it every meeting. Well. But it but usually I usually I know where the board wants to go. and I can I can sort of guide you that it's okay or it's not okay. In this case I'm trying to remain neutral And y I think th this is a

   1:03:25legislative act of the Board of County Commissioners. You can vote it up or vote it down. And legally, I think you can you we can defend your actions. What I was trying to point out earlier is. You can you can take the presidential view that north of Blan uh north of Blanton. is AGR and it should stay AGR. You can also zoom out

   1:03:55and say, Well A little bit further east you're at two and a half dwelling units an acre. So

   1:04:07Did I just trying to

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:04:11I'm not saying you're doing good or bad. Just picked up on something. We're gonna have fun with you at least once a Tuesday a month.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:04:22I I just have one comment. So if if we're gonna be moving away from this and I don't know about you guys but currently we've received thirty three emails plus public comment. Like the the public the people around it they don't they don't want it rezoning. Right?

   1:04:41Please do not. Please. But I'm s I understand that. But what I'm saying is to set the precedents for other landowners. And if we're moving away like if if When we redo the uh uh Complant amendment, this won't be allowed.

   Maria Shaw

   1:04:57Uh

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:04:58I guess my question is then why would we Why would we do it now? Is that a correct statement?

   Amy Heiler

   1:05:05Um we are proposing to restrict any new res ones within the northeast rural area. Okay, but that's

   MarianoChair

   1:05:12Please, please I'm not gonna ask you again, but please do not. We're trying to have a discussion.

   Starkey

   1:05:17And I understand that the only reason you're using you're using Res One here is because you have no other tool. Will we not allow any three acre lots going forward?

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:05:32Nothing under five.

   Amy Heiler

   1:05:34Great question.

   Starkey

   1:05:36Well that's we will have to explore that.

   1:05:41cannot base my vote on how many people show up to take a voice on one way or the other. I have to base my vote on facts and and law and those things. So that that's that's where I am. So um I'm just trying to base my vote where we're heading as a county. Well I just

   MarianoChair

   1:05:57one at a time

   Starkey

   1:05:57one excuse me, one at a

   MarianoChair

   1:05:59time please.

   Starkey

   1:06:00So the res one really is irrelevant here because it it it's not gonna be used as res one which I'm a hundred percent against one acre lots. Correct. Uh unless it's in a conservation subdivision.

   Amy Heiler

   1:06:13Right. And we did offer that as an option when this first came in but they didn't qualify for a conservation subdivision.

   MarianoChair

   1:06:20So I I would say in looking at this one here, I didn't think it was a huge issue. I was surprised with all the emails that were coming in, et cetera. Looking at it, I looked at it closer, I go I don't have a heartache with it for what we're gonna get to what it was. But listening to the people, I understand their s their fear of the president's gonna set. But what you just said actually gave me a little more comfort because if we're gonna put this in our new comp plan that a res one is not gonna be allowed in the area. This is gonna be a one and done anyway. And where and

   1:06:51where it's it can't happen again anyway. So it's it's it's gonna limit It's not a lot of density and to me I I think the way we should do this is that one point seven acres should be separate from all the other calculations and equally divided with with the the square f uh the s uh acreage between the other four units does that be precise but they should be at least over three.

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   1:07:14Is it

   Starkey

   1:07:14five or six expenses?

   Amy Heiler

   1:07:17Uh the sub-area policy is six, but that also that includes the one point seven acre parcel.

   Starkey

   1:07:22Yeah, so it's one plus that what stays at one, it'll be one point seven. And then the seventeen, whatever, gets divided into five.

   Amy Heiler

   1:07:30Correct. And the applicant has also proposed that they are willing or they're they've coordinated with real property to vacate the roadway that's in the middle of them that bisects it. Roadway would be absorbed. We've also re already received confirmation from real property that the, you know, when they apply for that, they bring it with a level of support. So they would vacate that right-of-way, that would be absorbed into the abutting property, and that would actually bring the 1.7 closer to 2.

   Starkey

   1:08:01Uh and what was the gentleman referring to about I understand the buffering out of blame. If that You know, when we did the scenic overlay there was you can't take away the long views, okay. Very important type of thing. Is that what he was referring to? Because he didn't have to buffer in between the lots, right?

   Amy Heiler

   1:08:17Um

   Unidentified speakerVoice M

   1:08:18No.

   Amy Heiler

   1:08:18No. Uh it's just that right, the scenic corridor is the the visual landscaping and buffering along Blankton.

   Starkey

   1:08:27It it it it does look like a beautiful heavenly wooded lot. So uh you know you know how I feel about trees, but I don't know how we can regulate what percentage of the lots they can clear. Because frankly but you can be ag and you can be You can clear the whole thing and you can have pigs or whatever and um

   Amy Heiler

   1:08:48We do have a proposed sub area currently under review, so Sure. Yeah.

   Oakley

   1:08:54Mr. Ruffler. When you look at this in the three acre, two and a half, three acre, four acre lots are very nice lots. There's a lot of people that don't want to be in dense property. These folks especially they don't want to be any more dense than that would be. But there's a lot of people that are out there wanting large lots to build their home on and have some piece of the land to take care of. Not everybody's set

   1:09:24for taking care of two and a half, three, four acre lots, because it takes a little more work to take care of that than it does a yard and where you got the high density. But there's a lot of people and that will keep the rural area rural by having these

   MarianoChair

   1:09:40larger lots. Sure. And question M Commissioner Oakley you may know our staff, but as far as there was a danger as far as there was someone was worried about the connection to the to Blent Road, uh uh is there any concern about that?

   Oakley

   1:09:53Well, my road, I'm right before my road's my can that I go into Timber Hill Drive where I live. And I'm right before right the the road right before you get to the interstate, going to the west. Uh we've had a couple of accidents lately at Trilby, where Trilby connects to Blandon as been dangerous here lately for for some reason or other. I don't know why. Cars overturned right there and and some other ac accidents happened. And uh but everybody's being very careful about how they drive

   1:10:24out there on that road. And I to the point that I've actually um going further with the fire department out at Landon. They don't have your normal signal lights and all stopping traffic. And some of my neighbors out there mentioned to me one day that that the fire engines were trying to come out to go either to the interstate or to an accident and they couldn't hardly get out because at that certain time they had a lot of cars on Blatten right in that area. So I've

   1:10:54asked if we could get some kind of flashing lights or something of that nature in front of that fire station so when they do come out, those lights go on and make it safer for the public out there along with our emergency teams going out.

   MarianoChair

   1:11:07So let me ask this for safety, do you think it would work if we had I mean first of first of all I have to protect the T canopy, a tree canopy along Went Road so it stays next. natural. Right. But I would also think that at the entryway and then maybe a light before a late light after that we have this acreage share in the cost p to put like three street lights. One at and two before and after to kind of give it a little bit of light for nighttime. But do you mean

   Oakley

   1:11:34on

   MarianoChair

   1:11:34Blaton

   Oakley

   1:11:34Road? On Blaton Road. I don't know that's somebody else with the administration maybe.

   1:11:43I mean it probably uh I know it would lighten it up and I mean sometimes it's dark out that way 'cause you're out in the country. But most people don't want lights. I was I was

   MarianoChair

   1:11:52I can't get that information is what I'm asking you.

   Oakley

   1:11:55That's but I uh I think some lights were okay but there's quite a few homes right along that same area. I don't think they'd want lights shining their windows all the time. I wouldn't

   MarianoChair

   1:12:07want to do that. So I'll share my thoughts as far as f from what I see. I'm comfortable with the acreage. I'm not comfortable if that we don't have um un knowing that we got a clear precedent not to Allow this to keep on going. If you're telling me this spring we're gonna be have something coming in for res one's not gonna be even allowed, so this won't be able to happen again. I personally will be fighting not not to get any indensery on that. So and I think that's the biggest fear that everybody's got is that.

   Oakley

   1:12:32Oh, I understand

   MarianoChair

   1:12:33going forward. So if we can protect if we can protect the people from that and we know from staff that res one's not gonna be allowed in this rural area any longer and that won't happen with for anything the neighbor next door, anybody else coming in from here on through, I've got I've got comfort with it. Right. I think that's right. But Commissioner

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:12:52Weightman. Chair Amy, so four homes could go over there currently.

   Amy Heiler

   1:12:55Currently.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:12:56We're looking at adding two more.

   Amy Heiler

   1:12:58Correct. Oh.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:12:59Yes I six total. Correct.

   Oakley

   1:13:01Six total.

   Amy Heiler

   1:13:03And that includes the one point seven acres?

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:13:05Includes a six total. Total, including the one point seven acres. Correct. It's

   Oakley

   1:13:10not seven, it's six.

   Amy Heiler

   1:13:13So

   Oakley

   1:13:14same.

   Amy Heiler

   1:13:15Stop it. Stop it right now. Well six

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   1:13:18max. And you got you got seventeen point nine six acres and you got a zoning category that allows ten.

   Amy Heiler

   1:13:30Oh correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   1:13:31So that would be a good thing.

   Amy Heiler

   1:13:36four.

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   1:13:36So they'd still need her they'd need a rezon to get to four.

   Amy Heiler

   1:13:39Correct.

   MarianoChair

   1:13:43So from two to six.

   Joel

   1:13:47Where are we at?

   MarianoChair

   1:13:48Motion.

   Starkey

   1:13:53Well I I and you know I'm with you, Commissioner Oakley. Um and and you I would never allow Res One. Um that Res One would just cost the county a lot of money and services and sprawls and I could. This is not Res One. I mean I shouldn't be This is not a place for Res It's not it's not Red One. It's not Res One. No. Um I'm looking at um I just texted my husband, you know, we did a subdivision that is tucked into some of our property uh called Aristida where I where I live and we

   1:14:24have we do have half acre, one acre and larger lots and we we allow horses in there. If you have an acre, you can have a horse.

   Oakley

   1:14:33Yeah.

   Starkey

   1:14:33Um But um t two to three acres, that that's fine for me on

   Oakley

   1:14:40this

   Starkey

   1:14:40lot on this road here, considering the conditions around it. Never never one one.

   Oakley

   1:14:48I move approval.

   Starkey

   1:14:51Yeah, I

   Unidentified speakerVoice J

   1:14:52second

   Unidentified speakerVoice K

   1:14:53you're moving approval of staff's recommendation, right? Yes, sir.

   MarianoChair

   1:14:57Okay. Any further discussion? Did I give a second? Roll call? Okay. Roll call vote?

   Starkey

   1:15:06District 1, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District 2, Commissioner Weightman? Nay. District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Yeager.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:15:16Nay.

   Starkey

   1:15:17District five, Chairman Mariano.

   MarianoChair

   1:15:20I'm gonna go aye, knowing that the residents are gonna be protected.

   Unidentified speakerVoice O

   1:15:24Yeah.

   MarianoChair

   1:15:25Motion passes three two.

   Oakley

   1:15:33Next.

5. 5May 19, 2026
   Board of County CommissionersP33Public hearingContinued

   An Ordinance Amending The … Plan; Providing For A Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment To … Land Use Map (Map 2-15 2- 15 And Sheet 08) 10) From AG/R (Agricultural/Rural) To RES-1 (Residential 1 - Du/Ga) (Residential- 1du/Ga) To PD (Planned Development) On Approximately 19.69 7.83 Acres Of Real Property Located On The North Side Of Blanton Road Approximately 2,150 Feet East Of The Intersection Of Blanton Little Road And Trilby Road; Jasmine Boulevard; And A Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.86 7.1.82 – Blanton Little Road MRS; PD; And A Map Amendment To The … 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(86) Blanton 2-9(82) Little Road MRS; PD; And Providing For Additional … And An Effective Date.

   Approved minutes

   Approved to continue to a date uncertain.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 2:49
   ▶ 2:491m

   MarianoChair

   2:49Good We're gonna continue the board meeting. Item P thirty three.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   2:55I think we're commissioner items. Oh no, that's right.

   MarianoChair

   2:58No, we'll do that after we do that. So P thirty three?

   Oakley

   3:03Item P thirty three was published at the Tampe Times on May sixth, twenty twenty-six.

   Nectarios Pittos

   3:16Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Item P thirty-three is PDE twenty-six zero three one. This is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, uh providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map three-fifteen in Sheet Titan from RES One to PDE plan development. on approximately 7.83 acres. Uh the request here is to continue the item to a date uncertain.

   Starkey

   3:38Move to continue.

   Nectarios Pittos

   3:40Second. All in favor say

   MarianoChair

   3:41aye.

   Starkey

   3:42Aye.