PC2 PDD-20-0230 Pittman Massey Jordan comprehensive plan amendment
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Jan 9, 2020
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Jan 9, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 18m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 73% of 105 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So are we back to PC two?
Are we down PC two or are we down doing PC?
I think PC two would be the next one to be heard.
Okay, is that what you're doing, Carrie? Yes. Okay.
Very good.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um item PC2 is PDD 200230, Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPAW 1914, Pittman, Massey, Jordan. Uh the purpose of the county initiated uh comprehensive plan amendment is to remove the Pittman Massey and Jordan ECM PD parcels from the Northeast Rural Area, which is Area One, and identify it on flu map, future land use map two-one
three rural area, per the Board of County Commissioners direction at the August 9, 2016 BCC meeting. The location of the parcels, which I'll show a slide in a second, are at the northeast corner of State Road 52 and Happy Hill Road, and the Jordan M E C M PD parcels are on the west side of US 301. The resolution before you today is to do a future land use amendment to map 2-13, the rural area, to remove these parcels from that map. And there's a there
is an accompanying rezoning, which is the next item on the agenda, to amend section 604, specifically the figures stated there, 604-1, 2, 3, and 4, to remove the Jordan parcels and the Pittman parcels from the overlay itself, which is found in the Land Development Code.
Terry to be clear, that's not a rezoning, that's a Land Development Code Amendment, right?
I'm sorry, correct. Land Development Code Amendment. A type a map amendment in within the Land Development Code Amendment. Okay. Um this is the location of the Jordan EC flu, just north of Dade City. Get this to work. And then the Pittman Massie parcels are located to the east of San Antonio Saint Leo area.
Uh this map is indicating map 2-13, which is the location of the two parcels that we're referring to today within Area 1. And the Board of County Commissioners had found that these were not uh to be part of the Northeast uh area and mandated their removal back in 2016.
These are aerials of the two properties. So on the left is the Jordan ECMPUD area. It's bounded on US 301 on the west with Ashbrook to the north. And then on the right is the Pittman Massey parcels, which are at the northwest corner of Sable 52 and Happy Hill. Prospect Road is to the south there on along 52.
These are the future land use uh designations in the surrounding area.
And the following policies are consistent with the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Objective Flu 21, preserve the rural lifestyles in Northeast Pasco County. Objective Flu 23, protect existing rural neighborhoods, and policy flu 188, which is the employment center purpose.
With that, we recommend to the local planning agency that you find the proposed amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan and to recommend approval to the board of county commissioners. And we have staff on standby for remote for any particular questions.
Okay. We'll see what questions do we have. I think we have a couple of people that wanna have a have have to ask questions. Okay. So
I think we had a couple of people that wanted to speak. If you want to come forward and state your name and address.
We'll try to get your questions answered.
If you just state your name and address, you might have to pull that microphone down a bit. There you go. I can't hear you.
Okay. Okay, um I'm here to talk about Pittman Massey.
I need your name and address.
Carol Jankey, [address removed]. Uh my home backs up to Roth Lane, formerly Old Pasco Road near
Hold on one second. I want to get the wolf lesser to the end.
Okay. Okay. Okay. My home backs up to Roth Lane, formerly Old Pasco Road, and nearly ninety percent of the road is broken up. It's used as a connector road to State Road 52 to Dade City and 579 North Happy Hill Road to the St. Joe area. This road is often used when congestion occurs at State Road 52 and Prospect Road. I am proposing that a three to five year moratorium is placed on all these requested changes for projects until Pasco
County can rebuild Prospect Clinton and Roth Lane. The Tampa Bay Times states state road fifty two won't be completed until twenty twenty four. Um And I have a question here. Your map shows this huge rural area And my concern is wouldn't all the contiguous property owners be entitled to the same treatment and development that is the masse 22 acres. That's the thirty-eight acres north of that and the thirteen acres north of the thirty-eight acres. They all back
up to East Point. I understand that there is an egress through these properties from East Point to align with Roth Lane. Is this now the intent to use this access to Happy Hill Road? that would be disastrous because the vehicles s uh speed and fly down that Happy Hill road to that light All the time. Uh many of the landowners that were rural agricultural have benefited from the low property taxes for many years. Obviously
there is some plan to develop or the request wouldn't be made to take this property to a different uh tax base. A motori a motorium will with until plans to rebuild the roads necessary to serve the area is the right way to go to avoid more congestion. Now is the time to get it right.
Ma'am,
can I ask you the question?
What is what is the reason you're objecting to the property being removed from the rural area? This isn't a rezoning. I want you to be clear. They're not a very good thing.
Well I've been told now I did I did not know this till right here today that they told me this is already zoned commercial. The Pittman Massey property is already zoned commercial iconic.
The action today is not rezoning this property. The action today is to remove it from a overlay the rural overlay area.
Right. But then there will be subsequent actions to to get it to where they want it to be.
But are you what is your objection to it being removed from the rural overlay?
I don't have an objection. I'm saying a delay or a moratorium. for three to five years, till that intersection down there With Prospect and Clinton and fifty two is all we know what's gonna be there.
I understand your concerns. I'm just trying to figure out how this relates to the request to remove it from the rural area.
I'm not re um I guess I'm not com you know, contending that. I'm just saying it needs to be delayed. because I think the other property owners would have the same rights.
the uh to have their property removed from the rural area too, the thirty six acres north of that.
I'm just saying typically traffic impacts, which it sounds like that's your major concern, are evaluated at the time of a rezoning request or a site plan request. But we don't have those before us today.
I know you don't.
Okay. So Do you want to be notified if we get a rezoning or a site plan request on that property?
Well I was told it was already rezoned. I didn't know that and I've lived there for forty-two years.
Okay. Terry maybe you can address the zoning of the Pittman Massy property.
Is there anything else that you have before Terry comes back up? Answer that.
Are you talking to me?
Yes.
What was the question?
Just wanted to make sure that was the main question you had before Mr. Pitos comes back up and answers your question.
Okay. Yes, right. Like I said, I'm not trying to stop people from developing their property. I'm trying to say that the county needs to have a plan at that intersection because we know that ultimately it will be developed.
And I'm not saying I disagree with you, ma'am, but we just don't have a development application in front of us today.
Right, I understand.
Okay. Okay, thank you.
And like I said, I didn't know today until I came here and Mr. Hobby told me that it was already zoned. Commercial.
Okay, well Mr. Pitos is going to address what it's the current.
Okay.
Uh thank you Mr. Chairman Mari Terry Pitoes for Planning and Development. What we're proposing here today is not a rezoning. Thank you, David, for correcting me during the presentation. I didn't mean to use that word rezoning. The zoning status, we're gonna bring it up here in just a second. Sure. Oh.
Um
We're simply removing these properties from the northeast rural area, which is area one, and then updating overlay maps within section six oh four of the land development code to reflect the removal. So we're not changing the zoning in any way. What the zoning is today is what the zoning will remain, and we'll show the the the zoning designations in just a second here on the overhead.
Um so I think that answers the question. There's no development that's being proposed. We're simply following up here with what the Board of County Commissioners had mandated in twenty sixteen and through a backlog of projects and and and staff turnover. Um we've only now been able to get to the project.
So what is the current zoning of the
Pittman Massy parcel?
The current zoning on this parcel here is a portion of it is C two General Commercial District and that's original nineteen seventy five. Um zoning. So that was the original zoning that was overlaid on that parcel when zoning came into effect on December 1st, 1975. And then the portion that's closest to the northern boundary is zoned AR, agricultural residential, and that's also original 1975 zoning
on that parcel.
So is it accurate to say that? To develop a property commercially it likely would have to go through some kind of rezoning request?
Uh a portion of the property, yes. You would have to go through some kind of zoning.
And would staff look at the traffic impact at that time?
Yes.
Hopefully that addresses
and in the next presentation we'll actually show the overlay maps um to further illustrate what changes are are taking place within the land development coordinates.
Okay.
So that covers uh PC two more
she is I think there's somebody else that wants to speak
to
the easy.
Oh yeah. Okay. Please come forward.
Thank you. Beverly Harmon, one two seven O five, Timber Run, Dade City, three three five two five. Um on one of the earlier slides I think it says the northeast corner of Happy Hill at State Road fifty two instead of the northwest corner. You may want to check your slides, 'cause I think one of the one of the previous ones mislabeled which corner it is. It's not the northeast corner, it would be the northwest.
So it was on one of your slides in the print. Um And I'm just kind of echoing what Mrs. Janke said that We understand that that property is zoned, most of it is zoned commercially already. and that there is a some confusion between an overlay, a rural overlay over a commercial property. So that that's what you're trying to do here is remove that confusion and just make sure that it's listed as commercial. We're not objecting to the fact that someday
somebody's going to develop that property commercially. We know that. We just want to make sure that you hear us when that those kind of applications come forward. That The roads and the infrastructure at present are not there. And that before any further development goes in there, that those pieces of infrastructure need to be there. Pasco County
is sometimes behind the curve when they're putting infrastructure in and they're they're making development and they're approving things to go in. So We don't want to get it wrong the next time. especially because it impacts our neighborhood. But we understand that that what you're doing today is just removing some confusion in how that parcel is looked at.
Yeah, you are worried that the county and state are about to build the extension uh the fifty two Clinton Avenue extension project that is gonna provide some relief to that intersection.
We understand that that's what's supposed to happen, but it again it's gonna be a quite a while before that gets done and we're experiencing as
long as you think. It's it's going under construction, I think, sometime in the next year. Or it
may
already be under construction.
And hopefully that will relieve some of the congestion that we're experiencing already and some of the traffic. But uh Roth, as as Mrs Janke said, is a a cut through between Happy Hill and State Road fifty two. And it it is a mess. It's my husband likes it because he said it's got like built-in speed calmers because it's so potholed and rough. But it it really doesn't slow the traffic down. They they buzz through there to cut off going to that stoplight at the at Happy
Hill and Prospect. They use Jenk uh Roth as a little cut through instead. So anyway, um again, we just wanna make sure that if you make a change and if there are development proposals that come forward, that the infrastructure's there first and that we get notified in a timely manner so that we can make sure that it's gonna meet with our what we want in our neighborhoods. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else?
Mr. Chairman, this is Clark Hobby, Hobby and Hobby, PA 109 North Brest Street, Tampa, Florida have been sworn. I'll keep it brief. So I've represented these families for many, many years. The Pittman partial has original zoning. Originally it was 400 feet of C2. There's been some takings over time, but the entirety of that partial is either C2 or has ROR future land use. It's been declared a nodal property, so it's got certain vested rights with regard to the non-OROR portion. There
is no plan of development right now. As you will note, it took staff, you know, four years or three and a half years just to get this removal agenda going. So we haven't been pushing for anything even on the vested C2 we already have. But we do want to take this property and the Jordans out because they're the only two large commercial tracks in all of Northeast Pasco. And we feel that it's confusing to the public and to users in general to say I've got a large employment center like
the Jordans have or a large commercial tract, but oh by the way, it's in a rural area. The Teuton concepts are just totally inconsistent. And that's why the board instructed staff to initiate this. Thank you. Okay,
thank you.
All right.
Do we wanna talk about
Okay.
Yeah.
I can't see one of these books, I think.
The one thing that um Nancy Hayswood 34110 a nice place that I understand that it was um taken out um that should be taken out of the Northeast Rural Area Plan, even though I don't really like them pulling things from it. But um it's too bad you can't leave in some of the stuff that complies with the Northeast Rural Area. Like there's certain protections for scenic roadways and um let's see
what was it? Topography alter and alterations. I'll keep 'em from digging pits and things along that line. So it's too bad that those protections aren't gonna still comply. Perhaps you could give it some thought and Put some in still in so the area remains lovely. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Okay. So anyone?
So should we do it four or one just do these one at a time?
Okay. So we have a motion then on uh PC two? They move a motion to approve. So we have a motion to approve PC two.
All second.
And we have a second. Any further discussion of that? All in favor? Opposed? Right.
Okay, yeah, what was the next one that was both?