Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Consent) – CPAS24(19) Blanton Road MRS – Providing for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (2-15 and Sheet 08) Changing from AG/R (Agricultural/Rural) to
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, Aug 7, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 58m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 63% of 295 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Uh good afternoon. My name is Scott Modiset. I'm with uh Planning, Development and Economic Growth. I'm new here, you've probably never seen me before. I think I saw you all at Florida Cracker having some lunch uh earlier today. Um I'd just like to um go through this is um item item uh CPAS twenty four nineteen Sablanton Road minor rural subdivision
Can I can I hold you up just one second? Yes,
sir.
We had a motion of consent, but I don't think we actually got a voice vote. We didn't vote. Okay. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign? Okay.
Okay. I'll continue. Thank you, sir. Would you
start all over, please? Start with the part where we don't know you.
Nice to be here today. Um as I mentioned, this is CPAS twenty-four nineteen. Um it's CPAS Blanton Road Minor Rural Subdivision. Um the proposal is a comprehensive plan amendment for small scale um from AGR agricultural rural to residential one, uh which was one dwelling unit per Per acre. The purpose is to allow for a development of a minor rural subdivision with lot sizes of no less than 2.5
acres. And uh there's one small parcel, I'm not gonna read the parcel number for you, but it's uh one point seven acres um that will be left undeveloped. Um and it's located north, uh well it's it's about 20 acres, 19.69 acres total. It's located north on the north side of Blanton Road, approximately 25 or 2100 feet east of the intersection of Blanton Road and Trilbury Road, just a little bit north northeast
of here. And there is a sub-area policy attached to it which limits a lot of the development and makes sure that it uh maintains the characteristics of a minor role subdivision. being sought. Um and I'll go through the sub-area policy in just a moment. Uh this is the general location. It's located in the North Market area.
Um this is the parcel of Landon Road and Trilby. This is an aerial, and to give you a little bit of context, there's some residential near it. There's going into Dade City and it's kind of acts as a transition between the agricultural lands to the north and the low density and medium density residential to the south. Um The transportation network, there's
the Orange Belt Trail Pending Alignment, which is a 12 foot multi-use path that's planned for the south side of Blanton Road. Um This is the existing future land use AGR. As you can see there's some residential to the south, agricultural to the north. Um this is the proposed future f future land use to residential one. Um the uh the sub-area policy
is an important component of this uh in that it limits the uh development to two and a half minimum two and a half acre lots. Um really under Res One, the uh the applicant could ha go with one unit per acre, but they are maintaining the the minor role subdivision or they're seeking the minor role subdivision, so they're staying within those those requirements. As you can see
the density uh there's no density increase uh from what would have been allowed under res one. And uh we've also taken into account in the sub-area LDC 604 compliance. uh to protect the uh Northeast Pasco Rural Protection Overlay District. And um And then also the rural scenic roadway is identified in the sub-area policy as well to maintain those characteristics.
This is the non-binding exceptional site plan that's provided by the applicant. I don't know if you can make out the lots. I guess y'all can see it on your screens there. That's what they're proposing with the retention pond to the south. It's six lots to be developed with one entryway and then kind of a across with uh with two cul-de-sacks at the end.
Um The proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies that we've reviewed.
And we recommend that the local planning agency find the comprehensive plan the uh proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh and I understand there's some some additional discussion that's to follow. So thank you. Thank you. If you have any questions that we have any questions,
I have a couple of questions. Can you go back? To the sub-area policy for a second. And thank you for having the site plan, because that wasn't in our packet, and I was curious about that. See how I get back. Okay, where I'm confused.
Can you hear me now? Okay. Um where I am confused is that in the proposed sub area policy It says that the minimum lot size is two and a half acres, but the density is ten dwelling units.
Uh nineteen point seven six acres divided by two and a half is not ten. Right. So that's what I'm tr I was confused about that. And then the other question that I have is Is there going to be a companion rezoning to this comp plan amendment?
Uh no, there is not a
companion rezoning. Okay, then can staff explain so the if I remember correctly the current Zoning designation was A C. Is that right?
Uh the zoning?
Where I'm going with that is that in the A C zoning district the maximum density is point one dwelling units per acre. Which is one tenth of what the allowable density is here. So I'm trying to figure out if we are Are we creating a conflict zoning by changing this land use.
What's
We see David thinking about it.
I need a staff to address it because there could be a companion rezoning where that wouldn't happen, but I Right.
I think it's the last one.
That's
why I asked the question.
So I think I can try to Clarify. Um The sub the reason there's a sub area policy is because it's limiting the number of dwelling units that can actually be built on the site to ten. Um Uh the actual
It's A
C
and R two.
Um I forgot where I was going with this now. Sorry.
Reverse.
Hold on. Do you have this type of club?
You don't have to step
reporting.
I'm sorry.
So the sub-area policy is limiting the density to ten dwelling units to remain consistent with the density permitted under the existing AGR? Um Flu. uh ensure compatibility with the Northeast Pasco rural area and require the development to subdivide. um with the uh minor rural subdivision. It's the the number of units does not relate to the actual acreage that's being limited because the the amendment is to res one, which is one dwelling unit per acre. But here we're
trying to get larger lots greater than one acre. It's two and a half acres. So so the sub-area policy is essentially lim establishing the minimum lot size at two and a half acres.
Right, but then how do you come up with ten? If it was they've got approximately twenty acres. So if we were establishing density in accordance with res one, that would be twenty. And if we have a minimum two and a half acre lots, as Chairman Gray said, that would be eight. So I was confused about where the number ten comes from.
A ma it's a maximum of ten? Oh that's what that's why you need right now.
Um
One
volume for five accounts.
And then if there's no companion rezoning, then we have a zoning district which is in conflict with the land use and sub-area policy.
So th that's what the sub area policy is doing. So there's a there's a The subject property has an existing flu of AGR, which allows one dwelling unit per five and would permit a maximum of ten. That's what the current flu is. So the sub-area policy is essentially saying we'll change this to a res one to enable the minor rural subdivision, but Maintain the AGR flu. Density.
Terry, how you said the parcel is twenty acres and AGR allows one unit per five acres? How are you getting ten?
That would be four.
Right.
Right.
Yeah, there's a statement in the in the overview, the project overview, that says this is not a density increase. Well I don't know how it's not a density increase. If right now they're only entitled to four.
Yeah.
Five
acres.
And it's not yeah, it's not even twenty acres, it's nineteen point something.
Nineteen point seven six
I don't I can't follow the in the memorandum I can't follow the project overview description. There it talks about densities in there and I
Don't know where they got those numbers.
So yes, generally this amendment would increase the density to a maximum of twenty residential units under the res one flu. However, the applicant is proposing a several policy that will ensure that it all remains at the existing density. Um which is set.
But the existing density if it's one unit per five acres would only allow for four lots and I'm looking at this site plan and there's six lots notwithstanding the one point seven eight acre parcel.
So that the apple can see
the uh behind the
We'll let the applicant address the question.
You give it your name and address please and you've been sworn.
Yes, sir. I have been sworn. My name is Jarr Sparby. Uh address [address removed]. Um I I think what the confusion here is is um So a minor rural subdivision's max units uh uh per subdivision is ten based off the land development code. So that's where the ten I believe came from originally. But what we originally proposed was um
was the land use amendments to res one. But we through the process of meeting with the the public through our neighborhood meeting and talking with staff we decided that we would propose to to the to do this sub-area policy to restrict the overall lots to two and a half acres in size, excluding the one existing parcel which had previously been platted as part of the Blanton Lake Park subdivision. to the south and to leave that as existing.
There would be a subsequent rezoning applied for um for these properties uh if this were to go forward and and you all were to approve it. So yes, there there should be no inconsistency at that time. We're we're trying to change the the land use um and then if this goes well then we would apply for a rezoning to AR.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah, no, I think that's a good thing.
Because I asked was there a companion rezoning application and they said no, but it is your intent to rezon it to
understand that under A C you would have a conflict. Yes,
sir. Okay. We just didn't want to push both at the same time to we wanted to but I
am still confused regarding the maximum density. How can we have a maximum density of ten if we have a minimum lot size of two and a half on less than twenty acres?
I was slightly confused with the language that was in the sub area policy um as well. I thought We were just simply saying on a max amount of units that could possibly d be developed within Tyree within the entire sub-area, which that would be seven based off of what we've come together as a concept plan. We have not hired a an engineer to fully design the subdivision, but then
would you object to changing the sub-area policy?
No, sir,
I would not. And change the allowable density to seven.
Yes, sir. I mean maybe we w it wouldn't say density but total units allowed to be developed and I think that clears it all up. I agree. As far as from that perspective,
I would agree with you that would clear up any ambiguity in my mind.
Is there any intention to develop that triangular piece that 1.7
it it would just have one single family home on it? As I had mentioned before, it was previously platted and had I believe like eight or nine lots that would have been part of the development to the south and then Blanton Road come through. And that part never actually got developed. So the intention of the owner would be to just allow one home there with an access off of this new drive that would be created for the subdivision so there wouldn't be any other cuts that would be onto Blanton Road and would
keep down any conflict.
So effectively we're talking about seven lots and in that in the
In in the whole in the entire sub area, yes sir.
Okay, is that clear,
everybody?
Anything thank you. All right, no problems.
Very helpful.
Terry, anything else?
Mm-hmm.
I don't
If you all have any other questions, otherwise no. Okay.
Any questions?
No, um
that applicant was helpful.
Okay, thank you.
All right. So who else would like to speak on this one?
Uh Mr. Chairman the first individual I have signed up to speak is a Randy Spanhauer. I'm sorry if I butchered your name and the next is Mr. James Navarro after Randy.
Okay. The next person is welcome to come up front and sit down.
Y'all hear me all right?
Yes.
All right. Um do I have to push a go button or what? No, no, no, no, it explodes. Sorry guys, I've never done this before. Um sixty-nine years I've lived in this county. Yeah the changes but I've seen. I'm out there in Blanton right now. And I'm seeing what's going on just on the other side of the county line. Knowing that's gonna happen. I'm seeing what's going on up on Trilby Road. No one what What's
gonna happen up there? We're in a rural overlay area. That was designated a long time ago. That little subdivision just on the other side of the road from this piece of property they want to develop. was put in there before the rural overlay. No. You guys have a big responsibility. and I respect every one of you for your choices that you make, even though I don't agree with a whole lot of 'em. I've
watched this place go from cow pastures and orange groves to houses. Nobody likes that. But the county commissioners. I'm gonna recommend we had a little public meeting at the church out there in Trilby. Every yeah every one of these seats in this place would have been filled If this meeting was on seven thirty at night. I understand you guys work during the day.
Like everybody else. And people that can't be here is the ones I'm representing. Because there's hundreds of in that community that say we do not want this Number one, we don't trust the people. They told us that the county commissioners made them divide it into ten. Ron Oakley called and said No we ain't. Disseminetti or whatever her name is knows
there's options for this piece of property. that they can accomplish what they say they want to do. without having it divided up into all these parcels. There are options And I recommend that you don't approve it. Because public outcry is against it and I appreciate y'all listening to me.
Let me just make sure I understand what you're
object I don't hear very well.
Just want to make sure that we all understand what you're objecting to. They want to do two and a half acre parcels. Is that objec objec objectionable to you? They're gonna do seven, two and a half acre parcels.
Yeah, that's exactly what they want to do on on nineteen point six acres. Okay,
and you that's what you don't want.
Pardon me?
That's what you do not want.
That's what we do not want. Okay. If they want to build three houses up there like they say they want to do That's not a problem. But if you look at the adjoining properties, you look at Highland Farms There's I don't know how big those pieces of property are on Highland Farms, but they're like at least five acres. Per Yeah. And all the Highland Farm people don't want it. All the neighbors don't want it. All the people that are adjoining property don't
want it. We had over a hundred people at the community meeting And not one person stood up to say That's a great idea. So Everybody was against it. Everybody in the neighborhood's against it. And the way you eat an elephant. is one bite at a time. And if that little piece gets into the rural overlay then the next piece gets into the rural overlay. And pretty soon
Blanton is Wesley Chapel or Maraudha or Epperson.
Are you Saying you'd be okay if they were five acre parcels, you're just not okay if they're two and a half acre parcels?
I would suggest um if they've got If they've got nineteen point six acres, five acres parcels would be good.
Okay, I just want to make sure I understand you. And I think the clerk was trying to get your name and address for the record, sir.
My name and address. Name and address for the record. Pardon me? Okay, my name is Randy Spain Hour. I live at [address removed]. Mm in Dade City but it in Bland.
All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right.
Bayon guys.
All right. All right. Yeah. Uh my name is James Navarro Senior. I live at [address removed]. And I live adjoining that subdivision that's going on now. Um I'm not gonna bring any data other than to tell you what I lived through wh while I'm living on that property right now. I have to have a
Culligan system With four tanks. to filtrate the water. I don't I understand there are engineers that are going through And saying, hey, you know I didn't I don't even know how many units they are planning. Is it six or seven? Well it's it's laid out for six. It's it's laid out for six, but they're coming back with seven.
Well there's an extra piece that they just want to put one house on. So
it's seven.
So there's a left over piece, yeah, out by the road.
So in other words, uh we we're talking about here more uh use of water And as I understand it, with the subdivision comes paving, is am I correct in saying that?
Yes. Yes, sir.
So we're gonna get more runoff. Yeah, they say they have retention, but right now Myself and even the neighbor across the street from us, he lives at uh [address removed], he's complaining 'cause he's getting runoff coming from the actual street. into his property and causing flooding. On top of that. But Mm- our problem with the subdivision is that as uh Randy was saying, we
were at the meeting and it was a very heated discussion. regarding the amount of parcels that they're wanting to put in. I think a fair use of the property would entail maybe four Maybe five units. Uh certainly two and a half acre minimum um at this point increases it to six units. I think Uh the five acres as
it was zoned originally as an agricultural conservation or was a much better approach to it. They wanna build I understand they wanna build a a family compound, but In today's day and age, families just The kids just go away. My concern as a person that's living next door is that first with the water Second, with the amount of traffic coming
through Blaton Road right now. is a dangerous spot. Talk to, if you don't believe me, talk to uh uh waste connections. They had to adjust their uh pickups. because it's so dangerous. There's accidents on there. You're going to have You know it as well, I if we have six, seven units, that's two car Two c um Go ahead. Can I get an extension please? Go ahead and we have uh two
cars per family. That's an additional fourteen vehicles coming down and it is on the crest of of Wanton Road. We're on the downside and constantly The traffic coming over that hill is going to be dangerous. Over and above that, I understand that they want to do you know, a family uh kind of situation. But this doesn't smell like family. This smells like they're going to not move up here.
They're going to Put in the right-of-way. and sell the units for outright. So My concern for you guys is think about it. Please be fair to both parties and if you can limit the number of units, we don't have a problem with them using it as an agricultural. We just don't want The same thing that's happening throughout this county. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for being here.
Hello again, Nancy Hazel at [address removed]. I've got a jumble of notes, but I did label them one, two, three, so that might help. First off, I'm gonna ask why when they put the legal notice in
Nancy, you did say your your address. I didn't hear you say it. She did. She did. Yeah, I did you okay.
She's been here enough we all know it by her.
Yeah.
In the legal notes, it referred to as the Northeast Rural Protected Area Plan. You could have had more people here. If some people don't realize this is in there. What happens on one side is gonna happen on the other side. So that's point number one. Um to the neighborhood meeting. It was well attended. And we were kind of sympathetic to the applicant because he did want to make a compound and have his family there. Said
he wanted to move out here because it it was peaceful and quiet. And we pointed out to him if he went with the densities he was talking about, he's killing what he's moving out here for. So
I think there are other ways to do this. You've got a new project out, a new ordinance out on ADUs, accessory dwelling units. I believe that goes up to eleven hundred Um feet. And if they want to do this at a much more moderate amount of units, they could add the ADUs. So I I think that's an option. But I would think the county has other options
in their rather than change the land use. And that brings me about roundabout to my biggest point on this, is changing the land use in Northeast Rural is a big problem. Especially right in the center of it. I know you've got that old place across the way that was grandfathered down's probably six per acre, but that was grandfather den it shouldn't count whatsoever. Uh Up near on Bayhead Road. Up
near oh what's the name of that? Bellamy Brothers Road, which is our West Boundary. We have Bayhead Landings. And that's really a nicely done subdivision. But and it is lar smaller lots. But that's by our Our boundary. We need a transition area that we've asked for time and time again and nobody's given it to us. And here you've got the
highest that's allowed in northeast rural and you want to put it in the middle of northeast rural instead of the edge, instead of our boundary. So putting this right in the middle is gonna start the precedent of everybody else around there saying, Oh, well we can do this.
That's the biggest problem I see with this. If this goes down then you're gonna have a slow slippery s slope of everything out and everybody around it, there's already two people with for sale signs up there. Thank y'all.
All right. Thank you, Nancy.
Thank you. Um my name is Sharon Hannah West. I live at [address removed], also in the Blanton area, very, very close to this property.
And you've been sworn, right?
Uh I will.
Oh, I thought you did. Okay.
Okay.
Um not to echo everybody's point, but really to do that. Uh I think the biggest concern that we have here is the protection of the Northeast Rural Area. Years ago, many of us worked very, very hard. It took four and a half years with a multi-stakeholder process, many charreds. Lots of involvement and the plan was sent up to the state for approval. It was lauded at that time as one of its kind. Um Most
importantly because of all the participation that went into it. It wasn't a lot yes, there were people there who wanted no growth, but Everybody knew that the best we could hope for was to have some kind of a voice into what that growth would look like. So that's what the Northeast Rural Protection Plan is all about. I think right now what's happening is it's starting to die the death of a thousand cots. Uh everyone that comes in and Takes a parcel out of it, Changes the density on that parcel.
creates a problem. And as Nancy said, doing it to this piece could be a major problem. The whole issue of precedent, something I know a lot about. I taught law for thirty years, business law. It's easy to come in and say, Well, you did it for somebody, I'm next door and now I can sue you. Will they be successful? I don't know, but they're gonna make your life miserable and they're gonna cost the county lots of money. And it's something frankly I would do. I think if I had a vested interest to the contrary, but instead a lot
of us really love this area. We moved there. um for its rural character. When we see it change, it's painful. And I for one, you know, I uh offer was on the table with a discussion a couple of weeks ago. Um, well, why don't we just, you know, in your area, um, maybe go for One to five instead of one to ten. I said, I'm gonna shoot myself in the foot here and say, no, that is not what we want. Please, please, please. Hold. the
density back because it's eroding. You have the power to at least make a recommendation to do that. We implore that you do.
Thank you.
Okay, is there anybody else? If not, the applicant can come forward. Oh, that's right. Yeah, you want to speak? You gotta be quick around here.
The thunder
sworn.
Ha ha.
Do you swear or for the testimony about James Truth? I do.
Name and address please. Hi. My name's Paul Gandolphi. Uh my wife and I have ten acres just north of the subject property. I want to correct something that said earlier on. The uh Orange Belt Trail is not scheduled or planned for Blandon Road. That was cancelled. So That should not be a factor in your decision. Um The only thing I notice on here is they're wanting home sites of two and a half acres. With
a uh Was it the Res One zoning? If they want two and a half acres, why don't they go for ER two, which would then limit them to two and a half acres? Right now if they go with Res1, they can at any time in the future double the density. And they'd be perfectly entitled to do that. So please consider that. Think of the people you represent. and uh I wish you well. Thank you. I wanted to point out to you that
This all goes to my earlier line of question because that was why I was questioning when it said ten units in the sub area policy was the allowed density to try to make sure that if you actually want two and a half acres and we're going to limit it to seven that you can't come back later and ask for ten, so we are um I'm trying to keep the guard up for that. Watching out. Okay,
you have a question?
No, I just wanted you to understand that that's why I asked those questions before we are actually watching out for that.
Okay, thank you very much.
All right, Terry.
Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano to uh address the earlier issue and to correct the staff memo that was submitted. It is indeed AGR at one dwelling unit per five acres, which would render Hey four unit on the AGR future land use um category. Um I think what happened there was the the the math got mixed. Um the sub area policy is requiring two and a half lots, which is half of the five And so when the res one calculation
is made at twenty units. One per per acre, right? Um the half went to ten. So the math was a little mixed. But it is indeed the case that it is um four units on the AGR. And so um that that'll help correct uh the issue that's present in the agenda memo. We'll fix it for the Board of County Commissioners. Um the last thing that I would just note is that If we can put the maps back on the overhead.
Um this is this is our presentation.
Uh so this map is uh so showing the r future land use for the subject property outlined in the black outline there as res one. Um you'll note a you'll notice that to the south
If this decides to work, doesn't work. Okay. Um okay.
There we are. To the south, this is a res six that currently exists within the northeast Pasco County Rural Area. And then to the south of that is additional Res One. So this is all existing. And the one thing that I just wanted to mention is that the Res One future land use is a consistent future land use with the northeast Pasco County rural area. It is considered in the rural area as a rural flu. So um Just want to raise the subject that
it's not quite in it is in the middle geographically of northeast Pasco County, but already it exists there.
Okay.
Thank you, Terry.
I'm sorry, we've already gone past that.
Hey, thank you. Uh Jared Barby here again. Um so I wrote down a few things that that were gone through um I did want to just also um you know f say that the land development code in the minor rural subdivision process contemplates the residential one being allowed in that minor rural subdivision type and caps it at those ten lots per any subdivision,
whether it be a hundred-acre parcel or a twenty-acre parcel or a fifty-acre parcel. So the original intent, what we brought to the neighbors, was a plan in the neighborhood meeting. We originally showed nine lots within the new uh portion of residential subdivision which is the northern parcel and retaining the existing parcel at the at the same size. So what we have done since the neighborhood meeting and now was changed all of the lots on the northern parcel to be two and a half acres
or larger and I believe the largest parcel on that is about three point one four, three point one five acres, which we have uh used as a buffer against Mr. Navarro's property. So we've we've tried to take some of these concerns into consideration to to show that we are listen listening and we do sympathize. Um But we're just here to you know t to propose our change and you know, t speak our case.
Um we we are also have shown through Um through my submitted narrative and other processes, uh several other policies which talk about not expanding uh public utilities in the area. So we're proposing another project we're proposing this project here to be on well and septic to not extend any utilities. So we're not trying to provide um an urban nature of public services. So we're
what we're trying to do is provide something that's rural in character.
with these two and a half acre parcels and be able to develop that existing parcel with just one home and still be less than that threshold as required in the land development code for the minor rural subdivision. So I would be happy to work with staff to help button down the sub-area policy to put those maximum amount of units as seven is what we've we've drawn up of what
would fit here with the six being in the new minor rural subdivision and one in that existing parcel. Um and would be willing, you know, to do anything else uh that that we could to to try to help facilitate this. Um and I'd be happy to answer any questions if
so
Is there any truth we've we've heard a couple of the residents come up and speak to that this is gonna be a family compound?
Well so there is there are three parties. Um one is a family and his daughter and the other is a a very, very close family friend, and they had all intended on building a home up here and then the remainder of the lots to be assigned to their heirs um so they would have an opportunity to also live there close. Uh we did not we did not and cannot apply for a limited family lot division because they
are not direct um relatives you know They're not directly related due to the other party being involved of possibly living in there. But that that is the intent and that
can you go back through that again? So you got a family and then they've got another party that wants to live there.
Correct. So it's they're they're very they're very close friends and and they have had this idea. to to come up here and build a small subdivision for them and their families, but they're not directly related families. So it can't so we could not apply for a limited family lot division process subdivision type. So that's why the minor rural subdivision type was chosen initially.
and the unrelated party Is it just one unrelated party or the unrelated party and their family member?
Well i I mean it's the one unrelated party's family which would be him, his wife and his children. So not like his also his brothers and his sisters. So it's uh the the trust that owns this um property is Mr Fernando Romero and he would like to give a lot to his daughter and their children. and then also his very close friend, Cotton Lowe, and Leah Lowe, Would
would have a lot there as well. But only one lot for the
unrelated
Uh as far as far as I know for sure, one lot for for their family, but I think he would leave it open to his his sons and to be able to possibly get a lot within the same subdivision as well. I'm gonna ask the county attorney a couple of questions. No problem, sir.
Is the the main parcel. We're dealing with two parcels. Is the main parcel a parent parcel which could be split?
And where I'm going with this David is it seems like maybe the problem can be solved. in that if this is a parent parcel which can be split then the one split-off parcel can go to the unrelated party and then they can use the limited family lot division on the remaining piece which they keep for themselves.
Maybe, but I don't know the date. I don't know what prior splits have occurred and maybe Patrick Dutter or somebody from staff can answer that question. I don't know. I don't have enough facts to answer your question. I don't know.
I don't know the prior s didn't part of that come from the parcel right below it. So that that triangle right below it was par originally part of that one, wasn't it?
Uh Patrick Dutter, Planning, Development, Economic Growth. Um I do not know off the top of my head if this is a parent parcel. I'd have to look into the 3D maps to figure that out. So I could go take a look real quick. Give me a minute or
two. Well I guess, Patrick, who were they dealing with when they decided putting aside the Plan Amendment rezoning stuff? When somebody was advising them to pursue the MRS
Was the concept that Mr. Moody just talked about explored or no?
J Jarris, I don't remember who you
spoke with. No, so uh we never explored the limited family lot division or that type of split ever because of you know, them having two families related together doing it.
You split the property And then for the bigger piece that the family wants to use for its compound, then they can use the limited family lot division process. However And you may have to come in here for a rezoning because if to do a limited family lot division, the lots that you create Still must comply with the zoning and future land use categories.
And the reason I'm asking you if you would consider that. is I think one of the fears I'm hearing from the neighbors is that they're just going to develop a subdivision and then put the lots up for sale like any other developer in the family, not actually move in there and use it as the The compound. So what I'm suggesting is if you use that method that would assuage their fears. I don't but I think you have to have the facts and we need to know whether it
or not that's a parent parcel which can
be
split without plat.
Understood, sir. I I do not believe it to be a parent parcel. Um number one. I I'm not exactly a hundred percent sure um because that that is a call that the the county makes. Um Well it's however
just need to know if it was a lot of record on or before a certain date.
However, I I do not believe that the desired total amount of lots would be able to be reached through that method without this type of change because it we would be restricted to three. Now and also the other question about why wasn't the parcel to the south included within this subdivision. We we did not include that portion because it was that previously platted
subdivision and what we are just proposing to do is to just have one house and not utilize that plat to add this portion to the to the northern parcel, we would have to vacate that plat. and also vacate the right-of-way in between the two parcels, which we are planning on proposing to vacate that right-of-way if it's in the county's interest to be added back to the southern parcel, which would make that southern parcel even slightly
larger than what it does exist today. But that those are some of the uh nuances of why it wasn't originally contemplated. If if that Answers don't have anything.
And just to confirm what Mr. Barbie said, um limited family lot divisions are restricted to AG and AGR future land use. So for them to get
isn't that what we have right now?
We have right now, but I think for the to get six lots.
I didn't hear the need for six lots.
Didn't he hear the need for six lots? I heard a family I heard a ha a family and a daughter and maybe I didn't hear it, but I didn't hear six parties involved in that discussion.
Because if you could do the limited family you get four on the m main piece and then one on the other one, right? Right. So you
have five total.
I don't think Patrick answered the question about whether it's a parent parcel or he doesn't know yet.
Yeah, it's it's not a uh give me a minute or two to figure out if it's grandparts.
I understand um what what you all are trying to say and um
I the families, you know, they have children, so they're trying to also, you know, preserve that potential legacy for their children, and that's why this request is coming forward to have additional lots. What we're putting this proposal together and what we we believe we presented a proposal that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and and several of the comprehensive plan policies and we've tried to work to reduce the
impact that that would be you know made. And la to the south is six dwelling units per acre. We're proposing You know, I think that's a good idea two and a half acre parcels and the 1.7 acre parcel. So it we've proposed a transitional use of of the land and that that's what we're trying to do. Patrick.
Uh I think someone watching was doing the research for me. Uh communication that this is not a parent parcel.
It is not a parent parcel.
What I'm being told, correct.
So therefore even the sec even the split even the additional split for the additional family would trigger subdivision. Right. Okay.
So I start. But the well the one point seven eight acre parcel is a standalone parcel?
Um I I did not review to see if the one point seven acre parcel was a parent parcel or not. Assuming it was not split illegally, they could get a single family home on it.
To my point, it's still possible the the unrelated party can take the 1.78 acre parcel and the family can take the other and use the limited family lot division to accomplish their stated goal.
The 1.7 acre parcel is that an approved plat?
It is part of the approved plat of the Blanton Lake Park subdivision
to the south, which was how many units could you put on that if it were
Well in in its original platted state, I believe about uh six or seven lots. Now some of the lots are halved off and cut off. Due to Blanton Road coming through there, but it it's not, they wouldn't have the adequate future land use to do that. I don't know about the vesting properties, and Mr. Goldstein may be able to answer some of that about what happens if that subdivision
was created prior to the comprehensive plan and those land use designations. and what could or could not possibly happen there. But we were proposing to clean up this this issue of that being part of that old subdivision and just have it simply have one home on it and and not you know, further further that expansion across Blanton Road of the um the urban or suburban character of the six dwelling units per acre. The pro
the the problem the main problem I think I have with it is that it's you're purporting it to be planned as a family compound but it's two families. And I've seen this happen before, you know. The mother and father buy it with all good intention, want to leave it to their son or daughter or leave a lot to their son or daughter and they don't want it because they moved to Ohio. and they end up selling it to somebody unrelated and you so you're not gonna have a family compound there. You're gonna have a property
that can be resold to some other person and I don't think that was your intention, but that's that's what happens all the time. I s I've seen it happen and Yeah. We have to be really sensitive to these people that live in that area because they bought in that area and they have many of them have lived in that area for many, many years and and they worked hard to get that pr property designated as a protected area. And we can't just, you know, flippantly approve
a family compound that might not be a family compound and that's that's the way I feel about it. I think if you you know, maybe if you limited it to a total of four lots, you know, I might be able to support it, but Beyond that I I have a real problem with it. I don't know how the rest of the board feels but Mr Graham.
I have the exact same sentiment.
So
Yeah, I I feel it's kinda precedent setting on the north side of Blandon there. Um I I agree with what Ms. Hazelwood has said. I I believe said that it is potentially setting a precedent there to the north of Blanton, so that's my other concern with it.
Understood. Well I mean I think your intent is good, but I think the plan is not would you
I think
you're hearing it.
kind of what the flavor of the Planning Commission is. Would you be willing to take a continuance to go back and discuss that possibility of the limited family lot division with the staff and figure out if that can work for you?
Well well, if if I'm not correct, did Mr. Dutter just say that it's not a parent parcel and we would have to do a a full subdivision process to even break off the parcel to then do the limited family lot division?
Um so uh there will need to be a subdivision plan probably regardless, assuming we confirm well I think we've confirmed that it's not a parent parcel. Um but full subdivision, it it'll just be a minor rural subdivision as well. So it's it's it would just be a smaller well sorry, if it's a limited family lot division, a limited family lot division is technically not a subdivision. Um that's not platted. You record that with the clerk's office. Um So that's not even really a subdivision.
So he could do an MRS subdivision. create a lot in which then he could do a limited family lot division from later.
So uh minor rural subdivision is a is a type of subdivision. A limited family lot division is not a type of subdivision, it's just a a a f a lot split that occurs without submitting a subdivision plan.
Patrick, the question is could he create one two two lots or
Using M R S. Using using
M R S
and create
two lots. And then one of those lots that's been created after the MRS is done becomes a limited sa family subdivision.
Off the top of my head it sounds like it's possible, but I haven't read the LFL D code section recently, so I'd have to refresh my memory. But um that sounds doable.
It's only fifteen hundred pages, but
I don't have a memorized. My bad.
I So do you would you like to continue this or would you like to have a vote?
I
don't I I feel like w that we've explored this uh before and and we had determined that it really wouldn't work all the way. Um I I believe that we've presented um a f a fairly reasonable request and I think what I might add is maybe we could propose to do some type of voluntary deed restriction. on the the larger parcel and uh or a across the whole sub
area to to help alleviate some of these concerns possibly. Um
So then wouldn't a continuance be in order where you go work those things out?
Yes, sir, but I but it's but I was not pr uh st strictly saying for the purposes of the limited family lot division. Uh because I don't wanna I don't wanna necessarily lead you guys to think that that I'm trying to do something that
Yeah. I'm trying to be
what I'm trying to say and not so many words, maybe I'll be more direct. It doesn't sound like you're probably gonna get enough votes to get the application that you want today. So do you want to continue the matter so you can come back and try again on another day with something that's more palatable to the Planning Commission and the neighbors, or would you just rather have a recommendation of denial?
Yes, sir. I I would vote
to continue it. Okay. Then I would move to continue How much time do we think we need?
Um
Yeah, to be back here in Dade City, so it's available to all the local residents. So do you need one
month or two months or three months? I think
I think one month.
Okay. What is the next meeting in Dade City? September. September fourth. Okay. And when is your agenda deadline for that date? Like when would this all have to be ironed out?
My concern is that's too soon to
May I suggest sixty days rather than thirty days?
Right, when so when would when would be the October meeting and Dade City?
That it was the October meeting in Dade City.
Yeah. We're trying to help you out, but we we're I understand I understand, sir. Our responsibility are those people sitting out there. I
understand. No no harm, no foul.
So what date is that, David?
October second, sir.
All right. Then I would move to continue this case until October second meeting here in Dade City.
Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not all in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Hose like sign? Okay, so everybody understand that uh We're it's gonna be back on the agenda but with a different proposal in uh on October second.
Yes, yeah.
Okay. Jana?
That's all first.