Zoning Amendment (Regular) – Trust #7541207 Land Service Corporation Trustee– Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District, A-C Agricultural District and a C-2 General Commercial District to a C-2 General Commercial District and an I-1 Light Industrial Park District – Northcentral Pasco County – on the Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Interstate 75 and Blanton Road – Containing Approximately 89.074 Acres (PC 1/7/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; BCC: 2/9/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting; Continued from PC: 12/10/20, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting and BCC 1/12/21, 1:30 p.m.; DC Hybrid Virtual Meeting)
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved the item per Staff’s recommendation by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Feb 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Feb 9, 2021
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-21-7506 in full →PDD-21-7506 was taken up 4 times between Dec 10, 2020 and Feb 9, 2021 — this is appearance 4.
- Dec 10, 2020PlanningC2No disposition in the minutes
- Jan 7, 2021PlanningP3▶No disposition in the minutes
- Jan 12, 2021BoardC2Approved
- Feb 9, 2021BoardP57▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 15m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 97% of 70 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Item P fifty seven was published in the Tampa Bay Times on december sixteenth, twenty twenty.
Okay, if you can bring up the PowerPoint on that item, please.
Well we wait for that to come up. It's uh P57 is PDD 217506 in the name of trust number 74541207, Land Service Corporation Trustee. It's for a change in zoning from AR Agricultural Residential, AC Agricultural, and C2 General Commercial Districts to C2 General Commercial District and I1 Light Industrial Park District. Next slide, please. The parcel is located in north central Pasco County on the northeast corner of the intersection of I
seventy five and Blanton Road and it goes up to the to the um Hernando County line. Next slide. The site contains approximately 89.07 acres and it's undeveloped. The applicant proposes to the to develop the southern 14.66 acre portion of the property in conformance with the C2 General Commercial District standards for development, and the northern 74.41 acre portion of the property in conformance with the I-1 Light Industrial Park District
standards for development. The surrounding area is characterized by residential and agricultural pursuits. Following slide, please.
The site has a future land use classification of EC currently. However, on December 8, 2020, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a comprehensive plan amendment CPAL 2006, which amended the future land use on the site from EC Employment Center and AG to IL, Industrial Light, and COM Commercial. If the rezoning is approved, it shall not take effect until such time as the appeal period for the companion. And C P A L is has ended. Uh the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on 225 of 20. Next
slide please. The applicant has agreed to to uh voluntarily agree to a deed restriction for the C2 portion of the property that basically limits the permitted uses. um to 140,000 square feet. Prohibits multifamily apartments, prohibits auto-towing or connected storage of vehicles, prohibits yard trash disposal facilities, prohibits construction and demolition debris disposal facilities, and prohibits truck spot stops. Sorry. And some of the many of those prohibitions
were as a result of comments from the neighborhood meeting. The following slide, please. Thank you. The applicant has also volunteered to record a deed restriction over the I-1 portion of the property, which basically limits the uh I-1 Industrial Park District permitted uses to not exceed 500,000 square feet, prohibits auto-toying and connected storage of vehicles. Prohibits yard trash disposal facilities, prohibits construction, demolition, debris disposal facilities, and also places a requirement for a 25-foot setback along a parcel
that's adjacent to the east, which has a single-family uh dwelling on it, to remain as a natural undisturbed area, except for the necessity of a fence for maintenance.
Next slide.
It also um includes um uh specific development standards that are for the property, which include architectural design of building facades facing 75, shall include windows at ground level and or claristory and shall not um or at the claristory level sorry and shall not include overhead doors. It also uh outside storage of materials, supplies, or products not permitted in the front of any structure. When outside storage is exposed to I-75,
the area shall be screened at a height of at least one foot higher than the higher material being stored, being screened, not to exceed ten feet. Additionally, the applicant has included in the deed restriction that loading docks, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction, and other service functions are to be incorporated into over to the overall design of the primary building using screening walls of compatible material design and color. Next slide. The
next slide uh shows the current zoning on the property. If you move to the next slide. And this slide actually shows you in the purple or lilac area, that shows you the area that is proposed for I-1 Light Industrial Park District. And the area that's red with a diagonal line on the bottom on this on the south end of the property. That's where the C the C2 General Commercial District is proposed. Following slide.
Following slide shows the uh future land use. And if you would move on to the next slide. This is the adopted land use based on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment C PAL 2006 on the next slide.
The following slide shows the access to the property.
Off of Lanton Road.
And um staff moves to uh it's the this comes to you actually with a recommendation of approval. Um and it's actually from the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission. Here for any questions you may have.
Yeah. Uh we have anyone to speak to this item?
We have no one on WebEx for this item and no emails were submitted for this item.
But you do have an applicant. There's the app in here.
I am here.
Yes, would you like to speak?
Yes, hi. Barbara Will Hype for the record, sixty-three twenty-seven Grand Boulevard, New Port Richey, Florida, three four six five two. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Um this is our this public hearing on this item. Um we've got a unanimous recommendation from Planning Commission, not only on the comp plan that was adopted back in December, but also on our rezoning that's before you today and staff is right recommending approval. I don't know if there's anybody at the kiosk Um to speak. Maybe
we can check on that. We'd like to reserve any time. I do have my team on the on the line here as well. Larry Guilford is on as well as Mike Razor.
Okay.
Let's go to the kiosks and see if anyone's at the kiosks to speak against this item.
But there's somebody there.
Here's it.
And have you been sworn, Mr. Dou Dukowitz? Have you done?
Not on this camera. Outside I raised my hand but I'll do it again, I swear.
Yeah. She'll do that right now.
Um we're gonna need to get his um address again for the record. It just came up.
We're gonna need you to state your name and address again because your the voice didn't come through very good, so
Okay, first then Edward Duke of its D U T. K I E
residence is [address removed]
Thank you, sir. And could you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God. Yeah. Thank you. You may proceed.
Okay. The request actually.
Yeah. There are seven reasons.
Let's go overlay. rezoning is eradicating the agricultural and rural nature of the area. Resulting in Laos further commercial development. Hobbit for
Fritz. His own employment center. Hasgown county for June in two thousand nineteen. It the Pasco Economic Development Council, a group of people's purpose was that's a is to get money from the taxpayers. 2.9 million taxpayer dollars to attract target industries. She can go to the targeting display to sick place. house which are slated for his development. The fast food locations anticipated in Motel fall far
below the targeted income level. Did you have pull from proposed? And the board is going along with it. The conversion from EC zoning defeats and intentionally wastes. the taxpayers' money which was given to the Pasco E D C for the purpose Which will be defeated by this application. Also parenthetically, the representative of the Yonis, Ms. Willight, appears to be on the board of directors of the APC. She appears to be representing both the MPC. preserve and market the EC zone
property and the entity which wants to eliminate EC zone property. How could such a conflict go unnoticed? Four, the light industrial use in fast food restaurants are eyesores placed in public view. Either provide the higher than average income which are one of the goals of the EC zone property, and neither is consistent or compatible. the rural character or rural quality of life. Five, commercial zoning is limited in size and the proposed changes exceed the commercial limit. The cob development is limited
to six hundred by six hundred feet along Bland Road. Six, strip development is prohibited like the comprehensive plan. C policy FLU one point six two C By definition, the strip is defined as land which lies alongside a roadway. The industrial strip development lies along I-75. And lastly, seven The compatibility table plainly states But the zoning changes requested are not compatible with this wrong period.
Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is anyone else at the kiosk?
There is no one else at the kiosk.
All right, thank you.
Right. Yeah, no Mike. Just just to c uh if I'm not correct for staff in the app, you know if I'm not correct. Isn't this site right at the interchange in along Interstate 75?
Yes.
Is that right?
Correct.
Yeah.
Okay. So make sure.
So it's in forty one and seventy five.
Yeah. Um I c I knew. I just kinda wanted to state it for the record. But uh um No, we talk about, you know, wanting and needing more industrial, you know, in the county, industrial sites. And um, you know, unfortunately, we're actually losing industrial sites in many instances where people are rezoning from industrial to something that doesn't is not a job creating site. And this is right on Interstate 75, which is obviously the access you want for tractor
trailer trucks, um, you know, ease for the community and people to do business there. So to me, I mean, if anything we've seen in a long time, this probably makes more sense because it is at Yeah. Seventy five. So
I don't know if the applicant wants to respond, but I'll I'll move for approval.
Mm
Mr. Chairman, why
don't we have the applicant? Applicant needs to respond first. So
Just for the Mm-hmm. As staff stated, the the comprehensive plan was amended and you adopted an amendment to IL and COM. The the zoning categories that are proposed are I1. And C2. There is nothing more fully consistent than an I-1 zoning district with an IO land use and a C2 zoning district with a POM land use. the policies that Mr. Dukowitz uh Mr. Dukowitz who's not any type of planning expert, um,
although I am because I participate I wrote most of the Pomp Plan back in two thousand and six. that each each carriage the language from the comp plan, misapplies the language. We're at the rezoning level and he speaks to policies that deal with the land use amendment level. Now for example, 1.4.3 and 1.6.3 of the of the future land use elements are transitional land use policies that are applied at the comprehensive plan level. He he cites the policy, the comprehensive plan policy
dealing with commercial one point six point one and says we violate that, but that's the very policy that says you can only have C two zoning in comm land use land use two if you've adopted a com land use. So, you know, I've I've heard his different statements regarding the comprehensive plan and you know, they are misinterpreted, they are misapplied. It is property, the stormer land use was EC. We took away the multifamily component. We kept the commercial component, we kept the
light industrial component. We thought the better use of the property was to have no no residential, so we could maximize the use of the property for the employment generating uses. And um but Mr. Dirkowitz says that we're not maximizing it for employment generating generating uses. current zoning is agricultural, so it doesn't have any job producing industrial or commercial jobs where well it may have agricultural jobs. Certainly not the target job that your that your Complant has. So with that, um, unless
you have any specific questions, we ask that you support staff's recommendation. Um yes, I am on the PDC board. Yes, I'm proud of what we brought forward here. We have the support of the Economic Development Council. Um, this is exactly what you want to do in an interchange. And um we're happy that we took the multifamily component out because um we need to save the property of this interchange for non-residential use. Yeah.
Okay.
Motion and a motion I would
second um Commissioner Moore's motion. This is a great place for the question. I've got a motion and a second. Uh all those in favor, uh my rule call.
Yeah.
Bye.
Hi.