Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Regular) – CPA24(03) Elite 52 PD – Providing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2-15 and Sheet 12) from AG (Agricultural) and AG/R (Agricultural/Rural) to PD (Planned Development) on Approximately 156 Acres of Real Property Located North of State Road 52 Approximately .60 Mile East of the Intersection of State Road 52 and US Highway 41; And a Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.81 – Elite 52 PD; And a Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(81) Elite 52 PD.
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, Jan 8, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-26-0016 in full →PDE-26-0016 was taken up 4 times between Jan 8, 2026 and Apr 7, 2026, continued 1 time — this is appearance 1.
- Jan 8, 2026PlanningP8▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Feb 3, 2026BoardP52Continued
- Feb 17, 2026BoardP54▶Approved
- Apr 7, 2026GeneralP45Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 53m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 69% of 259 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay. PCA is comprehensive plan amendment, CPA 24, parentheses 03, Elite 52 PD, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, map 2-15 and sheet 12 from AG, Agricultural, and AGR, Agricultural Rural. to PD plan development on approximately 156 acres of real property located north of State Road 52, approximately 0.6 mile east of the intersection of State Road 52 and U.S. Highway 41.
and a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.81 Elite 52 PD and a map amendment to the future land use map 2-9, adding sub-area map 2-9, parentheses 81, Elite 52 PD, to be presented by sir. All right. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Planning Commission Members. Gianna German, Planning Development and Economic Growth.
Today I have excuse me, item P eight is PDE 260016, a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPA twenty-three o three Elite 52 PD.
The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use from AG agricultural and AGR agricultural role to P D Plan Development to allow for a mixed-use development on approximately 156 acres, situating the 175,000 square feet of commercial and retail space and the 120-room hotel towards the front of the property, abiding State Road 52, and 108 single-family detached units as well. Hello? The Northeastern portions of the property are located in a rural
transition area. However, within the binding concept plan that will be explained on the companion MPUD to this item, the applicant is not proposing to develop within the rural transition area. This property is located on the north side of State Road 52 and east of US 41, and there is a sub-area policy being created, policy 7.1, excuse me. Yeah, 7.1.2. The name of Elite 52, Elite SR52 PD. As previously mentioned, there is a companion rezoning an MPUD in the name of RZ7811.
This property is located in the North Market area and portions of the site are located within the rural transition area.
Here is an aerial showing US 41 to the west and state road 52 on the southern frontage of the subject site.
A context map noting that the role transition area encompasses portions of the proposed project and that there are numerous MPDs in the surrounding area. Longleaf, Tibbetts Land at Gowers, and Sand Ridge MPUD, all to the west. There are similar proposals within a mile from the subject site to that of the applicants.
A transportation map again showing US Highway 41 to the west, State Road 52 on the southern frontage of the subject site, and there is a 12-foot multi-use path currently in the design phase on the proposed north side of State Road 52, which does abut the subject site.
The current feature land use. We have AGR to the east, AG to the north, and then Conerton Newtown to the south, and Res3 to the west. And then the proposed future land use of PD.
The sub-area policy again highlighting the 175,000 square feet of retail office and commercial, 120-room hotel, 108 single-family detached, and again stating that the southern portion of the project of the subject site shall contain non-residential uses.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies.
And we find the proposed amendment consistent with excuse me, we ask that you find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Bourneham County Commissioners. And I am here if you have any questions.
Okay. Do
we have
any questions?
Mr. Chairman did you wanna open up the public hearing for P9 as well and put these together?
Probably makes sense, yeah.
Then you probably want to have staff present Penon first. Okay.
Who's gonna be presenting PI? Well
Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. William from Million Planning Development Economic Growth. This is the companion rezoning to the CPA that Ms. Gianna just presented. This is the Elite SR 52 MPUD PDE 267811. This is a rezoning request from AR Agricultural Residential and AC Agricultural District to MPUD Master Plan Development District to allow for maximum development. Of 108 single family detached homes, 175,000
square feet of commercial retail, and 120 hotel rooms and associated infrastructure on approximately 156.2 acres. This is in central Pasco County, 0.6 miles east of the intersection of State Road 52 and U.S. Highway 41.
The location map.
An aerial of the site.
The current future land use and the current zoning. This is the MPUD master plan, the red area indicating commercial, the yellow indicating residential, and to the south you can see the a little bit of orange along State Route 52. That is indicative of right-of-way dedication based on the 60% design plans from F DOT's widening of SR fifty-two in this area.
I'll get a little bit more in depth whenever I get to the concept plan. I know that the there's a couple more things I'd like to address that didn't fall within the master plan's purview. On this context map, I have highlighted here for the benefit of the Planning Commission the runway protection zone and the approach surface of the pilot country airport. The approach surface highlighted in green, and the runway protection zone indicated by that dashed black and white.
Polygon there. You can see to the to the northwest is the Talavera MPUD, which is 840 dwelling units. Just to the west of the airport exists a current RMH zoning, which has roughly 108 single-family detached dwelling units built within that R1MH zoning. Um Roughly forty foot lots there. In red you can see the subject site and to the south of State Road 52 exists a portion of the Conerton MPD that's
currently been used for a wetland mitigation bank.
I would like to to highlight here off screen um the airport influence area exists according to L D C Section six oh five which governs the airports in Pasco County. Um this site does fall within The AIA And within the AIA, I just like to highlight the compatibility table from the Land Development Code as it relates to this proposal. particularly to some of the uses that are found along State Route 52. The land development
code with these uses, particularly the residential, the single-family dwelling units proposed, as well as the hotel and the commercial, are a permissible use pursuant to LDC Section 605 and Table 605-1.
This is the binding concept planning.
Before this this item almost came before the Planning Commission and it had been continued for a number of months, uh the original proposal was for 300 platted townhomes. In this case, the applicant worked with some of the surrounding stakeholders to decrease some of the residential density that would have been found next to the airport and in Lou switched to this 108. single family detached plan with the larger lots indicated in purple, those 60-foot lots to be adjacent
to the airport with an increased buffering element on the on the rear side of those homes.
This is a zoomed-in version of what the enhanced buffer detail is. You can see that there's an increased height of the wall outside of what's usually found in the land development code where it usually speaks to between six to eight feet, as well as an increased amount of shade trees and evergreen shrubs. It should be pointed out that generally residential uses don't have to buffer against one another and that this is uh above and beyond what the land development code would have required.
There are two variations from the land development code associated with this MPUD, one from 901611 street design and dedication requirements. Applicants proposing not to provide an interconnect to the north or to the west. To the north exists a large category wetland. And to the west is the pilot country airport. And finally, from LDC Section 8056, restrictions on post-development wetlands and upland buffers, this is for those portions of wetland that fall within the non-residential portion of the MPUD that if under single
ownership those entities will be required for the maintenance thereof of the common area's wetlands. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions from the Fama. Uh Planning Development Economic Growth and I'm available for any questions. Okay. Anybody? I also would like to state on the record, since we did decrease the density of the residential, Mr. Devine did provide an updated school impact analysis, which is less student generation
than the previous 300 Platte Town Homes, which will be submitted to the clerk's office and attached for the Board of County Commissioners. We also received letters of opposition from the public, which have also been sent to the clerk's office. Okay, thank you.
That that was the only thing I was gonna make a note of is the um looks like the updated ones in the comprehensive plan amendment um companion item, but it looks like it was the old one was included in the rezoning
I got started a little early with approvals before the holidays, uh before I got that from Mr. Divine, so a little bit on my over eagerness, but it will certainly be attached to the BCC.
Yeah, 'cause it looks like the updated ones there in the Comprehensive plan notes dated uh ninth of October twenty five. Yes, sir. Thank you William.
Well well just one quick question for you. Um regarding the airport zones I know you had the slide in there and I hel that's definitely helpful, I'm glad you had it in there. But isn't part of the property in the airport zone in addition to the airport influence area?
Uh let me so this is the the various zones that are identified in six oh five. So the RPZ And the approach surface there are don't fall on this subject property, which are your more restrictive areas in six oh five. And then in a two mile radius is where that AIA exists, which this this property is inclusive of, and that's where this table came into effect that said what the uh permissible uses would be.
Isn't there another zone in between those two in the AIA? Because I think if you go to table six or five point one, there's a there's an A Z column. And the hotels are additional review requirements. In that section. I think at the end of the day y it'll be okay and I think that those I additional items get reviewed during site plan or so than during zoning. I just wanted to point that out before it goes to the board. So maybe you can just look into that and
Absolutely, I certainly will. Mr.
Jardy, there actually is a qu there's a condition, um, condition fifty-four. But I think addresses that issue. Okay. It says that it is in the A Z and then it's subject to additional review at the time site plan. Yeah.
I noticed that. I just wanted to point out 'cause this in the in the presentation area gets it's a little confusing, so
I can certainly make that more clear. Okay. Thank you.
Very good.
Any
applicant?
Good afternoon. Barbara Will Hight, 6327 Grand Boulevard for the applicant suffering from a cold. That's what you get for stopping working and trying to vacation. So bear with me. This project was on your agenda at one point. My client asked me to put it on hold so he could meet with the pilot country neighborhood. As staff has told you, we we were in for 300 platted townhomes. After those meetings, we went back and
had a lot of meetings as a team and the client directed. directed us to change the application for 108 single family detached homes instead of the town homes. The those consist of sixty foot lots. We were very thoughtful of putting the sixty foot lots where we put our sixty foot lots and fifty foot lots. And we have the enhanced buffer that we always said from day one that we would do to pilot country. What's interesting is if you look at pilot country to the west, it's res three land use. And our proposed
density now, before with townhomes, was 5.5 dwelling units per net acre, and now it's 2.0. So that's a big change. Um it's definitely consistent with with pilot country. I zoned both the properties on the west side of pilot country, one being the single family detached neighborhood that's adjacent to pilot country um on their western boundary, and those are forty foot lots. I also zoned apartments
directly adjacent to um pilot country on their west and those were also found consistent and compatible. I think the towns were absolutely consistent and compatible, uh given both the history of the zonings in the area and the area as well as the airport ordinance. But again the client, you know, I'm I'm sure this folks are still not happy and and don't want us to develop, but I think what we've come up with is a very good project. Um given the area, if this is
a going to be a either four or six lane arterial. It's you know, it's going to be a large roadway. You can see how it already is developing up to this point. Um so we try to come up with something very thoughtful. As far as airport compatibility, yes, it is in the A Z zone. It is compatible and consistent and we we we um are complying with everything. Fortunately, as we bring this zoning forward, we have that ordinance. When I had the other two zonings, we didn't have that ordinance.
So it was a lot of How should it be done? What should be allowed? A lot of work went into that. Fortunately the county did the airport protection ordinance and looked at and studied each one of these airports, studied what's compatible, and put all in an ordinance for us to follow. So now it's not as much of a question of what should we approve here, because we have an ordinance that says what can be approved and still protect and a balance, still protect the airport and the airport community, but also allow a a project. So I think we've
we've um We worked hard on this one and we uh hope we can get your support. I have my team here. I we look forward to answering questions from the public. Um and thank you.
Okay, thank you Barbara. Any questions?
All right. So who's on the first
on the list? The first individual signed up to speak is Mr. Craig Kanati.
Okay. And I'm not sure who's keeping time, but they technically have six minutes since they're speaking to two items.
Okay.
So we need your name and your address please.
Good afternoon. My name is uh Greg Connity. And I own two pieces of property on the north side of the proposed And this um
Huh, sorry, Greg, we need your address too.
My address is [address removed]. Mm-hmm. And that's in Spring Hill. Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm.
Go ahead.
My my concern is that uh I've lived there since uh nineteen ninety four. I own I live on a 10-acre lot adjacent to the property and I own 60 acres that is adjacent to the property with my sister.
I've seen flooding there many times back in 1997, 2008. And most recently the two hurricanes that came in 2024. I'm worried that 'cause m the water has come all the way up to my house a couple of times. D taken away any kind of area where the water can go is just gonna drive it more in my direction and I don't wanna have any flooding up towards my house. And that's my main concern right now, is
just that and You know, I'm running cattle over there on my property and I don't wanna have Cows getting out and getting into somebody's neighborhood and it would just be very bad. So those are my main concerns and um I'm not in opposed to growth, I know it's happening. And uh so that's all I really got to say. But thank you for giving me the time.
Oh thank you for coming. Appreciate that. And I'll try to get you some answers.
Okay.
Who next?
Mr. Chair, the next individual signed up to speak is Dennis Henderson.
Yeah.
Hello, my name's uh Dennis Hurtenstein. I live at [address removed]. Um As a general contractor whose livelihood depends on new development, I'm not here today in opposition of development. I'm here to advocate for a responsible development through a cohesive transition and zoning changes between properties. Both the existing subdivisions on each side of the proposed development are zoned AR-1, AR-5, and ER-2. these types
of AR developments are becoming increasingly rare in Pasco County. I'd like for the board to consider an approval of this project with a few conditions which would go a long way to addressing some of these quality of life issues. that would affect the current residents in the area. Number one, high density homes. Uh homes built on this size lot this close together would most likely have a negative impact on the current home values and through which overcrowding, traffic issues, school overcrowding,
which Land O' Lakes High School is already at 111% capacity, this would increase to 112% according to the applicants data provided to this board. Life safety. Spread of fire between structures close built close together, which according to the U.S. Fire Administration 10-year trend, 2014 to 2024, show a significant jump in residential fires. Item number two, flooding. previous gentleman just mentioned. I mean we already have lots in part of the
country that are that are affected by flooding from this property. Number three, you know, the hotel. You know, this type of business It typically doesn't remain viable in an area such as this one over time. It'll start to attract to criminal activity as the standards start to decline. Um in closing I'd like to In closing, I I believe the following conditions placed on this project would help ease some of my concerns and those of my neighbors. Number one, density. Um
Density of more than one to two family homes per acre with a front and rear setback of thirty foot and a side of fifteen. Number two. Um No wood or vinyl fence along the western boundary of the site, but would require a continuous minimum six-foot-tall engineer concrete wall to be built to withstand the minimum 130 mile-an-hour wind loads and a screen buffer of 15-foot wide consisting of shade trees and shrubs in accordance with Chapter 900
of Land Development Code. I would also like to see a bond of some value, maybe $5 million or something, put into place for a minimum of 10 years to address any kind of future flooding issues. Uh number four, you know, no type of hotel included in this in this project. And um I'd like to see some current uh traffic and put public safety surveys, you know, um before the project moves forward. That's all. Thank you.
All right, thank you. Any questions?
Hey, thank you.
Next. Mr. Chairman the next individual signed up to speak is Caitlin Buell.
Okay. Caitlin, can we have your name and address please?
Absolutely. Caitlin Buell, [address removed].
Thank you.
My name is Caitlin Buell, as I said. My backyard borders this planned or proposed development. I'm a flight nurse on a helicopter. My husband is a professional pilot and in his spare time he teaches other people how to fly airplanes. He even taught me how to fly an airplane, which is impressive. Um all that to say our personal and professional lives are wrapped up in aviation. We bought our first home here in Pilot Country and there is truly no other place like it. I would like to say thank you to all
of you for doing what you do. I'm grateful that we share the goal of maintaining Pilot Country as a lively general aviation airport and as a resource for the residents of Pilot Country. Or sorry, Pasco County. You know what I mean. Yeah. Um all that said, I think putting people's houses under low flying air traffic in an other in an otherwise rural area is bananas. I would encourage all of you to find some people in the public's parking lot to talk to about this, because it's not just me, pretty much everyone
outside this room thinks this is bananas. But here we are talking about it, so I will move on. I have some concerns that I hope will be easy fixes. As the development is proposed now, it would decrease the privacy and thus the property value of my home, as well as all but one of the pilot country homes that border the area. I see there's a buffer planned, which is great, but unfortunately, with as small as these lots are, any two-story house would be high enough and close
enough to the fence to see into our yards and our homes. So having five or six second story windows looming overhead would negatively affect our use and enjoyment of our backyard. If you look at the developer's drawing, You'll notice One House does not have this problem. The guy pushing this rezoning effort lives in the house that backs up to the park. He has protected his own home from the decrease in privacy that he is imposing on it on his neighbors. That's
great for him. That's his right to propose it. I support him in following his heart. I hope his dreams stay big, his worries stay small, and he never needs to carry more than he can hold. But I would like to ask you to help achieve a similar consideration of privacy for the rest of us. If it could be specified in the plan that the houses bordering Pilot Country would be limited to a single story, that would allay my concerns. Not having any two-story houses right at the border of pilot country would
make the buffer effective at preserving everyone's privacy and could allow the development to move forward if that is really what you want.
Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
I think I'm not sure if I understood what you're saying.
gentleman that owns the home adjacent to the park is the applicant? Or
Who was that gentleman?
Mark Mark uh twelve of them.
And he's the applicant for the current zoning?
Yes.
Okay.
All right. Mr. Chairman the next individual sign up to speak is Chris Buell.
Thanks for everybody's time. Uh Christopher Buell, [address removed]. I'll uh uh give different concerns than the what of those that have already been brought up. Uh main one for me is um m airpo airport noise and that those that are gonna be moving into these areas are fully aware um beforehand before they um
Noise for airports, especially small ones like ours, are a big risk for us maintaining our property, our ability to use uh the airport itself. Um I'm curious if an FA noise study has been done recently so that Um people moving into these uh this new neighborhood have an accurate understanding of what they'd be exposing themselves to. Um I know recently um And now we have a private jet
that is now based at the airport that's also related to this um the applicants for this this project. Um so th th those are the big things that concern me. Um the water and the the flooding that Craig brought up. is also a big concern. We see that quite a bit with the bigger storms already. I know that's a concern for our neighbors that are on the northwest side of Pilot Country that had that more recent development of similar size and density put in over there. They've had
significant flooding issues since that project. Again, kind of plowing over the the wetland area that was there before. Um so those are two of my big concerns with with the rezoning and the development just to the east of Pilot Country.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Pierre. Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman the last individual we have pre-registered to speak is Mark Budd.
Okay.
Mark Budd, [address removed]. I live at uh by the country. I actually live um just south of Mark Twal Twalhoven, one of the applicants. And um
I share all the same previous people. Pretty much verbatim, all their concerns. Okay. And uh property values, privacy, all those same things. And I'd also like to see if this project were to move forward, either decrease in density or Definitely limited one-story homes. just to the uh east of Pilot Country and that border.
Potentially a larger buffer zone. Anything to keep our privacy that we currently have that'll be already somewhat compromised. Take that into account. Uh also in the in the verbiage, I can't remember which document it was, it talks about uh notifying these two potential owners that they can't uh sue or complain or anything about
uh the airport operations, the noise, any liability issues. any safety issues that they might be concerned about that are giving that all up. But that it says to the airport owner. Uh bear in mind that Every member of the HOA is an airport owner. I because the HOA owns a portion of the airport. And and I would like to see that wording. Yeah. uh associated with
being a donor.
Thank you.
That's the last speaker.
Yes, Mr. Chairman all individuals pre registered have been called.
Okay. Is there anybody that would like to speak that has had an opportunity? Okay.
Cindy Buckle, [address removed]. And I totally understand what these folks are saying about Pilot Country. I'm familiar with the area. I have seen the flooding out there, not just from hurricanes, but just from regular rains. I also live near Zephyrhills Airport, which is where Skydive City is. I've lived there for a long time and never had an issue with Skydive City. But
They extended the runway not for Skydive City but for the airport, Zephyrhills Airport. And since they've done that, we have seven planes flying barely above our tree line. And I have contacted FAA. I have a contact at FAA that I will share with these people so they can talk to them. The bakery that's going up right now has already complained about how slow how low those planes are flying in.
There's absolutely no reason for them to fly barely above our treetops. I have several videos of this. There are no communications whatsoever at Zephyrhills Airport. They have a little metal building that's opened on Monday through Friday and everybody else who flies just takes off and flies whenever they want. There's no kind of Tower, there's no kind of communications except pilot
to pilot, and that does not happen often. I have spoken with one pilot that crashed On ash. I actually went and spoke to him and he told me he tried to raise someone at Zephyrhills Airport several times at 6 PM in the afternoon and was not able to. Fortunately, he was able to nosedive in a cow pasture after he took out fences, residential fences, and barely missed
a dwelling. So Putting homes in a in a two or three story resort where planes fly, you're looking for a catastrophic incident. And I can tell you right now, I'm a retired firefighter paramedic. And I know Pasco County has absolutely zero aviation training. Hulk County does, and Hernando County does. So should there be a crash? Should there be a catastrophic
crash? You're gonna have to call in help from everywhere. And this is a fact, this is coming from my FAA contact.
Okay, thank you.
Is there anybody else like to speak?
No one on the list, right? Anybody on WebEx? Okay. Barbara?
For the record, Barbara Willheight again on behalf of the applicant. Um listened to the public comment, anticipated a lot of their comment um when we were When we first put this project together and then when we put it back together again. I would say for our neighbor to the north, if you look at our binding concept plan, along our northern boundary is a pond and wetlands. So we have no home adjacency uh home adjacent to that north northern boundary. Um with regard to the right-of-way. Could
you put that back up on the screen so they everybody can see it?
Sorry Barbara.
No, absolutely. It's always good to see.
Yeah.
So you can see along the northern is where our we put our pond and and the wetlands are. The the the density you hear from, we heard that as well. That's where we changed from townhomes to single family detached, um from a five point five units per um net acre to two. Yeah. Buffering, we right from the beginning looked at the buffering and proposed an enhanced buffer. Uh we hear that single story versus two-story
comment a lot. Um I hear it a lot. The single story and two-story homes coexist next to each other, near each other everywhere. Um the airport noise there are Conditions fifty four, fifty five, and fifty six that deal with the disclosures regarding the noise. We worked with um I worked with and we worked with the county and putting that ordinance together to get those disclosures right and so if there was something that
the disclosure language wasn't if there was some comment on that I would be happy to listen to you know what what maybe should be added to that but we are following the ordinance that spent quite a bit of time years in developing the ordinance to come up with what we should do here. Flooding, you know, with regard to flooding. We hear it, we understand it. It's always good to hear it. Always hear neighbors talking about it 'cause it is an important issue. You all know the process that we go through to to get permitted on a project like this
relative to um stormwater issues.
Mm-hmm. Could I ask you a question about your your buffer? Um
And I I don't know, I mean I realize it's residential to residential, but is there a reason that
that you're planting shrubs outside of the wall as opposed to something that might screen the higher The hires homes like trees, you know.
Let me let me bring Chrissy up.
Because an eight foot wall is not gonna screen a thirty five foot home, but trees over time might in fact screen a thirty five or better screen a thirty five foot home.
Christy Barrer with height design. So a row of shrubs is required. We're putting them on the outside of our fence, so it's Screening the fence a little bit, and then we're putting twice as many trees behind the fence as would be required in the standard buffer. So X twice as many trees, shrubs on the pilot country side of the fence. And then an eight foot fence or wall instead of a minimum six foot
fence or wall or hedge or berm that is permitted in the type B buffer.
So what what kind of trees are you planting this?
We don't know the exact type of trees. Um I'm not sure if the Land Development Code has a specific type button
I'm just trying to figure out are you planting trees that would screen a thirty five foot home?
I don't believe that that is level of details in the land adolment code and that level of detail is not in our proposed buffer at this time either.
W Barbara, would there be an opposition to single story homes on on that property line? I mean those
are six equal lots, right? I don't think that's a reasonable ask. Okay.
Those are sixty foot lozo, correct?
Yes. Okay. But if we if we would be happy to sharpen our pencils on the buffer. Um Yeah, something that you had to do.
I was asking whether you could commit to trees that would actually provide better screening.
I I Rive comes to mind. I know we did a specific buffer um over at uh on Ridge Road next for the apartments next to the homes on at Tanglewood and Ridge. So y maybe there is something I Yeah, Oh. So I I wouldn't mind sharpening our pencil on the buffer. Yeah, we've done it before. I can't imagine it's make or break for this project. Um we can sharpen our pencil on the buffer and look for I know I think it's Aravaida that
we came up with for another project that's fast growing and it fills in. Right. Yeah. So we'd be happy to I would be happy to commit to sharpen our pencil immediately before the board meeting and come up with uh maybe some more specifics as to what we're gonna plant.
David, I have a question for you.
We got asked the other day at the board hearing on the tree ordinance how it works with clearing agricultural property and then coming and applying for a rezoning how's that work?
So, um Yeah, the general rule is that if you are Clearing property under an agricultural exemption that you have to basically wait five years before you can submit an application development for development unless you're gonna mitigate for that. It's that tree removal under the eye exemption. You can you can turn around and immediately develop after you clear it under an eye
exemption, but you're gonna have to mitigate for that tree removal.
Hmm. Okay. And that's done at the site plan level?
Yes.
So you're not prohibited from clearing internet exemption and then developing it just you're gonna have to mitigate for it. I see,
and then how do we determine how many trees were taken out?
You use aerial photos from the
and or representative samples from um trees in the area. But we can use aerial photos from To determine the trees that were
there? Yeah, it appears up in the northwest corner of this development that a significant amount of clearing happened between
twenty twenty and twenty twenty three. So if that was done under some wetland impact was done there as well.
So if that was done under an exemption and that they haven't met the required time frame, they'll have to mitigate for those. Wait, can you put up the trees property
appraiser and map?
Sorry, can you put it up on that?
I said can you put up the property appraiser, ma'am?
So If you can put on the 2020 aerial photograph.
If you go in the upper the the four squares down on the bottom. I'm sorry, you're looking at the yeah.
Is that twenty twenty?
Yeah.
You can see up in the northwest corner of the property it's all very n keep going north with your cursor. Right to the left of where your cursor is. Yeah, right to the right. Yep, right there. Now flip to the 2023
Yeah, they're all gone. Mm-hmm.
So again they'll have to if that was
If it doesn't meet the terms of the ordinance they'll have to mitigate for those removal by removal.
We will acknowledge the ordinance on the record. I don't know anything else about it. Okay.
Maybe some of that mitigation will be planting trees in this buffer.
I would be looking at the northeast corner of that area that was cleared because that looks like it was a wetland that was impacted as well.
Christy along those lines is I I can tell in the information, is there a formal determination of the the wetland lines or is there not currently?
I don't believe the wetlands have been formally set yet. I don't believe Swift Mutt has been out. So that will happen before the site plan is approved.
Okay, do you anticipate any impacts here? site plan for that?
Very minimal, if any. Um I'd have to go back and look at the plan, but um these are category one wetlands for the most part and so we were not in planning on impacting them at all.
Okay. Looks like there may have already been some.
Yeah, to John's point.
We'll definitely get the experts out there and they'll let us know if any have been impacted or not.
Well I think in order to deal with some of the concerns that uh David mentioned and some of the neighbors have brought up, I think it's important to I think you've already said that you'll look into Putting a heavy tree line there. of trees that will mitigate the
visual problems. We will enhance the enhanced buffer.
Okay.
And we'll specify the actual species, their spacing.
I know what to do. Yeah. We know what to do.
Yeah,
just uh
make sure to do that.
Did you have did you have any comment on the location of the park um behind the applicant's property there?
No, I'm not sure. I think that was just a comment, a fact. I
Heights laying out of the best location for a park wasn't directed by anybody.
Seems convenient.
It was on the record, I mean Christy can testify as well, her layout was not directed by anybody.
Right, so if you put the layout back up, the road that curves to the west that tees into the north-south road, um, we went through the in between the two wetlands. And so at the end of that road is where we put the neighborhood park. Um, in the conditions it says, you know, that the park could be moved. Again, this is a binding concept plan, so we would have to show that to staff if it was to be moved to a different place on the site. But
we thought you know teeing into that would be a nice look for the community.
And I know there were some concerns from everybody, I think, about Water runoff and how that might affect their future wetland areas. Um maybe one of the engineers we have on the on the board here could explain how the county handles that. They they might not
be familiar with
it.
I would tell you to me that is not a major concern. They will have to get permits from the water management district. and demonstrate that the runoff after development doesn't exceed the amount of runoff leaving the site before development for the design storm events and they'll have to do the same at the county level. So I don't really have too much of a concern about them causing flooding. Additional flooding.
Correct. Yeah.
Okay.
I just wanted to address that because I know it's concern and most of the people may or not know how we handle that.
And floodplains are accounted for as you can see on the concept plan and then there's separate floodplain compensation areas as well, so that aspect is looked at too.
And those are all things that are heavily scrutinized by the water management district when they go in to get permits. So I said I have not a whole lot of concern about that.
Okay. David, anything else?
Okay, any other concerns or questions?
The only other one Barbara that I had in my notes from the the public's comments is not that I agree with it, but the viability of the hotel. Did you have any or
No, we we think it's a good location for a hotel.
I would agree.
Yeah, I mean They want to risk their money, that's up to them. Right? So
All right. If there are no further questions or comments, um do you have a motion?
Um sorry, we ca we you can only come up once. Did anybody like to hear extra comments? Typically only we give you one opportunity to come up and speak. And if do you have something else you can add to it? I
want
you you can't speak from back there first of all. Please come forward and I'll accept you as a
Okay, just wanted to give your name and address again.
We need to give you your name and
address again.
Uh Mark Bud [address removed].
Okay, that way they know who's speaking.
So um Just to give you an idea, I'm probably fifteen feet from you. That ceiling's probably fifteen feet. That's a setback. Double that, more than double that. Picture a wall. It's outside the back of my yard. Okay, now there would be potentially another 15 feet, so 30 feet by 35 feet, 10 feet between those buildings, all along
our perimeter. that doesn't really lend itself to uh a very good
view out the back of our yard plus the site right down in to my home.
Well that's what we're talking about putting up the larger trees.
Yeah. And how long is that going to take for those trees to grow to heights?
Well you know the problem is is if you don't own the property and you're not paying the taxes on it. I I understand it. I'm not
against
uh probably one of a I think uh even with the setbacks, thirty seven hundred square foot ho home.
Well there are plenty of examples all over the county and every other county where they have two story homes right next to one story homes and uh So we're trying to do our best to mitigate any impact that it has on the one-story homes, but it doesn't mean that we can just completely get rid of them.
Right. And the thing is, you know, today he has AR zoning. He could come in and apply for a subdivision today with one acre lots and they could build a wall somebody could build a wall or a two or three story house behind your home without having to come here to a public hearing.
Yeah, it could, but maybe not that density though. It's the combination of the density and the height. that becomes a problem.
It's both together. So a compromise would be to lower. And still get the the uh size home that you would desire.
So on Driver Lane I'm seeing north of the developers, two lots north of the developer's property or one of the developers' properties, I'm seeing some vacant lots.
You could say the same thing on the other side of the property. Well what if someone built a th two or three story home on one of those lots and then felt like the people that own this property then feel like their privacy's being invaded?
Yeah, you could.
But I didn't buy an X2. Yeah, but to Mr. Gray's point, they they own that property and they paid the taxes on that property. And unfortunately they get to do with their property what they
So all the all of us that are along the the uh with the homes that we have, which are high dollar homes We're gonna just be looking at nothing but big old blocks behind our house.
There would be nothing that stops him from building big old blocks today without coming to a public hearing like this.
Well that's why I'm here.
All right.
Barbara, did you want to rebut any more?
Um only if the Planning Commission has more questions. Thank you.
All right.
Any further discussion?
You should take action on these separately.
Okay. So we'll uh take action on P8 first. Okay, so uh there are motion.
Motion to approve.
Second. We have a motion and a second with the modifications and everything. I think the modifications are probably on P9.
Okay. So any further discussion, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Okay. And P9, with the modifications that we talked about.
Motion approved.
Motion is approved. Whoever second? Second that. Any further discussion of the motions? All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like signed. Okay. I should carry it.