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 RES-1 (Residential 1 - du/ga) on Approximately 19.69 Acres of Real Property Located on the North Side of Blanton Road Approximately 2,150 Feet East of the Intersection of Blanton Road and Trilby Road; and A Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.86 – Blanton Road MRS; And Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(86) Blanton Road MRS.
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, Nov 6, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-26-0031 in full →PDE-26-0031 was taken up 5 times between Oct 2, 2025 and May 19, 2026, continued 1 time — this is appearance 2.
- Oct 2, 2025PlanningRES1No disposition in the minutes
- Nov 6, 2025PlanningPC4▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Nov 12, 2025BoardP58▶No disposition in the minutes
- Jan 6, 2026BoardP61▶Adopted
- May 19, 2026BoardP33▶Continued
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 9m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 86% of 388 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
The only item that we have on consent today is PC4. They'll be sitting at the local planning agency for this item. It's PDE 260031, a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS 2419, Blanta Road MRS, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 and sheet 8, changing from AGR agricultural rural to Res1, Residential 1 to Unit per gross acre on approximately 19.69 acres of real property located on the north side of Blanton Road,
approximately 2,150 feet east of the intersection of Lanton Road and Trollby Road, and a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.86 Lanton Road MRS, and a map amended to the future land use map 2-9, adding sub-area map 2-98. Blandin Road MRS. We now have individuals signed up to speak on this item, and we ask that this item be moved to the regular agenda.
Pull that one. Okay, so we're pulling PC four, right?
And that's the remainder of the consent agenda.
Well there is no consent agenda.
Okay. Okay. Nothing from nothing leads nothing.
Good sound.
So is uh the applicant here on PC four? Anybody here to speak? Probably should hear from staff or anybody here to speak else to speak? Okay. Yeah, I just want to see who's here. Um
Alright.
All right, good afternoon. Amy Toll, Planning, Development and Economic Growth. Today before you is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPAS 2419 CPES Blanton Road MRS. The item before you is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. It is requesting to be uh amended from AGR Agricultural Rule to Residential One or Res One, Residential One Dwelling Unit for Gross Acre. The intent of this amendment is to allow
for the development of an MRS on one of the parcels. The proposed amendment is going to be on two parcels currently. The MRS is going to be on one of the parcels. There is also a companion sub-area policy that's ensuring that lot sizes are no less than 2.5 acres, with the exception of one of the parcels. One of the parcels is currently part of another platted subdivision. It's sitting at about 1.7 acres. So through the sub-area policy, we
are still insurance. That remains at 1.7 acres cannot get any smaller than that. However, if they need to vacate roads or add additional acreage to that parcel, they can do so. The subject site is located north on the north side of Blanton Road, approximately 2,150 feet east of the intersection of Blandon Road and Trollby Road. And again, there's a companion sub-area policy, 2-986 in the name of Blandon Road MRS, that's running alongside this proposed amendment to Res 1. Here's
a county location map. As you can see it is located in the North Market area. It is also located in Rural Area One, which is northeast Pasco rural area. Here's a context map showing the subject site in proximity to Blanton Road and Trilby Road. There is a it's basically surrounded by excuse me, it's surrounded by agricultural lands, medium density residential, low density residential, with Dade City to the south. Here's a transportation map uh highlighting
that on the south side of Blanton Road there is a 12-foot multi-use path.
Mm-hmm.
Here's an aerial view that kind of zooms in just a little bit more for you. What this is highlighting is that the lot sizes surrounding the proposed site range between 0.84 acres to about 23 acres. So there's a lot of changes of differentiating lot sizes in this area.
Existing future land use of AGR. Proposed future land use of Res One. As you can see there's already Res One and Res 6 in proximity to the subject site.
Here's the sub-area policy that's ensuring that the level of development that's being proposed cannot exceed six dwelling units. So the subject site or the subject parcels cannot exceed six dwelling units for the overall development. There is one parcel that's about 17.98 acres. The current density on that parcel equates to about three lots. The proposed amendment is allowing for five lots. So they're asking or requesting two
additional lots on that site. Additionally, this is also taking into consideration the one lot that we are setting aside that's still part of a previously platted. Subdivision at 1.7 acres. So the overall Belantin Road MRS development cannot exceed six dwelling units, and you'll see a conceptual plan submitted afterwards. Additionally, we added development restrictions to ensure that the development remains compatible with the character of the area being Northeast Rural.
So we brought in development standards for lighting, scenic roadway, and in accordance with the minor rural subdivision, which pursuant to our code is prioritized within the Northeast Rural area. Here is the Blankton Road MRS proposed conceptual plan. As you can see, the lot sizes range from 2.35 acres to about 3.99 acres. So they're still fairly large lots. Again, the subject or the
one point, can I do a little clicker? 1.7-acre lot is here. This is already existing in a previously platted subdivision. So through the establishment of the sub-area policy, it's still honoring the size of the lot. However, the applicant is looking into vacating fourth AV. They have been in coordination and communication with a real property. Once that process has happened, that portion of the right of way will be absorbed into the 1.7 acre
lot.
Here's a consistency policies that were established. The following uh policies are or the comprehensive plan amendment proposed amendments consistent with following comp plan policies. And these are in your agenda memo? Additionally, I would like to highlight in section flu A6, which is our comprehensive plan, it establishes the land use categories within the flu designation, specifically through Table 2-1. Res1 is classified as a rural land use pursuant
to our comprehensive plan.
So with that we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comp plan. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Alright, Amy,
any questions? Yes, they are. Um Amy has the file number, the PDE file number for this matter changed at all?
Yes, uh between twenty-five and twenty-six.
Okay, so it changed because we're in a new fiscal year basically. Okay. But the
The location, legal description of the matter, none of that has changed
none of that has changed. Uh this was previously heard back in August. The change was reducing the uh amounted density that they were requesting.
Okay. Okay. So just going back to the concept plan, um I noticed that there's the twenty five foot scenic roadway buffer on the east or the west side of the property there. Is that also gonna apply to that one point seven acre parcel on the or is or does it not because that's part of an existing
Platted subdivision.
Platted subdivision. Correct. So the the 25 foot buffer does not apply there.
Um well generally it would apply in this visual so you can see where the highlighted area is. Um because it is part of a previously platted subdivision, they're not they still have to plan for the scenic roadway. They're not going they're not grandfathered out of that requirement essentially. Okay. So but it is still contemplated. Yeah. Yeah. The um site itself is actually a little oh a little over one. 1.7, it's 1.73. So in the sub-area policy, it's contemplating 1.7. We rounded down to give
that flexibility. Additionally, with the vacated portion of the parcel or right-of-way, that will add, I believe, 0.21 acres to the site. So it's going to be about just under. Um eight, one point eight, just under.
Okay. Amy, what's the necessity to Change the flu designation for the existing lot of record. I'm looking at the flating section in the land development code. And this would be seven hundred point three I allows the construction of a single family dwelling on any parcel of land recorded by deed as of June sixteenth, nineteen eighty nine, but not to include lands platted on or bef after
May first, nineteen seventy four. I looked at the plat, that was nineteen twenty something. And it looked like this was recorded by Deed in 1976 or so, so why the it appears that there's already an entitlement to build a single family home there already.
Correct. Yeah, they do have the ability to construct a single family home like you stated. Um their intent is to eventually bring this into the overall MRS design. So they're most likely going to they're gonna vacate the right-of-way, consider vacating that portion of the plat, and then they're actually from and I can have Jair speak to that if necessary, but uh they're actually proposing to potentially down zone the existing zoning district to make sure that the overall development aligns
with more of a rural character rather than higher density.
The last time this was brought to us, this was pitched to us as a family compound. So what's different?
Yeah, so from my understanding the intent is still to to pro give these lots to their family members. Um previously the challenge was through the limited family lots subdivision proposal there they weren't direct Family Like they weren't directly related to the family. So they couldn't qualify. Right. So they couldn't qualify. Um so they proposed to reduce the density, the
lots from that time. Still the overall intent from my understanding. So I can have Jaris speak to that if necessary, but they that is what is being proposed to us is that they are still intending to use these lots for the daughters and sons and family members.
So it's uh well, I guess we can ask the applicant, but I recall it was one non family member. And it would seem that there's an existing lot of record that the non-family member could buy that lot and then a limited family division could be used for the family members on the remaining land, but we'll hear from the applicant.
Sure.
Okay. Any other questions from Amy? No?
Okay. Amy is the right-of-way for Fourth Avenue included in the change?
It is part of the change, yes.
if it's vacated it'll just be part of it'll also be
Correct. It'll be absorbed into the one point seven parcel, acre
parcel. But i it's it's its flu is being changed as well. Correct. Okay, thank you.
You're
welcome.
All right. If you come forward, give us your name
and address please. Can I ask a question before you go back? Sure. So d is that right away the titles vested in the county?
Correct.
So how does the applicant get to apply to change the land use on a county piece of property?
Uh we've coordinated with pr real property.
But it's not vacated yet.
Correct. It's in the process of being vacated.
Well, the counting. Remember the county's approv if the county approves it, the county can decide to change the land use on its own property.
Yeah, I understand that. But it just seems like the card's a little before the horse.
If the county commissioners don't like it, they could always exclude it. Mm-hmm.
I just wanted to know whether it was being
included or not.
Okay, maybe you have some more comments on that, but yeah no problem.
Jarrus Barbie uh Symbiosis Planning Consulting 10117 Kingsbridge Avenue Tampa Florida Um Appreciate You Guys time and thank you for hearing this out again. Um yes it still is the plan of the family to essentially ha have have lots and share it across the family but one of the people does not meet the requirements of the limited family lot division. So that still is the plan, yes. Um why why
are we kind of treating this uh southeastern parcel separately is because we're not trying to lay out policy to establish what the board has to do. So the board still has a prerogative to vote against the vacation of that right away. So we're not asking for policy to be created to force their hand to do so. If it is in their prerogative to save that right away for some uses, that is in their prerogative. And um As far as
the legal description, I believe you are correct. I don't believe that right-of-way is included in our legal description that is for this sub-area policy, nor the uh the comprehensive plan map amendment. So, yes, you are correct. I think there would be some slight discrepancy there for that particular thing. But that's not, we have no control. Control over that, that's going to be on whether or not the board votes to actually vacate that right-of-way. So that's why
it's been presented as such. What we've tried to do is reduce the lot count by one more lot to show that you know we are okay with trying to give up something to still proceed forward in this endeavor. And I believe the lots that we've Shown um as far as sizes do fit a rural um character and size. Um they're larger than some of the lots that are in the area and middle to the size of some of the other ones.
Um so so that's what we've decided to proceed forward with. Um
The the five lots that'll be on the larger parcel, those are gonna go to family members?
Uh yes, sir.
Okay.
So I I only believe that three houses would be built right away by the families. All right. And then the other two parcels would be given to some of the children that could then you know build a house and and do something with it as they grow up. We're talking about some children that are very young still, so less than teen. teenager's age, so they're not gonna go right in there and build a house for a teenager.
Okay, so what I'm what I'm trying to figure out is I've got Five lots for family members. The Limited Family Lot Division allows me to have
But they don't but they don't qualify for the limited family lot division because he's not a direct family
member. Why can't the non-direct family member buy the one that already has an entitlement to or have the lot that already has an entitlement to build?
Well, I I believe it's because they want a larger piece of property for themselves. So they have planned to basically the the founding members of this subdivision would get the largest lots and the remainder of the lots would be left for the children.
Yeah.
So
I'm still not understanding this. I've got five lots for five family members and one non family member and I've got land. here that I don't even need to be here for a public hearing today for. I can avail myself of the land development code as it is with the with the land use and zoning that's in
the zoning the same
I can accomplish my goal of getting five lots for my five family members and one lot for my non family member.
And we were concerned the last time here That the problem is is the story that's getting pitched to us today is that this is for a family compound But yet we're setting this up to be a subdivision that well if I change my mind and my family doesn't want it, then I can just sell these lots off to any Joe Joe Q public. I think that's
the issue
the issue at hand.
I I understand what you're saying, Mr. Moody, and um There's nothing in the county that that says anyone at some point can't get of rid of property. So unl unless it were tied through a limited family lot division and that is a headache for the planning department to try to track that as it goes on in history as well. But
Well there's lots of headaches.
We can't we can't move forward with that on that parcel as it sits now because it has AC zoning, which requires um ten acres if I'm not mistaken. Correct? So that parcel is seventeen point nine six acres. So it can't be legally split now with the zoning that's in place. That's why we're proceeding forward with this and if and if this doesn't work out we would have to come back for a rezoning for that particular parcel to allow
for a zoning district that would allow for that type of split anyways. So we can't do that as it sits now.
So Mm-hmm. Where does the limited family lot division say that the five lots has to comply with the minimum size of the zoning district?
Mm. Okay. Alright, actually it does. I do see that.
So you're saying that's zoned A C today?
Yes, sir, correct. The the smaller parcel is zoned R two and it should be original zoning um based off of that plated subdivision.
The large piece is zoned A C.
Yes sir, correct, which is one per ten. Why
aren't we here just asking for a rezoning of that property so that you can use the limited family?
Because we're contemplating giving the family ability to have Additional parcels where they could possibly give them to family members. That's what we're contemplating today.
Well we all we all have every landowner in in the county has a right to to file an application to ask for a change in in land use or zoning. So the landowner is is just you know, exerting its right to file.
Well,
okay.
There's
a right to
file and he's his and he's getting his public hearing. Yes,
sir.
Doesn't mean he has a right to a recommendation of approval.
I'm I'm I'm not telling you what what to do, Mr. Moody. I'm just simply stating why why I'm here today.
I'm just completely confused. and baffled as to The code already has provisions to accommodate the situation you've described, but this is the second time we've come back here. trying to create a subdivision and With all due respect I'm in the northeast rural area and I'm sure that these people behind you are all gonna get up and tell me about it, about how they wanna have their minimum five
acre and ten acre tracks out here. And I agree I appreciate that you've agreed to two and a half acres, but at the end of the day the kind of standard out here is already five acres.
Well, I I have included something in my presentation on page It would be page number, excuse me.
Fourteen. which I did a GIS analysis of the entire northeast rural area. and identified the land use categories and and show here that res one Covers approximately eleven thousand five hundred and seventy two acres, which is fourteen percent of the entire rural area. And as you can see, there are other things that are like res three is in there, res six, res
nine.
seventy-two point nine four acres were changed to res one by the property owner. Were those eleven thousand five hundred and seventy-two point nine four acres? of Res1 created with the original comprehensive plan.
I I don't have that answer, Mr. Moody.
But I would say that we've tried to go above and beyond to do something that is rural by further restricting ourselves from Res One. into this sub-area policy that simply asks for a density increase from 0.2 dwelling units per acre to 0.312 dwelling units per acre. So that that is the request that we're coming forth with. We're proposing to do whales and septants in in
accordance with some other comprehensive plan policies. We're not proposing to extend any services for water or sewer. We're trying to do larger lots. The scenic roadway buffers will be in place. Other buffers that are required um through through the um The other code in 604 will be provided, so that's a 20-foot width between any buildings
and roadways and 30-foot buffer between any buildings and adjacent properties. And and the goal of this landowner is to save as many of these existing trees that are on the site. to to do this, you know, with with respect to whatever, you know, has to be leveled for pads and might have to be altered um to accommodate stormwater. So I I think that we're trying to
propose something that is is rural in character and nature and and we've shown um evidence of of how we we meet the comprehensive plan policies that are in place today.
Okay, anybody else? You have a do you have more of a presentation because
No sir, I would reserve my time for any questions and and
do we have any other questions right now? Okay, you have a chance to come back up. All right, thank you sir. All right. So uh do we have people on the list that wanna speak to this one?
Uh yes Mr. Chairman the first individual we have signed up is Mr. James Navarro.
Hello Mr. Navarro, if you just give us your full name and address please. Yes, uh
James Navarro Senior [address removed]. I live adjoining to that parcel that uh uh uh Mr. Barbie Spoken of and thank you so much for uh listening to us. I've been here before. Um I do want to clarify something that maybe might be some confusion here. As I um spoke to Mr. Barbie uh this week, and as I understand it.
um the daughter of the owner is not planning to move next door, so I don't know what they refer to as a family compound. Um maybe he can correct that. Maybe I misunderstood. But I'm here also to tell you guys that the water quality right now is terrible. I have a an image that I showed here of the uh what I have to go through to get decent
water. And even then I'm having a lot of uh tannin and uh rust in my house. You're adding an additional uh five, six units, it's going to create more strain. Um The other problem is a runoff, or we get a lot of uh flooding coming off boats, especially during hurricanes. coming off the the crest of the hill as it goes in. Our neighbor across the way, Mr. Lorenko,
he's not here today, couldn't make it, but he's had to put bags of uh sand in order to prevent the runoff. again, uh I get flooding towards the back part of my property as well. So I do see that uh we're gonna be seeing more trees down more asphalt and also more uh roof coverings. So this is gonna create a an issue as far as runoff is concerned,
I think in my personal uh point of view. Again, I have nothing against uh the Fernando uh family. I they're lovely people. They sat at my t at my table and we discussed uh this. But originally, as I was understanding, they were only going to use uh three three lots. They were gonna build three lots. One for the daughter, one for the p uh father. And their neighbor. Thank
you so much.
Okay, thank you. Any questions? No? All right, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
The next individual we have signed up to speak is Mr. Paul Gandolf. Gandalfy. I apologize if I messed that up.
Uh Paul, if we can
have your full name and address, please. Yes. Uh Paul Kendolphy, 34953, Blanton Road. We uh have 10 acres just to the north of the subject property, separated by 24 acres. My concern, this goes to Res1, the person who owns the 24 acres north of this property, has voiced his intent to eventually sell his 24 acres. If this moves to one acre parcels
that 24 acres could follow and then we'd be st um have a subdivision on our southern border. Uh I object to it. I think there's I'm suspicious about the reason for Res One. I think there's could be a developer waiting in the wings. Or it gives the owner the possibility of eventually selling for uh m uh multiple money collots for a nice profit. So That's really what I've got to say. Um
That's it?
Thank you. Uh yes. Are any questions for Okay.
The next individual we have signed up to speak is a Ms. Cindy Gandolphi.
And who's next so they can maybe come to the front bench?
And Ms. Nancy Hazelwood will be next.
Uh Cindy Gandalfi, 34953, Blanton Road. That was my husband. This development doesn't fit in our area. Most of us have lived here 20 to 40 years with the intent of, because of the zoning for all of the parcels around us, a subdivision not coming in. We fear that once, and I say fear not concern, that when small property owners just as this starts to chop up their property, then
it's just going to open the door to other areas doing it. You know, it's bad enough we have to be concerned on the larger development coming into the area, and now we have to start being concerned on small private landowners. He knew what his zoning was when he purchased the property. I don't know why he just doesn't sell it and go buy some property that will accommodate his requirements. He's still asking for res
one. We have no guarantee that if it does get past a res one, it will stay at six lots. Once you're in res one, then that opens up the door for one lot per acre, and that's not what fits in in our area. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
The next individual we have is Ms Nancy Hazlewood, and we have no other individuals signed up after that.
Okay.
There's no one else that wants to speak to this one? Okay.
Nancy Higgswood, 34110, a nice place. Um Yes, I'm waiting for a map to be put out. But I'm going to say that going from AC to Res One is the problem. It's not how many units he's gonna put in. It's changing the land use in the protected area. And once that map goes up, you will see it it shows it very clearly. Um
This makes everything pretty much fair game for anybody else to come in that wants res one or higher.
Oh Star.
I'm waiting for my wonderful staff of the county.
There we go. It's right with the world now.
Okay. So The part uh on the bottom is the Grandfather Den, six units per acre I believe, and then right across the street is theirs. If you look at that, if you can pull it all the way out, you see that the dark green all the way around there and three-fourths of the area. is all higher land uses. And you're gonna stick a res one right in the middle of all those
large acreage and that's not gonna help protect the northeaster area in any way, shape, or form. Sticking res one in the middle of Add. And as you can see there's a lot of egg there. What's that going to do to it? It's gonna start making people want to change their land use in the Northeast rural area plant. Well of course they get And they can always ask. But there are things in your comp plan
that says we need to protect Northeast Sprill and hopefully they're going to hold up here. And uh I'm just hoping that this doesn't go through. Thank y'all.
Thank you.
So just to get the straight and you had that map up there. All that green area was northeast rural.
Yeah.
Okay. I'm just there were some lots shown there right next to that property. What what's that? Those aren't um is that these lots right here?
No the um light brown ones are um kind of there you go. The ones to the left, that's the old grandfathered in area. But
the ones at the bottom right down there.
Um yeah. I'm not sure what the agreement.
But that was
an old plan.
Nineteen twenty eight
or something. I quickly looked it up. Yeah. I'm just curious. Are are those all built on?
Yeah, there'd be one house per acre, yeah. What
is that?
And that goes up to like one per twenty in the area. The rest of the area.
You know better.
Sorry. Anyways, um the rest of the area around there is one to five, one to twenty. You know, they're they're all area where there are homes in there and people were very happy and they want it that way. So We would appreciate it if somehow we could keep that land use from changing.
So but Amy, this area over here that's been parceled up into smaller tracts. Correct. That's been there for a lot of years.
Yeah, it's it's predates the uh establishment of the Northeast rule. Um Patty, if you could zoom out please, right there and turn on the future land use.
I was just gonna s suggest doing the same thing. I would zoom out even more.
There's a lot of res one in the south.
Correct.
As you can see there is substantial res one in proximity to the area already.
How much of that res one though? Predate was changed by the property owners from an ag designation to Res One or those original comp plan designations?
I can't answer that right now, but we can run an analysis if that's necessary.
Can
you zoom out a little bit more too on
that map just to show?
I'm just not believing there's been eleven thousand work acres worth of applications of people up there. Changing their future land use designation up there.
Oh I'm just I'm just wondering how long it's been there.
Yeah, it does appear that that Res One polygon is its own appre its original. Yeah. So
I
mean
all the all the res one's contiguous, so it looks like a comprehensive
plan. And they're not one acre parcels anymore. Right. They're not one acre parcel. Right. Oh the data
it's not. So if you look at the polygon. If you select, um Patty, if you can click on the polygon, please. The big uh where's the mouse?
Do we have something that shows what the boundaries of the Northeast Rural are up there?
Yes, you can turn on the northeast rule boundary as well. So as you can see it highlights that whole polygon. So in the GIS data, that means that's that has not changed. There's not there has not been any amendments in that area.
Amy Cass.
Um I'll wanna wait till this question is done, but I have a different question. But it's somewhat related.
Okay.
We'll turn off the flu.
Just click Land News. Here you go.
So the green shaded area is the northeast rural area?
Correct.
Yeah. Okay. And then Amy, I quick question sub-area policy.
Sure.
I'm not saying exclusive by asking this question, but don't we generally have sub-area policies associated with PD land uses?
So PDs require a sub-area policy because they do not define density intensity. However, a sub-area policy can apply to any land use because it it's it's essentially the Comp plans version of an MPD condition.
Right. David, you got a question?
Yeah, is there any way you could pull up um flu policy of one point one point three?
One point one
point
three.
Limiting the pro proliferation of scroll.
Yep.
So my reading of this policy is it's basically saying that Res One is a sprawl category.
Correct.
So what is your thoughts about
This change in light of that policy.
Um so res one generally is a sprawl land use. Uh however this is not going to one dwelling units, larger lots. So the idea in this scenario is is it aligns more with the role and ag size distribution?
D says developed that it grows residential density. Not exceeding one unit per five acres of land. So it seems to be saying that if it's one for five, that's not sprawl. It seems to be saying that if it's conservation subdivision, that's not sprawl. It seems to be saying if it's NTD, that's not sprawl. I recognize that there's an exception in A if it's less than 300 acres, but That almost seems like an arbitrary distinction
because it somebody came in with a series of fifty acre tracks that all added up to over three hundred acres that you could effectively create sprawl I mean th I don't even know why we have that exception in there because you you you might indirectly create sprawl just by a series of small tracks that added up to more than three hundred acres. So I mean I don't B, C, and D make sense to me, but I don't know why we have an A quiz. I guess what I'm saying is if we think that res one
is a sprawl is creating sprawl
Why do we have an acreage threshold an exception?
I I can't speak to why Nicktar's Pito's planning development economic growth. I can't speak to why flu pol policy flu 113 has letter A in it. But I do the policy is correct that Res One is considered a sprawl density throughout the county except for in Northeast Rural because in uh section flu A six, the official future manuscript, the appendix A six, um I guess it would be under provision three. No. Under
table two dash one Provision three. Within the Northeast Pasco rural area, Res 1 future land use classification is deemed to be a rural land use classification. So the Copperheads of Plan is already considering Res One in Northeast Rural as not sprawl, but as a rural density, or excuse me, rural land use classification.
That's odd to me. So we're saying that it's rural, but it's so we have one policy on the compliant saying it's rural. But another comp line policy saying it's brawl.
If it's outside of Northeast Rule, it's considered sprawl. If it's inside Northeast Rule, it's considered the maximum density potential. of the overlay.
I'm asking you as a planner, do you consider the res one the res one flu to be scroll?
In general.
In general, yes. Yeah, it w it is it's a sprawling th and that's consistent with the rest of the comprehensive plan, but there's an earmark in the comprehensive plan that considers r res one as not as a rural not sprawl but as a rural land use in northeast rural.
Well. Well wouldn't it have had to have been? I realize you weren't here at the time. Yeah. But if the giant polygon that she highlighted on the screen was an original flu category which predates the northeast rural area. then we would have had to have when we created the northeast rural area, declared that, hey, all you Res One are still considered rural because they were already there existing with that flu category.
Yeah, I mean how do we know that wasn't the intent when that was put there was that we were trying to invest the res one that was already there and say that we weren't trying to prohibit Whereas one that was already in Northeast Rural, but New new res one that It's still sprawl. I mean I no, that being said, I recognize there's this three hundred acre exception, which to me doesn't make any s sense,
but but And I would do encourage you, Gary, when you when you relook at ROWs, the ROS element, we probably need to fix this issue because
In in in the PESCO 2050 update, uh Res1 is translated over into a new feature land use category called RDR, Rural Density Residential. Um in It ex the R D R flu is combining Some of the uh skipped over densities that exist between where HGR is today and all the way up to what the comprehensive planet today considers what you
would think about it as res two, but we don't have an actual Res two, but technically speaking the RTA, the Rural Transition Area which is to the west of the Rural Northeast Rural Area, talks about two dwelling units per acre. Um But Uh so RDR is trying to cover this gap. that we've been silent on for so long. But in the northeast rural area specifically We're we're proposing a cap to keep it at one twelve unit per equal so that there's no status so that the status quo remains In North
East Rural. So if you have the R D R designation within Northeast Rural, That means you were likely a res one previously. and you are going to remain capped at one 12 unit per gross acre. That that's how currently if we're trying to figure
out how
it's
a
twenty fifty update is working.
If staff firmly believes that a res1 density is sprawl, how are you going to avoid the proliferation of that sprawl under the newcom plan?
Well we can craft there's no policy in the comprehensive plan right now that says thou shalt not do new or
something. Somebody tried to do it with one point one point three. I mean the uh the only thing that I think they maybe missed the mark on was this three hundred acre exception because I I mean To me, that's subject to abuse because you could just have a 10-acre track and a ten-acre track and ten acre track and then you can have a sprawl. Um PD and conservation subdivisions, I can kind of understand those because you can craft those to avoid sprawl. But makes some sense because those are really five-acre tracks.
But Somebody thought it was a bad idea to have one acre that that was wrong. I mean somebody but I just think that The the A the exception A sort of swallowed the rule. Um
Can
you put
that policy
back up?
Yeah, I think they sort of I think the idea was is they n they saw those existing units there and rather than have them be non conforming uses, uh can scroll up the screen so they can see the entirety of the policy. That's how they addressed it. They included them in the so they wouldn't be grant they sort of grandfathered but So Gaben.
And although your argument might be helping the position I have on this case, I'll just Say read this again. It says Pasco County shall limit the proli proliferation of large lot sprawl development pattern over large expanses of land by evaluating That's why the less than three
I agree with you, but the the my concern from a planning perspective is that
If you have if you allow it on a ten acre track and then the next ten acre track and then the next ten acre track, suddenly you it's over a large expanse of land. Absolutely. That that's the problem. And so now you have a sprawl. And so the problem is that exception of s a series of small acre tracks is swallowing the rule. That's the problem. And so I'm suggesting that maybe if we're going to retain this policy, we get rid of that exception. Otherwise you there's no point to the rule.
You're you're saying get rid of one one three A.
Yes, because you're you're
I mean I understand why you needed to recognize the res one that already existed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't keep what people legally already have the right to today. Right. But if if you firmly believe that res one is a sprawl category, why are you continuing to Who? Proliferate it.
It it has been understood. based on the precedence that we've seen that Res One was not considered sprawl in North East Rural but as the maximum density allowance in the rural area. So I mean to the I'm asking you to
put your planner hat on and if you think it's sprawl
I'm saying I'm talking about for bros when we took well.
And that's what I was going to say next.
Yeah, I I'm I'm talking about this case. I'm talking about when we fix bros. Right. Maybe we need to look at actually s stopping the proliferation of res one.
Sure.
Even in Northeast Rural is my point.
Sure. I mean if that if that's a consensus. Uh that wasn't the target of update and we were gonna maintain status quo in North East Rural. But if that's a if that's a policy direction, we can explore that.
I suspect if you ask the people in Northeast Rural if they want us to stop the proliferation of res one, they'd probably say yes.
I know we can ask Nancy Hazel a little bit.
Sure.
I think we already know what Nancy's gonna say.
I but I'm uh forgetting what Nancy would say, I know what she would say. I'm asking you to put your planner hat on and you're telling me if you think it's a if it's a sprawl category we as planner, why shouldn't we be stopping that? Sure. I've had Reverend Barbara Will High get up here and say It's a sprawl category. It is.
Um, again, the idea for Pasco Groves was to maintain status quo in Northeast Rural. If we want to change this piece of s of the status quo We can change that piece of the status quo. I would
argue you're not changing the status quo because there's already a policy on point that says that it's brawl. It's just that we have this exception in there That's swallowing the rule. And get rid of the exception.
Sure, yes, we could get rid of letter A. But I'm also thinking about section flu A six. But I think you could limit
that you could limit
that
to just the res one that exists today.
Correct,
yes.
Right.
But as it stands, the current count plan doesn't have that kind of um distinction built into it. Right.
But my guess is that probably was the intent. But I mean 'cause I don't know how else you reconcile that with one point one point three. Which basically says the res one sprawl.
I think the way it's been reconciled is that this is for the rest of the county. At the overlay Mazakar Bow.
Yeah,
so
I'm just trying to think if that makes common sense though. Like why are we saying that it's sprawl in the rest of the county but it's not sprawl in northeast rural?
I I wasn't thinking it's almost like you're saying we're gonna treat Northeast Rural R worse than the rest of the county.
Yeah, we re we we realize it wasn't here you weren't here when that happened. Yeah,
I
I can't
speak to why they're
I think we can only blame Amy for that.
We'll we'll be Nancy. Nancy.
Nancy did it. It's always Nancy's fault.
Okay, anyway, that's an issue for grows. Well I just wanted to it's somewhat relevant to the current application, but I admit that the current application is less than three hundred acres in size, so there's not much we can do about that particular policy. So
So anyway we need to give the applicant an opportunity to come back up. Um
Uh thanks again everyone. Um I I will make a statement as a planner myself as well. I do think that there is a difference in between fully maxing out Res One and having one acre lots proliferated across a large land area and what we're trying to do by proposing a sub-area that is directly tailored to how this land are
So if it were to ever be contemplated to be changed, it would have to come in front of you to be voted on at that time And um i if if there is anything that we have missed, we have that opportunity now to add something into there if you think that we have missed the mark. on protecting the character by this proposed intrusion. I would argue that this is not an intrusion This
is just a development that would allow in-between sizes of the most dense allowed in Northeast Rural and normal, typical density in Northeast Rural. So we have proposed a transitional lot size to those existing very small lots that are across the road. I would contemplate that this would set a precedent for other things if they were to
apply for Res One. That they have seen how you guys have expect people to treat the Northeast Rural Area and to propose additional things to protect these residents. And that and that's what we have proposed to do by proposing the sub. Yeah. which goes above and beyond the typical regulation.
What you just said is that I'm drawing a roadmap that others can use to develop the northeast
area.
Hold on. The gentleman got up and gave testimony that he's 10 acres, there's 24 acres between your property and his 10 acres. Alright? So what you just said is I'm drawing a roadmap showing the next guy that wants to come in here and ask for res one on his 24 acres. Well look if you just create a sub-area policy and limit your lots to two and a half acre size, you can basically double the density in the Northeast Rural Acre, right? Is an AGR one unit per five acres? Now it's one unit for 2.5 acres.
I just doubled the density. By j by using this, by using your roadmap, which I'm I'm sorry and Amy, I'm sure you guys worked hard on this and maybe you'll consider this derogatory, but I think the sub area policy amounts to what I'll call comp planeering. We're we're engineering the comprehensive plan with a sub-area policy.
Well, I I'm sorry that you feel that way, Mr. Moody, but I truly feel like that what I have done as an agent for this landowner has tried to propose something that is feasible and and reasonable. Um And that's through further limiting uh what the MRS actually allows. So in this situation, if if we were to just get Res1 approved and to do a minor real subdivision,
we would be stuck at a max of 10 lots. Now that that max of 10 lots would apply if it was a 20-acre parcel, a hundred-acre parcel. or a 300-acre parcel if they were being developed as a minor rural subdivision. Now not all subdivisions may not have to be developed as such if they have or are proposing connections to utilities, but I am making the statement that the comprehensive plan dissuages
that type of development from even happening and proposes and purports that people should should do individual whales and septic, which, in my opinion, would mean that people should be doing minor rural subdivisions when developing in the northeast rural area. So we We have stated if we're gonna propose to do a minor rules subdivision, but we're gonna further limit ourselves. than that ten lot maximum.
You still haven't convinced me why you need an MRS. This is my family compound. You've told me the family compound, the lip the limited family division allows you up to five lots. You've told me you've got three lots that you need today. And two that may go. So those you can you can create and then someone can do another limited family division to give it to their gr child or grandchild later.
We would still be having a lot
that the non family member that has a building entitlement that the non family member can have. So I'm trying to figure out why has why must it be this way. There's already a code section that you can avail yourself to accomplish your goal. You still have to come back here for a rezoning, right? Yes
sir.
You could have just come gotten the rezoning and you veiled yourself of the limbs.
But we didn't. We decided to To propose this.
Right,
because
this opens the door to create a subdivision that I can sell to any Joe Q public out here instead of creating the family compound that you're purporting to want to build.
Does the non family member want a larger lot than the Montpoint Correct, yes sir. So that's why you have to do that.
Yes,
or
they vacate the right away or
be larger. Yeah, but it's still it's gonna be three acres versus three acres, so
That's the that's what I assumed was the issue. So
what happens when the daughter or the son decides they don't want this lot? I'd rather have the money, Dad, just sell the lot.
I mean a as it would sit now there there would be no further protection but there's no there's no comprehensive plan policy in the northeast rural area that says that no one can sell land outside of the family. That's that's not a policy that the county takes and says I mean uh
the
policies
are to tr to try to prevent the development of the land and the subdividing of the land. We made some carve outs so that families can leave a legacy for the children.
Well
we're trying to prevent the development of
I would I would contemplate that this action would leave the land in its finished state of use. So it would not be contemplated to be further subdivided. It would simply have to Operate in the form as as intended by this sub-area policy that we propose.
And do we have an ADU ordinance?
In the county, I I believe you guys have an ADU ordinance.
Right. So so after I s after you subdivide these properties, can then I just avail myself of adding an ADU to my lot too?
I mean the rest of the county can. I I guess you could. I mean if that's something like that's something that you guys want to contemplate and changing, you're you're we're more than welcome to. We have a sub area policy here to do so. But That I mean that is going above and beyond the treatment of every other parcel in the county um if you want to do as such. Well
the ADUs aren't separately platted, you can't sell them separately, so it's not
correct. And they have a maximum square footage of I believe twelve hundred square feet if if I'm correct. So it's not really Unless you're a spectral sex one. So like I stated I'm I'm happy to try to work within the policy to help with the compatibility issue if that's the true the true thing that you guys see the issue is But I've I've tried to do my best. We
originally started with with nine lots shown in in the minor rule subdivision and one lot of that existing 1.7. and then now here we are at at six max. So I've I'm trying. I'm I'm trying. I I promise ya. I I don't have any ill will against any of these families. I love them just like everyone else.
I don't think you have any ill will. I think you're a planet here representing a client. I don't think this isn't a personal attack on you.
Could we put the flu map back up on mapper?
I
You're I don't believe you're understanding my point. You d they came to us and said, this is we want to build our family compound here. And every time I offer them the chance here, here, go build your family compound. Just a limited family. I then there's a there's a lit of all the reasons in the world why I can't do it. Well, is it because I don't want it to be my family compound?
I either I want it or
not
to code
the
code's already set up for you to do it.
Mr. Moody, I've made plain and clear statements that it is my it is my understanding that that they want larger lots for the founding family members of the subdivision and that is their intent. Yeah. I I don't know what else to say. That's why they they want to do
founding family members. They're either family
or they're not family.
I mean for me when I look at that flu map, I mean it's the same thing that I said last time. I mean it's just everything to the north of there, the subject of precedent setting comes up because I mean everything to the north there to the Hernando County border is AG or AGR. I mean I understand that there's proximity, there's res three and res one in that area that's that's I I get that, but anything everything north of Blanton Road up to the Hernando County border is aging agr. And I think you know to to John's point, all the
points that are made here, we're just we're setting a bad precedent with doing this. And it's nothing against what you tried to accomplish there and in the sub-area. Policy and the like, but I just I I really have heartburn with with this one.
Understood. Well, I I'll just make I guess my final statement. I believe that the comprehensive plan policies that are in place, as well as the companion land development code, do help protect the proliferation of Res One in this entire area. This particular case.
uh doing uh a size in between the typical agricultural lots and the typical residential one lots and it will be served by Well and Septic as in compliance with several policies from the Water Comprehensive Plan Policy Section, the Sewer Comprehensive Plan Policy Section, and the Flu Comprehensive Policy, uh Comprehensive Plan Policy Section. So that that is what I've tried to put put together for
this application to support this proposal.
Yeah, and I think I mean you've done your job certainly. It I just think you know from me sitting here looking at this, you said it before, you didn't mean to say it this way, but you're setting a precedent as as Mr. Moody said that's you know this is a roadmap for for others in the future to to use and I just I can't wrap my arms. My
I was simply meaning that from the purposes of the sub area policy being sub-area policies being able to be employed to further protect those things. I
understand you didn't say that but it's that's understood. Sitting sitting up here that's way that's way we're
understood. Well I'd be happy to take any other questions if if there were otherwise I'll let you guys Are there
any
other questions?
Ready, buddy? All right. Well thank you very much. I appreciate you. Thank you for the presentation. God bless that.
Okay, so do I hear a motion?
Sure. For purposes of discussion or otherwise? Yes,
for purposes of discussion I would move to deny the recommend denial of the petition.
Okay, we have motion. We have a second. All right. Discussion?
Um I'm I think I said it and I'll just take away again with with Chris. I think he's exactly right. You stood up here and said I'm creating a road, basically creating a roadmap for the next guy to come along, whether it be twenty acres or fifteen acres. We'll Change the comp plan to res one. I'll create a special sub-area carb out of the comp plan for my subdivision. And Why wouldn't why wouldn't every other property owner along Blanton Road go ahead go and do this if we if
we push the first domino over right here.
Yeah, I'd additionally say I mean I think it's our obligation to protect this area is you know, i the residents that are sitting here, I mean we so we're committed to doing this and I don't think that Mr. Barby's done anything wrong. I think he's done his job. It's just like I can't accept the precedent that it sets for this area.
Yeah, and I mean it should be noted that I mean there was there was a lot of effort made. I mean it wasn't strictly came in and and asked for res one. Um there were the sub area policies that were discussed, but again I'm I'm in the same position. I think it just sets a precedent on everything on the north side of Blayton Road. Um Is either AG or AGR like's already been said, so
For me, I mean it's um you're you're talking about a difference of two units. You know, th or as it is as it stands now they can build four units on that land and we're talk they're asking for two extra units. So it's not a tremendous impact to the area. I think they did a good job with coming up with sub area policy. I can see how it could potentially be abused, but we would review those cases on a case by case basis whenever that comes up and we can see that happening and and take appropriate action at that time. So, you know, I think we need to look at this on the merits of its individual
case as opposed to what might happen in the future. So it's I I kinda disagree with the rest of the body because of that.
Matt, do you have anything? Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how to say what I'm thinking, but um
You could just vote,
you don't have to say anything. It's up to
you though. I'm just saying
you're not compelled to say anything.
My wife tells me that all the time.
since the comprehensive plan amendment, what what are we saying it's inconsistent with in the comprehensive plan is my question.
Well, to be clear, for comprehensive plan amendment it's a legislative decision. So You pretty much can just Deny it because you think it's
So there's not a bad idea. When we do a land
development code amendment we get to we decide whether it's
the criteria.
All right.
Okay, well if there's nothing further then let's uh
I just I was just gonna add this is almost to me it's almost like a line in the sand. And it's either gonna be rural or not rural in the The area to the north or to the south, excuse me, those small lots, it looks like they were built in nineteen eighty, which is like forty five years ago. That's a long time ago. So I just um
A lot of a lot of the county as we know is developed and there's not much left that isn't developed so It's just in my opinion, let's keep it protected like it should be.
Okay, so well we bet we better all wait till we vote before you clap. So so um okay. So we have a motion, we have a second, and we're
voting.
Pardon me? We're voting for the motion. The motion is for A is for denial. So so if it if it's aye, that means you support the denial? Okay. Let's make it clear. So all in favor of the motion can signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign?
Nay.
All right, we have one nay and the rest aye. The motion passes.
Now you can clasp. And I'm very sorry that yeah, I think you presented a uh a good case. And you know, I don't know.
I want to be clear with the audience that the Planning Commission is your recommending body on this item. So the final decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners.
Yeah, so make sure you attend that meeting. Okay.
All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Thanks for your time.