Zoning Amendment (Consent) – Margie A Tingley – Change in Zoning from a
What the county recorded
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Feb 2, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Feb 2, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 17m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 91% of 88 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Taken up 2 times, not once through — set aside and returned to. Each stretch is below, in the order it happened.
1/2Taken up at 16:01
Following item is PC five. It's PDD twenty-three seven six seven eight for a zoning amendment. The name of Margie A. Tignley for a change in zoning from a C3 commercial light manufacturing district that had specific uses to a C2 general commercial district with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction where a minimum of 10,000 square feet of office is provided in the front of the parcel, prohibits uses such as car washes, gas stations, drive-through restaurants, standalone boat and RV storage, and require Requires that
stealth storage facilities be set back a minimum of two hundred and fifty feet. That's part of the voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction. Um comes to you with a recommendation of approval.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear that case.
Okay. I'm
gonna
pull that and then Mr. Chairman, I need to recuse myself from this one. I have already paper. Okay. Yes, yes, sir.
All right, we'll come back to that with that.
Okay. We're gonna move on to item PC six. PC six is PDD 237686 in the name of Oakley Junction, AG L L C Oakley Junction. It's for a change in zoning from an AC agricultural district to a C2 General Commercial District, together with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction that limits the commercial retail uses to a maximum of twenty four. two thousand square feet comes to you with a recommendation of approval.
All right. Uh is the applic the is the applicant online?
The applicant is virtually present, yes.
Okay. Is there anyone here to object?
Uh we have one to object so we'll have to pull that one too. Six.
I bel I'm gonna read the next item, but there are actually there are folks on the next item who has signed up to speak, so we can just automatically pull PC seven, which is PDD 237687 from consent.
Okay. So I'm moving.
So um we'll we'll present um the items beginning with PC five.
Okay.
Mr. Chairman Mariano
2/2Taken up again at 19:39
Liam Divine, Planning and Development. This is item PC five, P D D Um 23-7678 in the name of Margie A. Tingley. It is a zoning member from C3 Commercial Slash Light Manufacturing District to a C2 General Commercial District. The subject site is located on the south side of State Road 52, approximately a half a mile east of Marauder Boulevard. This is a look at the aerial view of the site.
The surrounding future land use to the northeast and west is all ROR and to the south is Res 6.
The surrounding zoning to the north is AC and AR, to the east is MF1, to the south is the MPD for Murata Connected City MPUD, and to the west is also an MPUD for State Road 54 and Clinton.
The subject site is currently a professional office on approximately 9.82 acres. The applicant proposes to develop the property with professional office in a self-storage facility in conformance with the C2 General Commercial District standards for development. The subject site is currently zone C3. However, I would like to note that this rezoning previously to C3 was approved with a specific use for computer software and hardware services only, so that that is currently the only use allowed
on the site. The applicant has volunteered to record a deed restriction, and the subject site has a future land use classification. of R O R
This is coming with a recommendation for approval from Planning and Development Department.
Can you explain the existing zoning and the specific use? I wasn't understanding that in the state.
Yes, so the previous rezoning was actually approved with a specific use. So Euclidean zoning districts now aren't approved with specific uses or conditions. They sometimes have deed restrictions that would limit it to a specific use. But the previous one was actually approved with a condition for one. Specific use only. And that would have been for computer software and hardware services only.
So what I'm not understanding
is Why for computer software do they need did they need the C three light manufacturing
district?
Sure, I can I can answer that question and of course it's gonna seem very nonsensical considering what we know that to be today, but back in when this um item the pro the property was rezoned in nineteen eighty-three, that was not a use that was in a professional office district. So and it wasn't a use that was in a C2 district either. So it was actually a C three district use. Um I think because Data processing and those things were in very large um they they took up a l a
very large area um the actual processing software and um the cabinets and everything else and that's why it was a C three use. So is that clearly our code has changed a lot sure very much since then uh but that was the reason for that.
So is that you Just going to stay on the propaganda?
That use is not going to stay on the property because now it's gonna be C2. It's it it w that use would be an allowable use on C2. We didn't include that as a prohibited use, uh, but the use is not gonna stay on the on the property. The and I will allow the applicant to speak to to that, but the applicant proposes to place 10,000 square feet of professional law office along the front and a Self-storage facility along the back, which is set back 250 feet from.
So then the question that I have is the D the voluntary deed restriction says there do I do agree to a minimum of 10,000 square feet of office. And the question that I have is how do we enforce a minimum? They're gonna come in and they're gonna build a self-store. storage facility and then how do you force the applicant to build 10,000 square feet of office?
S so that would be um done through the site development plan. So the preliminary site plan would say that you have to have a minimum of ten thousand square feet of office on the property. Before they get the self manager
after they get the sales.
Well we can I think we can add that as in the voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction as in terms of timing. We can add timing to that.
Well not necessarily.
This is part of what we would be agreeable. I understand the question. I have other deep restrictions that make provision for how that's demonstrated at the preliminary site plan stage. And we certainly can add language to make that clearer, the deep restriction. Mr. Modi.
I I understand and that's actually not where I'm going with it, Hornbrook. I am curious about the need for 10,000 square feet of office. They're asking for a Euclidean zoning district here, and we're imposing PO office uses on them, although it's said to be voluntary. Terry, I'll ask the applicant when you submitted the application. Did you submit the deep restriction with your first application?
Wait.
The the applicant did not, however, in the timing and phasing application, the applicant did state that he was interested in doing professional office and self-storage.
Okay, it's allowed in C two.
That's correct.
Can I I could probably also elaborate a little bit? This particular application received objections from the Office of Economic Growth because C three is a light manufacturing district, so it's effectively losing the job generation potential of the site. When you convert from C three to C two. So economic growth wanted to make sure that there's still job generation on the site.
So okay, and you may have just made my point before me. is that I'm questioning whether or not the deed restriction is voluntary. We're told that we can't condition Euclidean zoning districts. But what I see time and time and time again is we get a Euclidean zoning application and we're told, well, the applicants agreed to a voluntary deed restriction. And I want to tell you guys a little story about what happened to me a few years ago. I came in and
I did a rezoning. I don't do rezoning anymore. And I it was funny because I didn't practice what I preached. I actually told my client my preference not would be to file the rezoning on his behalf because I'm an engineer and that if we ran into a problem at a public hearing and they wanted to impose some sort of condition that I wouldn't be able to give them legally. But he liked my fee better than the local land use attorney, so we agreed to do it anyways. And when I showed
up to the Planning Commission meeting... A staff member approached me and my client as we sat down, and we were presented with a quote voluntary deed restriction and told if we want to be on the consent agenda that day that we needed to agree to the quote voluntary deed restriction. So I understand how the voluntary deed restrictions are not exactly voluntary. And so I'm not sure that I feel comfortable imposing 10,000
square feet of office. The Euclidean zoning district would allow the applicant to build the offices if that's what they wanted to do. But I don't feel comfortable telling them they have to build offices. And I especially don't feel comfortable telling them they have to build offices. When the county staff won't even come to work in the office. I get on pre-application meetings and they're working from home. So I have a hard time telling somebody, you must build this.
So I don't
know. There may or may not be a need for that. The market will determine what that need is. I'm not opposed to this rezoning, and I think C2 allows for many job generating uses. I just don't think we should be in the business of telling what they you must build this. Well what if the market doesn't need it? And then it also says that this is then found by staff to be consistent with the North Innovation Zone portion of the connected
cities. And I'm looking at some of the uses that are being restricted in the quote voluntary deed restriction. And these are all uses that are supposedly listed as predominant uses for the North Innovation Zone. And connected cities, things like civic uses, neighborhood commercial services. The deed restriction restricts personal services such as beauty and barber shops, tailor shops, laundries, shoe repair, dry cleaners, florists, photographic studios. I
would think if I worked in an office and I do that. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to get my hair cut today, but we need people to cut hair too. And those are jobs.
Mr Moody, um that the deed restriction doesn't restrict those uses. The deed restriction just basically states that that can't be counted towards a ten thousand square feet of office.
I understand that. So to be clear how this works, I get your point, but staff doesn't have to recommend approval of an application. Y your comment presupposes that they're dean they're entitled to an approval. They're not entitled to approval. So so usually the applicant m offers these restrictions to get staff's recommendation of approval. Any applicant can come in with a recommendation of denial and make their case that They should have an unrestricted C two zoning. This
applicant did not want to do that, so they offered the D Destructure.
Did
this applicant know that they could do that though? Absolutely, I can guarantee you Ms. Mullight knows that.
Yeah, this is probably what I just was the results with a couple meetings and back and forth um and working together with my client, working together with staff to come to this. My client is on the line as I understand. Um she wants to add anything. Um but we we did work, you know, we did have a couple meetings and we discussed everybody's perspectives and and we were able to reach an agreement um which you see here.
Well I would like future applicants to know that if you come here with a Euclidean zoning request, we'll consider that whether the staff re recommends approval or denial and we may agree with the staff and we may not agree with the staff, but you shouldn't feel pressured to To to do what the staff wants. Maybe you're hearing from a planning commissioner today. I wouldn't be here trying to impose 10,000 square feet of office. And I'm going to vote for this
rezoning today, but I'm going to move that we approve that without. Forcing the deed restriction on
to be clear, you're not forcing the deed restriction.
Yeah, but
it also says in the act that the zoning that the rezoning will not become effective until the applicant
because the applicant has offered that deed restriction. So it's a promise the applicant has made. That's why we don't It they're saying that this is what uses will be. If they're not going to offer that up, then the board needs to take action on it without assuming there is no deep restriction. But to be clear, you're not forcing anything. You're not conditioning this rezoning.
No. Nor do you have authority to condition it.
I understand. But we've seen a lot of use of voluntary deed restrictions
since it was determined we couldn't condition Euclidean rezoning.
But you also understand that part of the reason applicants propose that is they don't want to be they want to don't want to do an MPUD rezoning, they don't want to do a development agreement. It actually is the fastest and easiest way for them to restrict the uses without going through a lengthy MPUD process or a lengthy development agreement process.
Well and in this case it's we're forcing a use. We we're going to build a minimum. I don't want to hold 'em up because then Post COVID, what office market is there?
There's there's there's
people are working from home. In New York City there are empty offices everywhere.
I think this the ver I mean we don't have David Engel here to and part the part of the reason for this deed restriction is because of the office of economic growth. had concerns about the conversion from C3 to C2, I think he would give you a different opinion on the office market, the suburban office market in Pasco County. We actually are seeing fairly s good demand for office uses in suburban public. Maybe New York City isn't. But this is Florida. We're not the same market as Florida. We have a different governor.
Mm-hmm. There's a different philosophy than the New York. So we're actually seeing very good demand for a lot of people who are working in the office in Florida. Well, I'm not sure.
But my understanding is that's a space issue more than a COVID issue.
As the deed restriction says, it's can be medical office, it can be weight loss centers, it can be chiropractic, it can be um so it's not just necessarily professional office space. There can be other uses.
for medical office. People still get sick.
I don't disagree with that. I just
And by the way the applicant I believe plans to do it anyway.
Yeah.
So
That's fine. I will amend the motion to approve item PC five voluntary demo. So I don't think we ever asked to hope staff's hearing
but I guess. I gotta I think we gotta ask for public comment. Public comments.
Is there anybody in here that would like to make public comment from the floor? Anybody here that wants to speak?
And for the record again, I know I've stated it, but we have no one on ha that has signed up on WebEx for this item.
Right. Okay. All right. Mr. Mudie you can make your the motion now if you like.
Move to approve item PC five as presented.
All right. So we have a motion. I'll second. Can we have a second? Further discussion of the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Okay. Great.
Alright, what's next?