Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) - CPAS22 (10) Pittman/Massey-Happy Hill – Providing for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 And Sheet 15) from ROR (Retail/Office/Residential) and RES-1 (Residential-1 Du/Ga) to COM (Commercial) on Approximately 20.13 Acres of Real Property Located at the Northwest Intersection of State Road 52 and Happy Hill Road; And a Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.62- Pittman/Massey-Happy Hill; And a Map Amendment to the Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9 (62) Pittman/Massey-Happy Hill; And Providing for Additional Text Amendments as Necessary for Internal Consistency; Providing for a Repealer, Severability, and an Effective Date.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
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, May 4, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, May 4, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-0241 in full →PDD-23-0241 was taken up 2 times between May 4, 2023 and Jun 6, 2023 — this is appearance 1.
- May 4, 2023PlanningPC6▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Jun 6, 2023BoardP40▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 35m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 87% of 179 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So just take off on P with PC six and um Hayed Maza Mazilli will be presenting that to you.
Okay.
Good afternoon. Hiya, it's Mizeli, Planning and Development. And I will be presenting item PC six. One's It comes up on the screen?
Okay.
There we go.
All right. Item PC six is actually
PD D twenty three zero two four one is a small scale comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAS twenty two ten Bittman Massy Happy Hill.
The site is generally located in the North Market area, but it is not within the Northeast Basco rural area.
This is an aerial showing the exact location of the subject site. It is situated in the
I wanted to use the little spot but I couldn't get it. Um it is situated in the northwest corner of State Road 52. Well actually it's County Road 52 now and Happy Hill Road.
This site has history, and I'd like to briefly go over it before I move on to the project's overview and the applicant proposal. So in 1975, the county established the C2 general commercial zoning districts along the frontage of the subject's property. This of course happened prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan in 1991, which established the future land use on the entire site as res one or residential one dwelling unit per acre. In 2006,
the BCC determined the C2 zoning district to be or to be located within a commercial node. This commercial node is about 10 acres, 660 feet by 660 feet on the southeast of the subject site. The BCC also directed staff to process a county-initiated comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use on the portion of the site that was zone C2 but outside of the commercial note.
On December 5, 2006, the BCC approved that County initiated flu amendment to change the flu resignation from Res1 to ROR or Retail Office Residential on the portion that is zone C2 but not located within the commercial node. The intent of the amendment was to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan and more specifically policy flu 1.52, which addresses the conflict zoning and any inconsistencies or consistencies with the comprehensive
plan. Um it was also to allow for commercial development on the site. On March 10, 2020, the subject site was removed from the northeast Pasco rural area, and this action was the result of the board's direction in 2006 to remove certain parcels from the northeast Pasco Rural because they were intended for commercial use and they were not suitable for the Northeast Rural Development Standards. And the subject site was
one of those parcels.
And you were doing so well, doing.
So they say a picture is worth a thousand words, right? So this is what I have been talking about. Um this is actually a map of the existing zoning as you see the north the north portion of the site. I cannot get this one to work. The north portion of the site is zone AR and the frontage portion of the subject property is C2, General Commercial. Um the surrounding zoning to the north are one rural um Rural
density residential to the east is R2, rural low density, and to the south and west is MPUD or MES or Plan Development.
This is the existing future land use map. As you see again, there are two flu designations on the subject site. ROR on about 9.9 acres and Res1 on 10.23 acres. The surrounding future land use to the north and to the west, we have Res1, residential one-dwelling unit per acre. To the east we have REST 6, residential 6 dwelling unit per acre. And to the south we have PD or Plan Development.
It is very important to mention that there is a Category One wetland on the southwest corner of the subject site. This wetland occupies about three acres and it cannot be impacted by the development. It is um Th there's um um requirement of a minimum of twenty five foot buffer as well as a conservation easement um to be conveyed to the county.
And now we get to the project overview. So the applicant is proposing a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use designation from Res1 and ROR, Retail Office Residential, to COM or Commercial on approximately 20.13 acres to allow for commercial development. The applicant is also proposed in a comprehensive plan text amendment sub-area policy flu 7.162 Pittman Meski Happy Hill to identify potential uses as well as
maximum densities and intensities on the site. As mentioned earlier, the location of the site is at the northwest corner of County Road 52 and Happy Hill Road intersection. The resolution to the applicant proposal is to amend FLU or Future Land Use Map 2-15 and Sheet 15 from Res One and Ottawa to COM, as well as to amend Flu Map 2-9, adding sub-area policy flu uh sub-area policy map I'm sorry, sub-area policy
two-nine sixty-two, Pittman, Massy, Happy Hill. As for the rezoning, um, a petition in the name of RZ7706 Bitman Massy Happy Hill is filed simultaneously to rezone from AR Agricultural Residential Districts and C2 General Commercial Districts to C2. General Commercial District.
This is the proposed future land use map. As you see, the site will be unified to one flu that is Calm or Commercial. And the Comflu is actually a compatible transitional land use to um Res1. On the north and on the west of the subject site, as well as to REST 6 on the east of the subject site. And this compatibility is conditioned with sensitive site design
such as limited hours of operation, limited building heights, and sufficient buffers. And um the residential uses to the west are buffered by that category one wetland that I mentioned earlier.
The Planning and Development Department found the proposed amendment to be consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies. Policy flu eight one five North Market Area Establishment. Policy flu 162 Location of Commercial Development. Policy Flu 163 Transitional Land Uses Policy Flu 164 Neighborhood Commercial Uses Policy Flu 187 Economic Development Policy Flu 1810 Preservation of Capacity for Employment Generating Uses Policy
Flu 136 Wetland mitigation and policy flu 1313, wetlands and upland buffers.
In conclusion, the Planning and Development recommends the local planning agency to find a proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you.
Very good.
I have two questions. When is the rezoning supposed to come to the Planning Commission?
It's actually gonna come a month after this um Next month? Okay. Thank you.
Have you and the applicant discussed um the Senate Bill one oh two issue? And is the applicant willing to do a deed restriction?
Yes, yes, he will.
Okay. And then my other question is, do you know why when we tried to fix the conflict zoning on this parcel we left part of it res one? I guess I guess Clark's gonna stand up and answer
that question. Yeah, the uh do you want to I'll I'll You wanna do it? I know the answer, he's just not
Well I don't care who answers it, I just I just want the answer. He needs a reason to get paid.
Clark's paying more than me for the right cloud. I I I th Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby PA 109 North Brest Street, Tampa, Florida have been sworn. Uh I I'm sorry to cut in there. I I've been working on this site since 2002, so I have a little bit of history and I figured it'd be easier for me to answer. So what happened was we should have changed it all the ROR at that time, David, but remember that was before the statutory changes occurred, and we didn't want to go through a large-scale
plan amendment at the time that that was all going down. So here was the sequence of events. We knew the comprehensive plan was going to change in late 2006, and it was when Barbara was still working at the county, and so we took these into incremental things. First we did the commercial node designation which vested the ten acres in the corner. for, you know, potential commercial uses and then we did as much as we could, which was nine point nine acres around that. Um
so we didn't want to do a large scale because those were so difficult and expensive at the time. Keep in mind at the time there were even some of them we were having to pay external reviewers for the county and it was cost costing like 150 grand to do one, so that's why we didn't do it. So but the upshot of this site uh planning commissioners is that what we have of a 20 acre site, they're already eighteen to nineteen acres of it already is either vested commercial, even though it has res one because
of the commercial node designation under the old plan. And then we have the ROR around it. So all we're doing is unifying it today. We should have done this years ago, and we just never did. But the the board and the staff have, let's just say staff has heavily encouraged me to keep the site commercial. There were discussions about maybe having a townhouse project on it a year ago, and the board and staff didn't think that was such a wise idea. So here we are today.
Did that answer it, David?
That answers it, thank you.
Okay. Happy to answer any other questions.
Yeah, we we we will uh I I confirm with her before the meeting. When we get to the zoning, we don't have any problem with adding the Senate Bill one oh two language and a deed restriction to it. Okay. And that I'll answer questions. I think a couple of our neighbors are here. Thank you. Okay.
Clark, let me ask you a quick question, because I yeah there was a questionnaire done last year. So that's not gonna happen now, the 158 townhomes.
That's right. Okay. Yeah, we we converted that application to C two. So we're just gonna fill in the C two and the C O M and that's it. All right, thanks.
Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. All right. Clark, was there anybody anybody else here to speak for you? No. That's it. All right. All right. So uh County have anything to add before we go to the public? Okay. Thank you very much. Good job. Um okay, so who is there someone here then the public that wishes to speak?
Mr. Chair, for this one we have Nancy Hazelwood and Peggy Byrne here to speak on this item.
All right. So Nancy, why don't you come on up?
Yansee [address removed]. Um okay, so this is abutting or very close to the Northeast Rural Protected Area Plan. So if they put this in place, Northeast Rural Protected Area Plan sure will not need any more new commercial. Hopefully, that is not being considered with Mr. Pitos and his redeveloping. We just want design standards
and landscape standards. So I would ask, because this is so close, that a Sub-area plan is created with some nicer conditions. Like trees, more trees than the regular comp plan. parking and back. Low lighting. Something that makes it look nice for the neighbors and for the Northeast Row area plan that's embodying it. Thank you all.
Thank you, Nancy. Thank you very much. And it was Peggy, I think. So right here. There you go. I get that right.
Yes, Peggy Byrne. Good afternoon. Um I live in East Point, uh abutting this property. Um just a little bit of history before I uh explain what I'm asking for. I received a letter on 427 that was both undated and unsigned. The letter had an attorney's law firm, Hobby and Hobby, on the outside of it, but I didn't know who the letter was from. Okay. There's a sentence
in here in this letter that I find particularly egregious. I called, I spoke to different members of the county and ended up speaking with Mrs. Ms uh Ms. Mazzilli. The sentence is as follows. If you are in opposition to the above stated application, you will need competent, substantial evidence presented to support your opposition. Gentlemen, I would call this a mafiosa letter, a letter to deter people from coming here. When I spoke to Missilli
about it, she assured me she had not seen this letter before it was sent out. Now, m perhaps one of you could explain to me. Is Mr Harvey working for the county? Or is he following county procedure? And do you provide him with a letter of what to do? Because it seemed to me that this letter was very intimidating, and many of the neighbors felt so. Very upset about it. Further, there has been no competent substantial evidence presented to a single one of us residents regarding this. Apparently,
Mr. Hobby said he wasn't required to do a generalized meeting for us to see what the plan was for that property. I'm offended. Then I have to hear the story of how he's a lifelong person of Dade City and he knows everybody. Well I'll put it to you while some I why many of us believe some of this stuff wasn't changed. It wasn't changed zoning-wise until State Route 52 became County Route 52. And if you know everybody in the county, well you can get things done pretty good. That's
the assessment so far. I hope I'm wrong. Please prove me wrong. But I don't see that right now. I see a problem here. I see uh all kinds of issues with uh a disingenuous financial uh personal gain by the lawyer and the parties he represents. It's a rubber stamp on an allegory situation. because there have been no controls offered, no argument. It's not serving the public good unless we know what it's going to do. Oh, just pass it and we'll
find out the zoning commission will tell us what it is. That's not acceptable. We have 76 homes in East Point. at just a low ball estimate, that is twenty six point six million dollars worth of property that you will affect negatively. I have not approached a single realtor that has not said to me, it's never good to back up to a commercial property. Never. I think all of you know that or you wouldn't be here today. H where is the evidence other than you saying, well this fits into this
boundary and that? What about how it impacts the people? And the county should really know my time is up. The county should really know I'll finish up my sentence if you don't mind. The county should know that in a court of law I could provide multiple people like myself. Before I built my home, I called the county to find out how this was zoned. I knew there were two owners on the property there. They I was told they were residential. Miss Mazzilli said, Well, they didn't really lie, they just forgot to tell you what that was R O R residential.
Now you want to change it to commercial. These people have invested, some of them their life savings. They are county residents. They use very little from the county. We're not sending children to school overall. They're older people. They deserve to be heard. I hope you'll hear this and my request is that you table this and that that man is told, you will present a general meeting and we will see what this is. Don't tell me. because it fits into your boundary that you're all supporting it. I and I'm really offended that Mrs Mazzilli and Mr. Harvey look
like they're working together. Well, we're showing you the points of this. What what about the homeowners? How are they represented here? They can only rely on you. I hope you'll do the right thing and think about tabling this for another meeting. When was the
East Point neighborhood developed? I'm sorry, sir. When was the East Point neighborhood developed?
Uh I I don't know but I can tell you I didn't build I didn't start to build until uh two thousand nineteen. And I was told in 2019, July of 2019 specifically, that it was residential.
But this was zoned C two in nineteen seventy-five.
If you go to your own map, it was showing now, even looking before this, residential, R1, and ROR. So how was the resident supposed to know what what was what was true?
The zoning map, the zoning was issued sorry, it was a pre nineteen seventy bond.
Yes.
Okay.
But it's a commercial. They haven't presented any evidence why it should be commercial. That's just for financial
gains. The point is it is commercial. And they have the right-
Well your map is wrong. If you go online you'll see it's different, sir.
They they have vested commercial development rights today. They're trying to clean up some conflict conflicts between the zoning and the comprehensive plan, but they've had the right to develop this property commercially since nineteen seventy five. It hasn't been done yet, but They've had that right.
Well then I think that you have to correct two things, your own website and you have to correct your own employees. Because I will sh promise you there are multiple people that will testify to that. I was told it was residential. People don't invest four hundred, five hundred thousand dollars in something and say, Oh, I'm gonna have a grocery store behind me. And everything Mr Mr uh Hobby called me, everything he said to me was based on hope. Sir, hope is not a strategy. And nobody should be relying on that. He I hope he'll get
a public there. That's great. And and I hope I'll win the lottery, but I'll let you know when it happens.
Okay.
I I just hope you realize there is opposition to it. I wanted you to be aware of that before you made that decision. Okay. It's not what we were told. Thank you.
Yeah, I think that your your comment about substantial competent evidence that's just an typical legal term that's used every time because we can't take just people's opinions based upon their own neighborhood and not in my backyard kind of a thing. You gotta have a no don't speak anymore, just listen. Um I'm just telling you I'm trying to explain to you that we can we can only accept competent evidence. Because it has to be a competent
legal reason for you to object. It can't be that you just don't want it there. So if you move into a neighborhood and You find out later that something's gonna happen next door to you that you didn't think was gonna happen. And you said you did the research, but maybe you didn't do complete research. It just as Mr. Mooney said, that property's been zone commercial since nineteen seventy five, since zoning began. We didn't have zoning until then. So
there's some research there that you there's some research
substantial
proof that you would give them off I gave you more than your time to speak. I'm trying to be polite and trying to explain it to you and I'm trying to consider your situation, but you have to understand that when somebody has the legal right to do something They have the legal right to do something. We can't just willy nilly say, No, you can't do it because you happen to have a house next door.
Mm-hmm.
I can't do that.
But I think you you didn't you misunderstood what I said, sir.
No, I didn't misunderstand
what I'm
saying.
I'm asking this person to present what he's doing. There's been no information presented to him.
I think that's a great idea. I think it would be nice for him to do that. Uh we can't compel him to do that, but I think it would be a nice gesture.
He's going to be requesting currently it's a Euclidean zoning district, and he's going to be, as I understand it, that the fe the forthcoming request will be a Euclidean zoning district. So what he will be allowed to do are those uses that are Listed explicitly under the C two zoning district in the land development code. Those are the things that he can do.
He's already told me that he's only going to do what he's required to do. That's it.
Well he's not required to do anything. It's if he develops, he will develop one of the permitted uses under that district or he'll come back here and ask for a conditional use or some special exception. That's listed under that district.
Thank you. So just to be clear so I can clear up where our next step would be, the Board of County Commissioners will be meeting at 1:30 on this issue on 6-6.
Is that the right date? Um
That's correct. Yes.
June sixth.
So is it the same thing? It's already, as everyone says, a done deal? Or we don't have any
input. It's not a done deal. It's it's it's you know, we're making a recommendation to the county commission. It we don't we aren't making the final decision on this. And uh This the county commissioners are making the final decision, but what we're telling you, we're trying to tell you in advance that when somebody already has a zoning on the property since nineteen seventy five of commercial, why should they be uh precluded
from using that property for commercial use when you all moved in there much, much later?
That is true, sir. However what you have to do is have done commercial. Why does he have to be here to
maybe somebody should have precluded the your residential there?
Everything was residential or R
O
R
I think some of the confusion is the is the difference in differentiating between future land use and zoning. There's
two different things.
I mean I just know what I was told when I called, as were the other residents. So I I I'm sorry to hear people think that I apparently I'm not educated enough that I can understand when when I call and ask what something zoned and someone tells me it's residential. I'm I assure you I speak English. I understand.
Yeah and I I don't I can't Can explain why there was a if it was represented to you there was zoned 'cause it's been like like it's been said multiple times, it's been zoned C two.
And so they're cleaning up the land use. And then
use adopted. way after the zoning was initially assigned to the property. And there's a section of our comprehensive plan that actually requires the staff, in fact, here it is the applicants having to bear this burden, but the comprehensive plan actually required the staff to come fix these problems. It was known that some of these problems existed, and this is basically a cleanup of that.
Well, then I guess I'm gonna have to say that there is opposition to your cleanup event. We don't want it to change any further than it already is, of what it has.
And
I think you should go to the
County Commission meeting and state your case there too.
We we will do so. I thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Name and
ad.
Um yeah, I know it was Peggy, but I didn't get the last one.
Is that
Address.
All right. Thank you, Ms. Brun. So Mr. Chairman's an allegation that our online map is inaccurate, Denise, could you address that?
Yes, we're actually showing it up on the screen. So our online map clearly shows that kind of like sideways lines on there. That's the original C2 portion of the property. Um if you don't mind clicking on it and then the actual C2 side. And
And scrolling down a little bit. There we go. Land use data. So if you click on the side and click again. It'll tell you its original C two zoning from um see zoning was adopted on November November of nineteen seventy five, but it w didn't become effective until December first, seventy-five. So it's the original C two zoning from that time. And then as you can see, another portion of the property is AR, Agricultural Residential. So it has the two those two districts on it.
So can you pull up the same map for future land use?
Sure.
Take the take the zoning off though so that it doesn't confuse it. So see how the future land use has that portion and that's retail office residential and then the remainder is
Res uh Res one.
Can you put the photo of the wetland back up too?
I was gonna say the same thing. It's something to note that that wetland is going to provide an effective buffer to that
building natural features.
Any commercial aspect.
And then just take the other layers off it's good it's gonna blank them out.
Yeah, turn it out. There you go.
Hmm.
It's possible to take that shading off of it.
What do you what do you want off, uh John?
Oh, to kinda like maybe make the the shading.
If you just turn off the wetlands and it'll show up.
If you go up a little bit to where natural features
Such dizzy watching that.
Yeah.
Yeah, can
I not try?
Is that what you're asking for, John?
Yes. So the light yellow is the Okay, so that extends almost to the very northwest corner of property, that wetland. And
that wet one requires a twenty-five foot buffer.
That's correct, per the land development code and the comprehensive plan.
Are you able to show approximately what that twenty five foot buffer would work out to be there? I guess it's that's a twenty acre park, so there's probably not a big difference, but You probably have to zoom in.
Well it looks like the wetland limits extend beyond where the shading is.
I do need to caution you all though that GIS is not an official designation of a wetland boundary. We understand.
This is just kind of a rough rough right here.
We're trying to make it work but not not working too often.
Mr Chairman M I may be able to help. I know we're trying to do this gratitude.
Yeah, but see the mouse is kind of funk in your own.
One one thing that may uh aid the Planning Commission and and the resident, when we did the change to ROR before, we basically tried to work off of what the wetland boundary was at that time. That's kinda sort of so that's that's how the boundary was created. even if you look at the R O R map, you'll see that it only abuts one partial at most. Right. So that's that's how we created it. Right.
And then nonetheless, when you develop the land development code will still require landscape buffers. I think in this case it'll be a B buffer between the commercial and the residential. Notwithstanding wetland buffers?
If I might also just to answer the question about the notice. So we did a combination comp plan and rezoning notice. And when we do a Euclidean notice, there's a form that some members of staff ask us to use that includes this the same language that the chairman read at the beginning of the meeting. And so that's at the bottom of the form. I would tell you after today, I may go back to using my old form one and Not including that language and putting it on my letterhead because I just found out this week that the form that the county
uses has people calling the county only and doesn't have my number on it. And I'd rather that they call me. I just found that out this week. Um it hasn't come up in other matters. So but there's nothing technically wrong with the notice, and it's reciting the requirements of Florida law on it. think we've done anything improper and I don't think the county's done anything improper. My suspicion here is that the the woman speaking lives at one of our neighbors um is that she probably misunderstood
staff when they said ROR residential office retail. That's the name of the category. But as you all know, prior to the comp plan change in 2007, there were only two categories unless you're in a commercial node where commercial could be located, it was ROR and mixed use. And that's why the board picked ROR when the small scale was done many years ago. The only only other thing I was going to respect Respond to is Ms. Hazelwood mentioned, you know, having all kinds of special
standards and setbacks and all this kind of stuff. That was the specific reason that the board initiated the change to take this out of Northeast Pasco because the board wants to see a good quality commercial use there. My clients own this property, I think, since 1957, 52 or 57. We've had Commercial on it for many, many years. And honestly, we were waiting for the market to come to this point, and we're hoping that we can get an anchored shopping center instead of just more
dollar general type uses. We could sell probably four or five parcels right now for unanchored commercial uses. We don't think that's hopefully we find a better, better user there that will be more of a credit to the community. But when you've owned something since the fifties, you're not in it for a get rich quick scheme, I can assure you that much.
Yeah, I'm sure um you'd be able you'd be willing to s spend some extra time to to speak to Miss Peggy there Oh well
I'll speak to her again. We we spoke for thirty minutes yesterday. Oh okay. All right. And and by the way, I did speak also to the president of the association and he told me he was really excited to hear that we're doing this, that if it gave us a better chance of getting a quality retailer, he thought that was great.
Okay, good deal. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you for that presentation from the county. Very nice job.
Can you grab can you drag the map over a little bit so we can see that north uh west portion a little bit easier?
Yes.
I'm sorry, north yeah, it's northwest, is it right?
Okay. I was just looking at the portion you can stay zoomed in, I was just looking at the portion that was abutting the homes there on that northwest of the corner.
Although I can't tell a hundred percent from an aerial, I would tell you it looks to me that the wetland line actually extends eastward of the yellow shaded area on the map.
I would agree. And then you have a twenty five foot buffer there, so
And then a landscape buffer after that. Mm-hmm. Okay.
All right. Then um call your motion to m recommendation. Going to make my nation.
Move to approve item PC six.
I'll second.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Okay.
Alright, Denise.
Yeah, Denise Fernandez. Uh, next item is item P seven. Um, so of course it's at the pleasure of the Planning Commission. If you'd like, I can do a full presentation. Or I can read the item into record. To remind you, item P7 is going to be 23CU11 for Ace Chaval Inc., it's a conditional use. BBBT VBBTS LLC and T Mobile South LLC for 195-foot above-ground level monopole wireless communication facility and an MPUD master plan unit development.
So the last time we were here together, and again I can do a full presentation if you'd like. Um