Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) - CPAS24(09) Wrage Parcel – Providing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Maps (Map 2-15 and Sheet 14) Changing from RES-3 (Residential-3 DU/GA) to
What the county recorded
DispositionApproved
Approved the item per Staff’s recommendation.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Aug 22, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Aug 22, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 21m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 56% of 131 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Uh the next two items are going to be read by Ms. Lauren Flynn with Planning Services. Okay, thank you.
Hello. How are you selling? Can you give us your
name and for the record? Lauren Fling, Planner Two with um Planning Development and Economic Growth. The new acronym again. Um so I have two amendments that I'm bringing to you guys today. Um they are companion amendments and I wanted to give you guys both of them at the same time just because it gives you better background on what's happening. Um so the first one I'm gonna start off with is the comprehensive plan amendment. It is P D E twenty four zero three five four
um Rage Parcel or C Pass twenty four oh nine Rage parcel.
There we go. So the this amendment is going to be a flu change from res 3 to res 1. We're also going to be doing a couple map changes to ensure comprehensive plan consistency. So we're going to be changing map 2-22 urban service area, map 2-13 rural areas, map 2-18 south market area. and MAP 2-21 North Market area. The intent of this amendment is to allow for the development of an MRS, a minor rural
subdivision, to divide the 41-acre property into two different lots. And it's on Bellamy Brothers Road. uh north of the intersection with 52. So per the LDC, MRSs are only allowed on the AG, AGR and Res1 flu classification. So in order for the property to do an MRS, it needed to change to Res1. Um In order to do comprehensive plan consistency, we were removing it from the South Market area
and the urban service area. And we're adding it to the Northeast Rural Area and the North Market Area just to make sure everything's consistent within the comprehensive plan and the le land development code and we don't have any inconsistencies with visions for the for the area. Like I said at the beginning, there's a companion LDC amendment with this one to modify the Northeast Rural figures, 6041, 6042, and 6044 to add that 41-acre parcel to the Northeast Rural
area. The subject property is currently in the South Market area.
And this is our ARL. Uh it's 41 acres. Like I said, it's north of the intersection of State Road 52 and Bellamy Brothers Boulevard.
Uh existing future land use is res three. Proposed is res one.
This is the South Market Area map with the proposed removal. Of the forty one acre parcel.
This is the addition to map two-21, which is the north m market area.
And then we have the removal from the urban service area. It's technically in the urban expansion area of the urban service area. Um, but we are planning to remove it from there.
And we're adding it to rural area one or the northeast rural area.
So we find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies and closely aligns with the intent and the vision of the Res One flu and the policy flu one Policy fluid two one one northeast rural areas as it adds forty one rural acreage to the northeast rural area. And we recommend that you find the proposed amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan. That's the first one.
So quick question for you on this one, Lord. So certainly not opposed to it, but uh reading through the agenda memo, it's stating that we're gonna make them bring utilities over seven thousand feet up to the to the property. Is that correct?
I did see that. I'm not sure if utilities took into consideration that is the northeast rural area because in the northeast rural there isn't that requirement to or they the Vision of the northeast rule is to not have the uh central
Actually isn't there a comp plan policy that we won't extend utilities
into the northeast rural area?
That's what I thought because we're making and bringing it all the way up from fifty two, I I would guess if that was the
Right. I don't I don't believe utilities took it into consideration when they were looking at it. They probably just looked at the um
probably want to correct that in the agenda memo. I do have a related question to that
because I think if it had been Mm. A G I'm not sure utilities would have made that comment. But what was the decision 'cause I think they're only building two units, right? Or two units? Yeah,
they're only building two.
What was the reasoning for going to Res One as opposed to A G or A G R.
Um, I think the argument there was just that it was a low a lower jump. Um, I don't think there was a And probab maybe the lot sizes, but I know that even with A G or A G R you would still be in within that lot requirement because I believe A G R is five acre lots and A G is ten acre lots.
I'm curious. Why the need?
We're going to split this it's a forty-one acre parcel into two parcels.
Correct.
Why the need for an MRS subdivision?
Yeah, so they did not qualify for the one free split with the parent parcel, so the only uh the easiest option was the MRS
subscribe. We might have missed one.
So lots greater than or equal to twenty acres within res one and res three. If you go to LDC seven hundred point three, if you're making a twenty acre lot split in the Res One or Res III land use category, you're exempt from plotting.
Mm. I was going by the recommendations given at the pre-app meeting from zoning and also from the tech team and they all recommended the MRS for the the client.
I'm I'm not opposed to doing this or putting into the northeast rural, but this just seems like a long way to go. They were exempt and we just We went through this with Something Mr. Gray and I worked on together earlier in the year. Same thing.
Right.
Patrick, anybody can you address that? Why they're doing an MRS as opposed to proceeding under an exempt.
Well they don't need to. They're exempt. They can go split it, they can go record this at the property appraiser this afternoon without us doing anything.
Yeah, j I'm just playing a little bit of cut Just playing a little bit of catch up on this one. Um not quite sure. Yes that exemption exists. Um I I haven't specifically looked at this project, so I don't know if I can give you my answer right now.
Unless one of the lots they're doing is going to be less than twenty acres. That would be the same. But we don't know.
The other question is you said they didn't this was the third parcel
what was the size of the previous split, because a split of forty acres in the res one or res three would have been exempt as well. These all would have been exempt splits.
Yeah, well I mean sure. I think there's a few code exemptions that you could have relied upon for that initial split. Usually the the one that is it's pursued is if you're a parent parcel, you get your one free split. That's what everyone hangs their hat on. Um then outside of that there are other exemptions that could apply, which I think we have to do.
Calling that a first split, it was an exempt split to begin with. Sure. And I've already had this discussion with Mr. Steinsnyder on another project.
Okay. Yeah. I I again don't know too much about the project, um, but I think it's you're raising very valid points and something we should potentially talk about.
Again, I don't have any objection to this or putting something in the northeast rural Just Curiosity question, what's the application fleet fee for a comp plan amendment? I mean They gotta hire land use attorneys and pay application fees and For no reason. Mm. And delays, time.
Well I would also add that Generally we try to discourage them The res one flu 'cause it's considered like a sprawl Land use category. Typically We either want it to be urban level development, res three and higher or rural, not
We generally discourage the p proliferation of more res one.
Yeah, I think the main reason we did res one was because of the surrounding res one in the area. The res one also helped get into the northeast rural area. So it is that more rural residential. classification, but still technically residential. But I didn't know if our applicant was on.
Were we able to get an answer?
I mean if the if they say that they want to do something smaller than twenty acres then
Then
agree. Then there's pro then that's probably the proper thing of what they had to do. Does anybody know?
Well My personal opinion is We're here and there's no need to hold them up, but if they want to not go forward to a county commission meeting and then rezoning or whatever else comes next after
A minor rural subdivision is still a subdivision. I mean there's still Then Patrick could probably explain. I mean, it's not like it's No work to go through minor rural subdivision.
I agreed. to do an MRS they have to submit a preliminary development plan to development and review. So there's even more cost and you're gonna hire an engineer to do that and
Oh yeah, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
Is the applicant on?
Yeah, so Len Johnson is the um one of the attorneys with the applicant. So I was just gonna ask them if with this MRS were you guys planning on doing a lot sizes that were less than twenty one acres? Or twenty acres, I believe.
Can can you hear me?
Yes, yes.
Hey, yes, this this is Lynn Johnson, uh Johnson Pope Law Firm 400 North Ashley uh suite thirty one hundred in Tampa. Uh Mr Johnson we're Mr.
Johnson,
well
I'm sorry, I need to swear you first before you we give the testimony. So if you could be sworn please.
Yes,
sir. I trust you're raising your right hand, so I am. Do
you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth? So help you God.
I certainly do, yes.
Here we go.
Uh i if you look back at the at the history of this, uh you know, I kinda feel like at at this point we've been banging our head. We Uh we thought there had to be a simpler way to do this. The the answer to your first question is there was no intention of doing anything but splitting into two lots. It one one already exists, there's one house already there. The whole purpose behind this was to allow
uh our client's son and his family to build another house on this 41 acres. We had the approach initially, I thought this would be a parent tract. uh and we really wouldn't have to do anything. We had multiple uh meetings and correspondence back and forth with the staff and were assured that that wasn't workable, that the uh there had been a prior split
of a parcel to the south. and that we could not otherwise split it without going through this process. And and that's why we're here. And if we if we can, then uh we'd just be delighted to do that.
Well, can you answer the question of what your lot sizes will be?
There's there's no intention to do anything uh but two lots uh of twenty plus acres.
Okay. And I would actually say that that's actually a moot point because if this last split was forty acres, it was an exempt split, it didn't count. So this would still be a split of a parent this would still be a parent parcel, which he can split one time anyway. Mm-hmm.
And I and I'll t I'll tell you we were advised uh otherwise uh by staff along the way.
Putting aside that issue 'cause apparently that has that discussion has occurred and apparently somebody determined it It didn't qualify as a parent parcel, but I I guess I'd like to hear the answer from anybody who to explain why they didn't proceed under the twenty acre Exemption.
I don't think it's a
pretty clear. I mean, Mr. Moody made some very good points. Is lots greater than or equal to twenty acres within the the res one and res three Flu or exempt. The applicant saying they're doing lots. That are greater equal to or greater than twenty acres.
Yeah, I mean there's a very good chance that maybe we we didn't catch that in the review, um, which is possible. Um and I'm sure we could like take a closer look at that uh after this meeting to see if that is an exemption that can absolutely take in advantage of. Maybe this maybe there's something we're not thinking of. Um assuming that is confirmed then
I I would think that this probably isn't needed.
Too indie. can
we recommend this for approval and have them check it so that don't hold
it?
foul for us. It's only that they've had to the The poor owners had to hire Mister Johnson here and pay the fees and suffer the delay and I guess what I would say to Staff. Because Mr. Gray and I have already had this discussion, please speak with County Attorney Stein Snyder, who's an expert here in the plating laws or plating rules in our county And he can explain this to you. when
when things are exempt and w what still qualifies as a parent parcel, because we've seen this now happen on more than one occasion.
Well you know I think um Mm-mm. These are m mistakes that can happen. I mean nobody's perfect and but I do think there's a there are some things we should think about and in terms of what to do here. If we approve it, they're gonna have to go f go forward to the to the county commission go through the process, right? They don't have to they can withdraw it,
can't they?
Yeah, but they also have paid a fee. Yes.
Well I will say that the even if It does get changed to res one. And gets out of the northeast rural. That exemption still applies even if it's res one?
Yes.
So I'm not sure that they're any worse off. I mean, other than they downplanned the property, but I mean Well,
right, but
presumably they wanna okay with that.
They would be if if we went forward with the procedure on the table they're giving up a future land use entitlement that they may or may not want to or may regret giving up sometime in the future. I'm sure the people in the northeast Rural Pasco area would be happier that we're putting land back in. Right. Right. I mean that's clearly that's a decision that they'll have to make with their council.
Yeah, I I mean they could always withdraw the application. My only point is that The exemption you point out would apply also apply if it was res one.
Yes.
So I'm from a plating standpoint, I'm not sure they're any worse off if it gets changed around one. I get your point. that they may
be
losing overall density,
but it Well again that's that's something they can work out privately with counsel.
And I'm not saying it's a you know, listen, mistakes happen. I understand, I agree with Mr. Gray, but I just but we need to remember that these proceedings are costly. They're time consuming and they're costly and So we just hate to see. Someone's not going to be able to do that You know, throw money throw good money after bad, as they say.
Yeah, I mean I personally I'd just like to Yeah, I think we need the show some consideration as a county for if we do make a mistake and we can make a consideration is at least re it at least uh refund their application fee. Is
that possible, David? It is, but that's not a call I can make. Patrick may have that authority now. I don't know with his new position.
So we're we're reading through the exemptions piece of the code right now, just time to wrap our heads around a little bit. Um Amy point points out that the code section that we're relying on right now, the introduction to that is uh divisions of agriculturally or residentially zoned parent parcels into but this parcel has already had its split, therefore is not a parent parcel.
I understand that, but in their future land use category, this parcel is forty-one acres. So it would have been a split greater than twenty acres. Therefore it was that split was an exempt split as well.
But that parcel that was split I think was ten acres.
Yeah,
it's just that ten acre piece.
If it was a ten-acre split, I would agree with you it's not exempt. But right now I thought this was entire parcel was forty.
Forty one acres.
But I think they're saying originally.
I see. So you're saying that this was originally a fifty acre parcel and ten was smaller? Maybe that's what I'm
saying, yeah.
Then I
would agree with you about that. So they do uh they do have a lot that was split to something less than twenty.
So uh again I I wish I had the the ready book so I could see it. Um but I believe it was that fifty acres they split off that ten that Patty has highlighted there, um, which basically made them not a parent parcel anymore. And then if you're trying to retroactively apply this parent parcel, I don't think you can. This the split fact. Sure.
All right. Then do I have a motion?
I'll make a motion.
We're voting on one or two. All of them are proposed.
We're just voting on PC four, right?
Yes.
Well they're tied together.
Well one's on consent and the other one is the other one on consent too?
No it's a L D C and then.
Motion to approve PC four.
Second.
Okay. And Like sign in the negative? Anyone? No. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Very good.
Yeah.