Zoning Amendment (Consent) – Pittman Andrew V HeritageTR/Pittman Massey Happy Hill – Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District and C-2 General Commercial District to a C-2 General Commercial District – Central Pasco County – Northwest Corner of Happy Hill Road and County Road 52 – Containing Approximately 22.36 Acres
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, Jun 8, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jun 8, 2023
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-23-7706 in full →PDD-23-7706 was taken up 2 times between Jun 8, 2023 and Jul 11, 2023 — this is appearance 1.
- Jun 8, 2023PlanningPC12▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Jul 11, 2023BoardC2No disposition in the minutes
No appearance of this case has a final disposition in the minutes. It was continued, or the minutes do not dispose of it in writing — which is true for 24% of items.
What was said
Machine transcription of 25m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 93% of 174 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Mr. Devine. How are you?
Good.
Bloom Divine Planning Development. Um this is for PC twelve. We'll wait for our PowerPoint to come.
This should be for P D D twenty three dash seven seven zero six.
In the name of Piffin Andrew V Heritage TR Piffin Massy Happy Hill, it is a zoning amendment. From AR Agricultural Residential District and C2 Agriculture, uh sorry, C2 General Commercial District to a C2 General Commercial District.
The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Happy Hill Road and County Road 52.
Here is the aerial view of the subject site.
Here is the future land use. The future land use to the north is Res1, to the east is Res1 and Res 6, to the south is Res 1, PD flu in town of St. Leo, and to the west is Res 1. I would like to note that our map does show it as ROR in Res1 today. Two days ago at the BCC meeting on June 6th, it was approved for COM commercial.
The surrounding zoning to the north is R1, to the east is AR, C2, and R2, to the south is AC, C2, MPUD and town of St. Leo, and to the west is an MPUD.
The subject site is undeveloped on approximately 22.36.36 acres. The applicant proposes to develop the property in conformance with the C2 General Commercial District standards for development. The surrounding area is characterized by residential development consisting of single-family dwellings and agricultural pursuits. The applicant has volunteered to record a deed restriction as provided in your agenda packets and re reiterating again on on June sixth, last Tuesday,
um the BCC approved a Comp Plan amendment changing the blue from Res One to and ROR to Com Commercial. I am going to touch base a little bit and I'm going to go back to our previous flu map just to give some context history here.
If we can go back to the flu map. A portion of the subject site has original zoning of C2, General Commercial District. When the comp plan was originally adopted, the subject site was designated as Res1, which created a conflict with the C2 zoning. On September 11, 2006, the County Attorney's Office presented the Board of County Commissioners with an agenda memo. Describing the nature of the conflict. Within this memo, there was a finding that 660 feet by 660
feet portion of the southeast corner of the site was found to be a commercial node. The BCC directed staff to proceed with a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the flu from Res1 to ROR for a portion of that C2. Um site and sub subsequently on December 5th, 2006, the BCC approved that small scale comprehensive plan amendment. So that's how we got back to um if we can pull
that visual back up, how that original future land use looked a little wonky where there was ROR and Um Runs one. Right there.
So that's just a little history and context of that. And then this is coming with a recommendation for approval from Planning Development Department.
And I'm here if you have any questions.
Okay, any questions for Liam?
Okay, if not, Mr. Hobby. Mr. Hobby.
Mr. Chairman, Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby, PA 109 North Brussel Street, Tampa, Florida, I've been sworn. You all are aware we had an extensive discussion of the comp plan on this matter last month. And on the comp plan side, essentially 19 of the 20 acres already had vested commercial or ROR to allow for commercial uses. The board now has approved a plan amendment as you just heard. So the site has COM future land use. So at this
point, all we're doing is filling in the little northern uh swath of the site that's still has. The old AR zoning, and honestly, right now that portion is not now consistent with a comprehensive plan, so it really needs to be zoned C2, like the rest of the site. And so that's all we're doing here today. The board has already found numerous times that this property should be commercial. It pulled it out of northeast Pasco for it to be commercial several years ago, and it's made numerous findings. That
this should be a commercial site, and as you've heard, the overwhelming majority of the site has been uh zoned C2 since 1975. So I'm happy to uh answer any oh one one other thing I Liam uh alluded to this just for the benefit of our neighbors. I did a deed restriction willingly uh and worked on this with staff to ensure that the amount of Of commercial square footage will And and effectively the trips will not go
up at all from what the old existing C2 is. So we're not adding any new trips, and anybody who's complaining about we're introducing more C2, we cap the amount of available C2 at what has existed since 1975. So we're not adding really any new trips here at all. All we're doing is allowing For the whole site to have enough depth to hopefully have a quality shopping center there instead of unanchored out partials. That's the only reason we're here today.
Okay. Thank
you.
Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hobby? If not, um is there anybody else to speak for your team, Mr. Hobby? You're the guy, huh?
On this item we have m uh Ms. Peggy Byrne and Ms. Carol Janke here to speak.
Okay.
My hearing is a good idea.
Okay. My name is Carol Jankey and I live at [address removed]. And uh my comment is I don't understand why the county is eager to create this little pocket of commercial district when the whole area is residential and the 598 new approved or coming online homes. That includes the Belly, Walding, LLC, 117 homes to the north on Happy Hill will be using this intersection. A suggestion of mine would be that
the county buy the land for future fire rescue station and create an easement to Belly Walding LLC to exit onto County Road 52. thereby eliminating 117 vehicles coming onto Happy Hill Road. My understanding is Pittman and Nassie must commit to only 3.62 acres of building on the property. Therefore preserving some of the wetlands. I may be confused here. On page 4, item 13, the memorandum states request timing
and phasing exempt because it would result in gross trip increase of less than 50 trips A Martin. You have or about to approve 598 additional traffic vehicles to already a very busy Happy Hill Road. Additional lanes will be needed and both properties should pay to have the lane built or put a frontage road on both properties to exit County 52. The summit view, 406 homes approved in 2005, currently being built. Without
any new transportation study, this needs to be updated. I also want to comment comment that Roth Lane is a problem with only one lane and it's being used extensively.
Okay, any questions?
If not, then thank you very much. Here's next.
Good afternoon, Peggy Byrne, [address removed]. Um at the previous May 4th meeting, I stood here before you and I voiced opposition to this zoning change. I still oppose it, just as this lady has said, for multiple reasons. Primarily because the C2 was not published on this property. It was listed as R1 and R O R, and that was all that was. available to people before they built their homes in East Point Drive. So the county has truly let these
people down. They think that they're putting all of their money and their assets into building a home only to have someone come up here and say, Well, we're going to put a little shopping center there. It's not necessary, as this lady said. It's not warranted, and people are very disturbed by it. Further, at that meeting, I feel like I have to address you, Mr. Gray. I thought you were rude to me. You told me to be quiet. You allowed Mr. Mr. Hobby, three times the amount to s speak after me than you allowed me. Also, I raised my hand multiple times as members of
this board can attest. I was not called on. If I had been called on, I would have pointed out to you the following Excuse
me, let me just told you up right there. This is not a classroom where we raise hands and keep getting up and getting down and getting up and getting down. I gave you your opportunity. To speak. I gave Mr. Hobby his opportunity to speak. If you need extra time, you need to ask 24 hours in advance in writing, and we need to follow the rules for everyone. You don't get special treatment, you get the same treatment that everybody gets. I'm happy to listen to you today, so please continue.
I wish that were the case, sir, but I don't believe so, and some of the people that were watching didn't. So that's why I'll tell you that.
I I asked
you
I asked you right at the beginning of the meeting that we're not addressing.
I am addressing that I think that we need to have this this point that we're going to do. You understand what I'm
saying?
Yes, I do say. I'm trying to get to that point because
The reason that I had my hand raised was to stop this board from making the folly of approving this meeting, uh this change back in May because I knew the address was incorrect. I knew that the state had changed that address from State Route 52 on May 29th to County Route 52, and I knew that legally that wouldn't be correct. I did try to notify you, so I just want you to know when people raise their hand here, I think a little leeway Sometimes it would benefit everybody.
It's a shame that we're wasting taxpayer dollars to return something that we could have already done. That's where I wanted to get that out, sir. Okay? That's the first thing. It's still
not a classroom. So please continue.
How would you like me to address that to you then, sir?
Just continue with what your presentation is.
Okay. Um there's a great deal of concern uh in the way the board pushed this through and changed it under housekeeping rules that it was C two, yet I heard the man's the gentleman speaker earlier today that it was just finally all approved C2. It wasn't really C two back a month ago, as I tried to say to you, but that's when you told me to be quiet. That's what my point was to you then, is that it was not, it was still ROR. So I would really ask that this board pay better attention when people come up here. You're
not here just to serve the developers. You're here to serve the taxpayers as well. Thank you.
Can I ask your question?
Yes, we
do. Maybe do you know what R O R stands for?
Yes, I do.
What do you can you say what it was? Uh
yes, I know that it
was
a residential office space as well and retail. Yes.
So you're aware that ROR allows retail uses.
Yes, I d I was aware of that. I spoke to I think your uh uh secretary or your aide, Linda. She actually asked me a question like that and I did answer it.
Okay, it might 'cause you keep saying that it was zon that it was ROR before the change. ROR does allow retail uses, which so does Common C too. So I'm not sure if I understand the point you're trying to make.
I think that a further commercial development where there's large trucks particularly coming in at a grocery store was not what anybody anticipated.
I guess ROR allows those things anyway.
Not at the level that it would be at a grocery store. No.
I'm not sure you're right about that.
Well, I think your own office, uh exc excuse me, the Planning Board of County Commissioners the first one to say there is a difference between a cute little bakery and a public grocery store. And I think we can all
I
guess
I'll ask that what is the maximum FAR for Oh yeah.
I'm sorry.
I'm asking I'm asking Sto our stop a question. Does anybody know what the maximum FAR is for ROR?
Or the
application.
It's point six? Yep. And does anybody know what it is for comm?
Let's see.
So the flower ratio is the same for ROR and COM. So they allow the same amount of intensity in terms of commercial? Yeah. Okay, thank you.
So I think we can agree there's a difference though with there's some residential and retail space versus it all being commercial. That is the concern.
Well I think technically ROR only requires two uses. It could have been all office and c and commercial.
It could have been, but it also could have been residential and I think that's what people were saying, that it was tied to a residential community. It's very clear. I
I guarantee you there's no requirement that ROR have has to have a residential in it.
No, but it is po it is possible to be in there where that isn't the issue if it's all commercial, correct?
Technically it's even possible to have as a conditional use but there's certain circumstances where residential is allowed as a conditional use in C two.
Well I think what we're seeing here is how property is being rezoned all the time for development. So I certainly would agree with that point, yes.
I guess what my tr the point I'm trying to make to you is I'm not sure there's a material difference between the R O R R O R that was allowed previously and the comm that was allowed now.
I would have to only disagree with you only by the conversations that I've had with the Planning Board when I spoke to them.
Okay. Okay.
She gave me different information.
But I s did call your office to make you aware of that incorrect address the morning after that. I I think you're aware of that.
Well we I noticed it was changed in this one. It now says County Route fifty two. It was incorrectly posted before as State Route fifty two. Yes.
By the parcel identification, we all know where the property is.
Th there's a legal description that describes a property, it's separate from the address. Uh
correct. But isn't that part of the uh way so that we let the public know where a parcel is located by giving it the physical description? The physical description
was in the
right-of-way.
To be clear, when the board changes the zoning of a property, they're basing it on the parcel ID and legal description, not the address. Addresses sometimes can change over time.
So
this is a perfect example of where the address trains because the state gave the county this road. It's not Mr. Hobby's fault or his client's fault if the state gave The counting of this road.
No, I think that's a housekeeping and your attention to detail that you would have fixed that correctly before you submitted your paperwork.
But there's not a mystery here as to what property we're talking about.
Well there would be
a lot of the property.
It's not State Route fifty two, it's County Route fifty two. How
is that relevant to the land use that's going to go on?
So that we are talking about the same parcel, sir. That's all.
Yeah, correct. And the zoning map is up on the up on the screen. Yes, it is. And I just had C2 zoning since 1975. Yes. That's correct, original C2 zone. I just want to make sure I
understand. So is this should I take away my takeaway from this be that the planning board doesn't have accurate information when people call there to ask if something is zoned? residential or something like that, if they're told residential, that may not be accurate.
Well I suspect that you're gonna take away from this meeting anything that you want to take away, no matter what we say.
No, I I'd like to take away accurate information, Mr. Burke.
So ma'am, you keep referring to the planning board. First of all, there's I'm not sure what that is. There's the planning commission, which is this.
members but this is the planning commission.
Well the people that are responsible for a project is that your planning
so you're
talking about
planning staff?
Yes, your planning department, sir.
Okay, well this group has no way of knowing what our planning staff said, but I suspect what they probably did tell you is that it was ROR which is residential office retail. That's an accurate statement is what it used to be. Now as of Tuesday it's not anymore. It's calm.
Correct. But last month I was told it was all C two. So clearly that's the same thing.
Ratified by the Board of County Commissioners.
the taxpayer that's trying to get accurate information and that's really what I'm looking for here is some representation for taxpayers. How do they get accurate information?
By looking on the maps that you see the very maps that Denise has up on This is accessible to any member of the public. These maps.
Pasco
mapper. This is how everybody in the world tries to figure out when they want to know the zoning of any property in Pasco County, this is what they look at.
I spoke with a gentleman this morning from the county tax collector's office asking, and then I went from there and went to different offices to try to find out. Four different people told me this was agriculture. agriculturally zoned and it was still R and R O R you should just know that. So the taxpayer trying to do their due diligence is not getting Clear, concise information.
Ma'am, that's that's correct. The back portion of the parcel is agriculturally zoned and that's what we're hearing today is the rezoning of that back portion to be consistent with the zoning of the front portion.
That's what I was trying to the point I was trying to get across to you last month was that the information is not correct as to what it is. So now you're telling me it's C two and it's gonna be this and we're gonna get this pushed through.
Property is C2 today. That is
a
hacker's team
that's what you're improving to go through.
Let me try to help you a little bit. We can argue about whether information is accurate or inaccurate. You clearly have some objection to what's being proposed. We have to make a decision. It would be more helpful to us if you tell us what your objection is other than matters of semantics. If you find that this is not compatible with your neighborhood or this is in some way going to detract
from the value of your property, that's what you need to tell us. Telling me that somebody gave you some wrong information at the county isn't helping me make a decision.
I'm sorry that you've taken that and distilled that down to such a low level. When I stood up here I said I agree with that lady. Property values are affected, traffic, noise pollution, light pollution, everything is affected. That all should be taken into consideration.
And those are the arguments that I need to hear. I will take that under consideration.
Well I thank you for that and I do hope that it this is this board is a little more concise just for the average taxpayer to come up here and try to get information. It shouldn't have to be like pulling teeth. And when you give some information that's wrong, it would be nice to hear thank you very much for pointing that out, instead of saying, Well that was nothing.
So you're thinking that they should build a homes homes along fifty two, is that what you're thinking?
I think that if it was a residential mix.
Is that what you're thinking? Should they put homes long fifty two?
No, but I think that in that corner that was residential in ROR. Yes, that's what we all expected.
So you would buy a house on fifty two there?
So uh where I live now, I'm off at fifty two.
I said on fifty-two. This property's on fifty-two.
Obviously recess back, yes.
How far back?
I don't know sir. I'm not part of the zoning board. Should I go to the right-of-way?
Well you you seem to be giving us instructions on uh I'm not. I'm simply telling you that there was a project houses should be built on this property which fronts on fifty two. And I totally disagree. I don't think anybody's gonna buy a house on fifty two.
Well then why isn't that concisely stated? Do
you
understand
how much this whole area has changed?
Yes, I do, because there's not anybody on this board that's arrived here in the last five years. Believe me, I do understand.
Well I've been here a lot longer than five years.
Yes, sir, and that's what I'm saying. There's no representation on this board but for people that are just arriving here. Well
we'd like to if if you're a representation of of somebody that's been here for five years And you've already said that you knew that it was R O R R O R which includes residential. Which includes retail. Yes. Small retail. Then your argument is moot.
Thank you. Like I said, I just wanted to bring that to your attention that there is a general feeling that it's difficult to come here and get information from you. Thank you.
All right, is there anybody else that would like to speak? I thought
there were three people.
Just two.
There's just
two. Is that it?
Mr. Chairman Clark Hobby again. Uh I'll just get right to the point with David's stuff. We're satisfied that the notice was sufficient. This issue about state road, County Road 52. There are at least three ways to ascertain where the property is from the notices that were provided. And she's been at the other hearings and this one, so she clearly knows which property is at issue and other neighbors are here. So I'm not worried about that in the least. Again, just want to emphasize two quick things. All we're doing is filling in the little area there. I'm
not even adding any more entitlements and the board has now changed the future land use to COM, so we can't leave it at AR AR zoning. It's not even allowed anymore. Then the last thing to your point, Mr. Gray. This area is very close to the villages of Pasadena Hills, which is going to have tens of thousands of homes and millions of square feet of retail in close proximity to the site. But immediately south of it on now County Road 52, the Iafradi MPUD was approved a couple years
ago. It alone is approved for 340,000 square feet of commercial and 900 homes. So That's the the the area changing and this is not really materially changing since anything that was planted in nineteen seventy five. So
can I ask Mr. Hobbes the question? Yes, sir. So one of the other allegations, Mr. Hobby, was that this site should have a mixture of Residential and retail. What is the site and right behind the site? What is it?
Interesting you raised that. This was the the site to the north, which is thirty-nine acres, it's owned by what's called Belly Wadding LLC. Uh it was part of the original 62. acres that the Pittman and Massey families own. So this mixture of uses is effectively going to remain on what was the original parent parcel. But the southerly partial along fifty two has always been contemplated as commercial.
But if you look at the site as a whole, this corner, did it will have a mixture of residential and retail on it?
When you s uh oh uh including I Afrady and the and then the property to the north of the
this corner of the intersection. Right. It will have a mixture of retail and residential and they'll be interconnected with each other.
We're gonna be required by code to do that.
Okay. So it it will be a mixed use project, the same type of mixed use project that ROR would have allowed. Right. Okay.
Thank you. Yeah. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you.
All right. So uh any questions, any further questions from the day? If not, I like your motion. Move to approve item PC 12. Second. Motion and second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Most curious.
Okay, next.