PC13 PDE 25-0018 CPA 24-05 Rural Area 4 map
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, Dec 12, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Dec 12, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 8m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 80% of 356 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, last but not least, P13.
Okay. Uh Amy Toll, Planning, Development and Economic Growth.
So the item before you is PDE 25-0018. It is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPA 2405, Rural Area 4, and Urban Expansion Area Maps. The proposal before you is a map amendment to maps uh two-thirteen and two-twenty two. This is proposing to remove the rural neighborhood protection area from Map 2-13 and add or amend the rural expansion
area to a rural serv or I'm sorry, the uh expansion area to a service area on map 2-22. So, some history of what is currently going on, and then we'll go into some visuals. So in 2006, the county adopted Map 2-13 Rural Areas, which basically created four geographic areas to protect different types of rural rural character areas. So we have the northeast rural area,
which is rural area one. We also have the rural protection. area, the rural transition area, and the rural character area. Additionally, in 2010, the board also adopted what's called the urban concentration area. The urban concentration area consists of both the urban service area and the urban expansion area. The intent of this area is to ensure that the higher levels of density and intensity are prioritized within those areas with sufficient infrastructure in place.
Additionally, the urban service area is your full urban service area where those densities are going to be concentrated and densities concentrated. The expansion areas were in place to think of future development patterns and ensure that those inf that infrastructure is in place to expand the urban service area within that that uh geographic boundary.
The difference between urban service area and urban expansion area. Sure. Just rewind a little bit.
Sure. Urban service area has the infrastructure in place to accommodate a higher level of density and intensity. Urban expansion area is a vision to expand the urban service area, basically saying we see that development is going to happen in this area. But we want to make sure that the infrastructure is is in place before moving forward.
The full story is that when Pasco County went to adopt a certain service area. It actually included the expansion area as well. Correct. But the Department of Community Affairs objected to not the urban service area boundaries but the area that was called expansion. They didn't want it to be part of our urban service area. That being said, it's still part of the urban mobility fee district. It's it's okay, but the key
is that the infrastructure is in place.
To accommodate the level of density. So it's a vision to expand those densities in those areas. Essentially the urban service or the urban expansion areas are primarily along your major like I-75 corridors. Um so this one in Particular is your I-75 corridor, then there's one in the east side of the county over by 301. So there's only two areas that are expansion. The rest is urban service, urban service area, well, urban concentration area, which is your overarching umbrella for those two, is your west
and south market.
And is there a criteria for the infrastructure which must be in place?
Uh the policy just states that there should b there's uh adequate infrastructure in place and then you have to come in for a comp plan amendment from urban service area to expansion area.
Yeah, my only point was that but for the Department of Community Affairs, this would have just all been urban service areas. And this Department of Community Affairs was disbanded like a year later. So I'm not sure there's any material difference as at least as it relates to Pasco County between the urban service area and the expert urban expansion area. It it was They're all just called and I think the f the whole thing is called the Urban Concentration Act. Correct. We treat that as our urban area of our county regardless of what label
you put on it.
Right. Wow. So the intent is to prioritize those higher densities and tensities within that area because there's services to accommodate that. I understand.
Alright, so here's a visual representation of the rural areas. I did copy the policy in there for you to kind of understand the direction that we're going. So policy flu 2.3.2 is the establishment of the rural neighborhood protection area. This is the policy that was established in 2006. So Pasco County shall recognize rural neighborhood protection. areas as defined in Map 2-13 rural areas as areas that include existing residential
neighborhoods that deserve and require special protection from the intrusion of urban uses densities and intensities. I want to highlight existing rural neighborhoods in this policy. So just a close-up of what the area is proposing. So as you can see, the green is your area four, which is your neighborhood protection area. The hatched area is your overlap, so you can see where that inconsistency is now created.
So rural areas. So this is your overall area for. Area 4 currently consists of 17,416 acres. The proposal right now is to amend or adjust 628 acres. So as I noted, the rural areas or rural neighborhood protection areas intended to protect neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods. So as you can see, the yellow or the light coloring there, that is the Cypress
Creek Preserve. All of this land is owned by Swift Mud. Additionally, under that, the future land use classification is a combination of Res One and Conservation Lands. So the Res One is potentially not going to be developed because it is Swift Mud Lands. Additionally, there's another visual that shows. Where the wetlands kind of meander through this area as well. So the highlight for this is to identify those existing neighborhoods. The intent is to preserve and protect existing neighborhoods. So here's one neighborhood that we is intended
to be protected. We also have identified another neighborhood here. So it's about four or five different neighborhoods in the general area. Additionally, I did look back and picked a couple. Lots within these subdivisions. These subdivisions predate the establishment of the rural area. So they were in place prior to right now 2000. So around 2000, I've got there's one from 78, 94. So these existing rural or these existing neighborhoods within the rural protection neighborhood
area predated the establishment of the rural areas. So here's your wetland, so it kind of gives you a further picture depiction of where those neighborhoods are located, how it relates to the swift mud lands that are protected as well, as well as conservation lands in the area. These are the four protected areas.
So, this is the map that is being proposed. So, this is our map within the comprehensive plan. The proposed removal is highlighted above. And then we go into the conflict of the urban service area. So here is the urban service area. So again, rural areas created in 2006, urban service area or urban expans, urban concentration areas created in 2010. So in 2010, the board prioritized these areas for density, higher levels of density and intensity,
ensuring that the infrastructure and services are in place for those areas. So, policy flu 9.1.9, urban expansion area. Any areas in the urban concentration area which are not initially included in the urban service area shall be considered as future urban service area expansion area.
Expansion of the urban service area shall be accomplished through the comprehensive plan amendment demonstrating compliance with applicability provisions of state and local. law. So the intent of this and I'll go back to kind of this visual Of Well I guess that's not a good one. I wish I could highlight, I probably should have put a slide. So as you can see this area, this is the area that's being proposed. There's already a higher level of density that's been um uh constructed, platted, approved. We
also have another portion of it. So this development was already approved. and then it kind of cuts off the bottom of it. So there's no real boundary or intent. This area is predominantly a res 3 or higher, and then the area to the west side of Bellamy Brothers or Old excuse me Old Pasco Road is Res 1 or lower. So again,
The rural areas, so urban expansion area. We have coordinated coordinated with our utilities department to ensure that that the change would be compliant supported by them as well. We do have support from Pasco County Utilities, ensuring that or identifying that services are already provided. As you can tell, most of or a portion of this, I'd say maybe about a third or two-thirds of the proposed area. area is already platted and services are already in s in place for them.
So policy flu 9.1.7. This is the proposal. So we are proposing to change the urban expansion area to the urban service area. Pasco County, uh, urban service area pursuant to section one 163.6.316450. Florida statute shall be the urban service area identified in a map. So the proposed amendment is also consistent with this. With state statute. This is the overall map to dash twenty-two showing
the proposed change from expansion area to service area. I'd like to just highlight this is the other expansion area. We're not considering that at this time.
These are the policies that they are consistent with. And with that we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
So you said utilities says that the infrastructure is in place to provide urban service. Correct. What about the road?
Uh excuse me.
So This is currently on um Old Pasco Road, abutting I-75, so I haven't had any issues with the infrastructure on Old Pasco Road, but we could identify potential expansion CIP.
I'm just sorry saying that again.
Um if there's so if it's on the LRTP or the CIP what the proposed expansion is, but the infrastructure currently is in place to accommodate the level of density because the density has essentially already been approved.
What's the allowed level of density in the urban surface area?
Um but while the urban service area it's it depends on the future land use. So it's all the future land uses that fall within the urban service area. Essentially res three or higher. We do have some res ones, I guess, in there as well. But it's it's any future land use classification within the urban service area, uh, the urban service area or the future land use changes do consider. consider your long range transportation plan rather than any like timing and phasing zoning
impacts. So it envisions your I think right now out to twenty fifty.
Okay.
Anything else up here for Amy?
Yeah, can you go two slides ahead? Yeah, right there. Uh yeah. I was just looking at that and I see Angeline and all those developments on forty one are not in there.
Correct.
I'm just wondering why they're not.
Mm-hmm. Yeah, currently those were not part of the Angeline for references is general area. So I think Bexley is down here. So Bexley is in the service area. Mm-hmm.
Why
is that?
I'm not sure.
So it goes back to the urban service area. It goes back to the yeah, I mean
At the time the Angeline was approved, it really had no infrastructure, just regular. Um so And so it was put into the sub it's not in a rural area to be clear, Angeline. It's in a suburban the suburban uh suburban mobility fee district and market area. So it does in we do envision suburban level development for Angeline. Mm-hmm. It's just not in the urban surface area. Okay.
Yeah, and Angeline is also a planned.
Now it's not to say that if Angeline once it has services throughout all of Angeline, is it possible it could be added to the urban service area? Yes, that's a possibility.
So
David, I got a question. Was there any discussion if you were around back then? She read a comp plan policy that was the purpose and intent of the rural Area. And then all of a sudden We decide that policy was that It's a rural neighborhood protection area. Okay, and they deserve and require special protection from the intrusion of urban uses. Why would
you have ever placed an urban expansion area over it and doesn't The
naming of it now as an urban service area conflict with that particular policy? Why is that policy of any less importance than having
an urban service area policy. I think what Amy's I think said, but I mean I'm not sure. So I'll so I'll try to rephrase what Amy said. I I think
The She but she was basically pointing out that the intent of that policy was to protect existing neighborhoods and that this area is not was not an existing neighborhood at the time that area four was included in the Comm Plan. And it has since developed with suburban or urban level intensities and it's was imp it was included it was included in the urban expansion area because the board had an affirmative desire to include the I-75 corridor in the urban service
area. For both residential and and employment reasons.
I also spec suspect that the area east of this is Old Pasco, right?
Yes.
that because of its proximity to the interstate, the board never felt that it was going to ever really be protected because of its proximity to the interstate.
So what constitutes an existing neighborhood If I live on five acres and my next door neighbor lives on ten acres and my other neighbor lives on five acres there, is that an existing neighborhood? Or what or what is it?
Well I I don't know what was there before. Uh Damien can you
Well are there houses there today? That were there in two thousand and six.
We should be able to look at a historic area and figure that out. Yeah.
In terms of Peters Playing and Develop Playing Development Economic Growth. Um The four neighborhoods that we're talking about have a particular land use are land development pattern. Uh all of them are platted, they have streets. If we were to zoom in on each of them, you would see the distinct s uh a distinct uh subdivision that's basically developed and full in the area. Only a subdivision is a neighborhood. That's the pattern, the consistent
pattern between the the four red circles there. When we go to the east side of Old Pasco Road, the development pattern is different.
It's not the same as the other four.
Well uh uh
additional
so this is what I'm trying to ask, and I'm sorry if I'm not answering the question in the right way.
What is different on the east side of Old Pasco Road? If I live on the east side of Old Pasco Road, what's different about where I live that doesn't deserve the protection that those other four circles do?
Th there's not a organized and developed subdivision land development pattern like the other four areas. So But isn't that what makes something rural? Okay, but this is not intended for simply rural protection, but rural neighborhood protection. So it has to have the the the characteristics of the neighborhood. What's defined to us right now is what's showing on the class.
But but can we focus on the area that under the specific area that's trying to be removed and
Yeah, that's what I'm asking about.
Okay.
And what he's I think if I'm understanding him, what he's saying is unless you're some planet subdivision, you're not a neighborhood.
Well
I and I would tell you that If you want to go out by Shady Hills or up in Hudson, there's a lot of up unplanted land and I want you to tell those people that live out there that that's not their neighborhood.
But I'm not sure that the area that that's under review falls within that I believe it's now been approved for suburban or urban levels. That's the difference.
Every bit of the land out there is res three. East of Pasco.
Your area that you're talking about is not res three levels of I mean so That's why I said we need to focus on a specific area that they're asking to be removed. It it has now become a suburban or urban level of density that is not consistent with Rural anybody's definition of rural. Whether it's your definition or Mr. Pitos's definition.
I'm not sure I'm trying to understand what that that is. I'm not saying I disagree
with that. So so so I don't think that anybody would suggest that Res three is a rural level of density.
Well, the future land use on my property is if you want to drive down my street, it's pretty rural.
In our compound. That's the the
other major distinction for the area is the presence of utilities. There's no utilities in my neighborhood.
Commissioner Weightman, we need to focus on the land that's
but this is
not your neighborhood.
Are there utilities in every available to all of these properties on Old Pasco Road? They are. They're all there today. According to the capital Okay. Programming. I was trying to understand that.
I guess let me just ask this question a different way. Putting aside how you define rural neighborhood protection area and what its original purpose is, in your opinion, Mr. Pitos, is this area, based on its existing approvals and land use, is it a rural area?
Uh based on the future land use, it's Res three, so I would not it would not be defined by the company itself. I mean based on its infrastructure as well. And based on the infrastructure would not be defined as rural. And and the inclusion in the urban concentration area as well.
Okay.
Okay, think uh move on to public comment.
Um the first one we have on our list is Kim Brierly.
Michael Pultoric, I'm on record.
I want to find a specific slide for you.
I didn't know if it was left or right, I'm sorry.
There we go. Right there.
How do I use the pointer on this thing?
We have those two.
All right. Thank you. I'll go short, gentlemen. I promise.
Can we just get rid of all of the rural protection areas in the county. I mean, let's why have them? It was already pointed out That in the rural protection area, right where the pointer is, right there, we already approved and have put into place. increased density, which is having a direct impact on all of the infrastructure for here. Why protect an area if we're
not gonna protect the area? That's my first question. Why say we're gonna protect the Northeast? or the north portion of the county or district four if Angeline's gonna go in in a rural protected area.
I don't think Angeline is going in a rural protected area, sir.
On the map with the utilities. It it's
I I just d I just don't want you to misstate anything, that's all.
I and I appreciate that. Okay. But shouldn't we have to redefine prior to approving the density that we're going to impact an area with first. The reason I say that is I travel Old Pasco Road three to four days a week. It is already in capacity and I'm surprised we don't kill more people out there. The lighting is terrible, there's turns all over the place, it cannot handle the current traffic, and we haven't
even brought into the discussion all of the ADUs that we're going to allow on both sides of the road now.
If we're not gonna protect an area in all of the homes that were there in O four prior to any of us having discussions. They were protected for a reason. And if we're not gonna stand by it, I just don't understand Why we're going to pretend we're protecting them.
Doing this is going to set the stage for additional density from fifty four all the way to fifty two, and as Commissioner Moody mentioned, The road there, I believe the answer was it's not even in the plans to expand it. The road there can't handle the current density, much less old Pasco development, the developments that have already been approved. And If we can't handle what we currently have, how are we going to set
the stage for future approvals to increase density and developments? Without restriction, because that's how it happens. In areas like rural protected districts. I I d it just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Chair, I would point out a couple of things real quick. We have a conflict here and the underlying zoning is R3. In fact, we have a road improvement project on the CIP to widen Old Pasco Road up to the high school and the school and the middle school up there. And we have sidewalks installed and it's already zoned R3. Um we're just we have a conflict that we wanted to remove. You mean land use
or three?
We're not trying to retr uh cut into the rural protection area or the rural or neighborhood protection area. Already there's an established land use policy on the area in question. It's already in the urban service area. We have utilities. We're widening Old Pasco Road. We have sidewalks going up to the school. and we just wanted to clean up the map basically. I didn't say I was against this. No, I don't know.
Right, see if we've already
How
do you think?
Kim Brierly, [address removed]. It's all one record. Um, I live on Old Pasco Road. If there's ever an accident on seventy-five, my road is a parking lot. I can't even get out of my driveway because it's stopped in any given direction. Um and that's not counting school buses and everything that adds to it right now. Um, I do feel that my my home being on five acres
with my animals, my chickens and everything, we're in a neighborhood. I talk to my neighbors regularly. They have acreage also. Um we get together, we help each other out with fallen trees, we do things that people in the cookie cutter neighborhoods do. We just have bigger yards. doesn't make us not a rural neighborhood, it doesn't make us that we shouldn't be protected. Um, I think it was set up so that we would be. My
home was built in the nineties. It was exactly what was supposed to be protected. Um Is
your home on water and sewer?
I'm sorry.
Are you on County Water and Sewer?
Yeah. Uh well in septic.
Is there water and sewer adjacent to the boundaries of your property?
Um I my neighbors don't have any. I think it stops at kind of where the light, where the high school is. I don't know that there's any Further north than that stoplight. Um there's nothing there and Old Pasco Road doesn't even have a shoulder. So if there is e any kind of an emergency an emergency vehicle can't even get anywhere because there's just no
it's woods. you have to go off the road into the woods, there's nothing there when the traffic is stopped. And it happens about every other day now. So it's already really bad. Um If something's already been made in R three, we can't can't unring the bell. Um but I don't see any point in making what is already not comfortable absolutely excruciating. The storms flooded
my property terribly. I can't imagine what's gonna happen. if there are multiple town homes and things like that thrown onto an adjacent property. That We're not gonna have any permeable surfaces. I'm gonna be that surface. I'm gonna be where everybody's water flows. Um I'm not asking anybody to make huge changes. keep the protection that I was already given.
Keep the protection that my neighbors were already given. We're just asking for that. I don't want you to make any knee jerk. I just wanna have what I bought the way of life that I bought. And That's it. Thank you.
Thank you. The next on the list is Christy Zimmer.
And for the record, that is the last name I had on the list.
Christy Zimmer address of record. Who puts Urban against the Swift Mud property? Who puts urban over a rural overlay, protected overlay? Why have rural protected overlay if you're not going to pay any attention? Go ahead and develop the northeast area. Go ahead and slam it full of houses with these developers. Go ahead and put in a new toilet to tap or whatever you want. You're destroying our rural communities. I'm a realtor.
I've been doing this since nineteen eighty seven. I've sold a lot of those homes to people that got out of the city, got away from the urban. What happened to suburban? I've heard you mention it. But there's no suburban in between the urban and the rural protected areas. What happened there? It's ridiculous. Why buy the Amer the rural American dream lifestyle, invest their life savings or go into debt to be in the rural area only to have those with more money come along and
try to change it? It's time that we not consider the money involved. It's time we start thinking about the people who have already invested into this community. We're putting We're stealing their lifestyle and their dreams for what? They've already invested in De Pasco County. Because the developers threatened to sue us? How about class action lawsuit from the citizens for taking away what you already promised us and we've sold to them? It's not okay. Pasco
County made a mistake in 2010 by creating this overlay. Pasco County can fix that by granting what they've done remain and put it back to its rural area. Commissioners have one job. They create ordinance. They can also repeal ordinance and they can amend ordinance. And I would highly recommend that you make a recommendation to the board to please put this back into its rural participation like it should be. Pasco Road
is not a a conditioned road to handle the amount of traffic it's already getting. In the very least. How about a moratorium on any further projects until Pasco Road is improved appropriately? Thank you.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I'm just kidding. Go ahead. Oh What's another three minutes?
Christy. Um all right, so everything everybody has said, the public I agree with. I think this is setting a bad precedent for all the rural areas. Uh this type of thing is where Pasco basically loses its integrity by telling people. This is a rural area and then just kind of forgetting it. So If you're going to do this What are you giving back to
the people? You're taking away the rural area. My understanding of this amendment was a mistake was made. It's conflict zoning. And um By Pasco County. But we the people shouldn't bear the blunt of your mistakes. So how about this idea? This is not the first taking of the rural areas. So why don't you give us back more rural
areas? And if you're gonna take one, get one back. Because you need your rural areas in Pasco County. They're essential to your water.
Yeah.
I think what Christy says correct, you're gonna find a way to keep it in there. But if you're gonna take it, well give us back some land. Give some money to E Glass and let them put it on this. Thank y'all.
Thank you.
David, did you say that Old Pasco Road is under construction for widening? Or in the middle of the year? Yes,
we have we
have
a widening program now in the first phase.
and they the I and they have a capital plan to extend up Old Pasco Road to four lanes up to the high school area.
I don't know what the CIP schedule is. I know that we we have we have sidewalks going in now and there's other work and we've got to do that.
We had a case.
almost to the day here in this room. where we entertained a case and this was an issue. It was brought up as an issue. I'm not sure that we resolved the case this conundrum of the maps. Well that answer your question, sir. During that during that case, there was testimony that there was no money, there were no plans. for Old Pasco Road that we were looking at something
out beyond five, maybe ten years. Is that has that changed since the
programming is is scheduled for construction in two thousand and twenty five. Just to the high school? Yes. So we are under um not the entire line. We're under, you know, environmental route studies and design to construct and widen the whole Pasco Road from the south of the Rooker site down to Western Chapel Boulevard. That's a that's the the left.
But like how far out is that?
Um I believe probably three or four years to start instruction on that. And I'm just it's on the
CI it's on the CIP and funded. Excuse me? Is that on the CIP and funded? I can't answer that.
I believe it is. You're talking if he's the segment he's talking about that goes to the high school, I think the answer to that question is about the rest. If you're talking about north of the high school, I don't know how believe that's in the five year CIP.
There
was
no plans for Northville High School at this
time.
No, they may be in the long range transportation plan, but I don't know that it's in the
Right. That's what I thought I remembered from the hearing last year was that that was not
The immediate plans are to widen it to the high school. Okay.
All right. And we're saying that the requirement to go from future urban expans to urban urban expansion to urban areas to have infrastructure in place. Meaning existing, right?
Yeah, but I mean technically a two lane road can be infrastructure. I mean I understand it's probably substandard infrastructure.
Certainly. So I can't tell there's no guarantee that our entire urban service area is going to be uncongested at all times. No certainly not. I'm just just If that was the case then we wouldn't have an urban servicer. I'm just Right. And
I I mean I I'm but where I'm at right now is I tend to agree with a lot of the public comment. this was rural area. We've there were well there was no uh comp plan amendment for those densities that aren't rural that are already there. If the infrastructure's not ex I don't you know we say we're it's a it was a conflict, but we created that the county created that conflict. If you're living there, I don't know how it doesn't feel like they're taking away rural area rur or taking
away rural area, because we we literally are. Um
But that but that side of the road's ar res three. The other side's res one.
Was it Res three when we made it rural protection ending?
But that's not what we're here to ask you.
I mean
I I think the raise a legitimate concern that but it probably should have we probably never should have changed it to res three if there was an issue.
Exactly, and that that's where there are these folks are coming from is at some point to make that res three there should have been a comp plan amendment to do that, I would right?
There was. There was a comp plan amendment to change it to res three at some point.
But that would have been in conflict with the rule of protection or no?
It depends, Paul. My guess is I don't Terry, do you know when it was changed to Rose three? Was that before or after the urban expansion area was placed over it.
But I think I heard Commissioner Moody's mention earlier there are two ways to fix this and I think what's the other way to fix this that it used to be.
Well well
there
I wanna be clear though, I'm not comfortable with us taking away res three to a property owner that we've already given it to.
Right, but I don't know I guess the the inherent conflict is not necessarily the urban expansion versus rural. It's the res three versus Right.
David, I can answer that. The Res three was established when the comprehensive plan was established. It's original.
Oh it's original.
Correct.
Do we do we do we know how do we know how d uh I mean we keep saying the mistake was putting urban expansion, but maybe the mistake was putting Rural protection over an area that was res three.
Uh the res three expands all the way up to County La or State Red fifty two. So there's a whole swath of Res three that that expands from Overpass to fifty two that's original. So they envisioned Res three in that area. Back in nineteen eighty nine.
I think the issue and what I was trying to get to with my questions about
Adding this to the urban service area.
was one the requirement to be in the urban service area as the infrastructure is in place, but in that urban service area it was to prioritize
the creation of additional urban densities, meaning we want to go from res 3 to res 6 or res 9 or res 12 out there. That's why we want to change the map red to the urban service area. If it's all res three that's already there and we're happy with res three, there's no need to change the map. The purpose of changing the map is to open the door for greater density in the area.
Well that's the when we ask that how did this originate? I I mean What caused staff do you want to make the change in the first place to the property owner or? Have concerns with the way it was mapped currently?
For the urban service area versus the rural area?
No. I understand how the urban expansion area was put over it because I was here when that happened. My question is this conflict between it being designated rural and urban expansion What made staff want to fix the conflict? What what what caused what was the origin of this desire to fix the conflict?
There there was an application that had come before the Planning Commission and the the discrepancy in the maps was identified.
And the application was to do what again? Because I'm sorry if I don't remember
Yeah, I think it was for town homes.
The application was for it was a year ago.
Okay.
Sorry, that's probably what
I don't remember. Okay, the application was to change to Res 6 to allow a future MPUD or zoning to to allow the development of townhomes. But I will say as someone who was a quite was I think the guy that seconded the motion that night. Yeah.
although we recognize there was this conundrum in the comp plan, I don't feel like it was that the board decided the case based strictly on the conundrum of the comp plan. I think I think the discussion centered around that the area wasn't right for Res VI at the time. Yeah, we said and we and we said, I remember we said, if they might have come in for res three and done something single family detached,
we probably would have looked at it a different way. It's that we thought townhomes and res six was a bridge too far given the character of the area. I'm pretty sure you can look back on the tape and we had Some discussion about that.
But I don't know that putting it in the urban expansion area necessarily requires that you just change it to res six. Res three we have lots of res three in our urban service area. That's not a uncommon condition.
But so then what's the purpose of putting this in the urban service area? The urban service area is to prioritize more urban densities. Like I said, it's already res three. Well then you can just leave it the way it is today. What's the problem? You got res three. You want to make it ri urban service area, so you can make it res six, res nine, res twelve, res twenty four.
Terry
or whatever ones we adopt in the twenty twenty twenty five plan.
Terry, what's what's before us today is to remove that portion of the rural area, correct? And to change the urban expansion area to urban service area, right? So it sounds like Correct me if I'm wrong. Is your concern with making the urban expansion area, urban service area or removing the rural area? No,
all I'm I haven't actually said that I'm concerned with it. I'm saying that that's what I'm sorry, that's true. I'm saying that that's what it appears the intent is. Is that a correct statement?
Well the attendance twofold, right, Terry? That's what he just said.
She said the purpose of the urban service area was to prioritize
Urban densities. Well we already have res three. There's nothing to prioritize if that's urban, unless you want to prioritize res six, res nine, res twelve, res whatever. Just to provide the urban services.
Terry, let me ask you a question. Is this already in the urban mobility fee district?
Uh you can turn around and check the
Because I was here when these boundaries were set and to a large extent the fight over the boundaries at the time those they were set was about mobility fees because And the board was very careful about saying these are the areas where we want to have lower mobility fees so we are going to encourage growth in these areas. And they they made a conscious decision because there was actually at one point staff was kind of objecting to including the what we called the finger. The fingers up
the Sun Coast and the fingers up the interstate. Urban standard because it was really just gonna be the West Market area in southern Pasco County. But the board made a conscious decision to include the fingers up the Sun Coast and up the Interstate because they wanted lower mobility fees and urban levels of density to come with those lower mobility fees along the Interstate and Sun Coast corridor. I can't tell you whether that was a good or bad decision, okay, from a planning perspective. But the board made that decision. And
to say that it was an accident. I don't think it was an accident. I was there. Because There's some of those fingers. Staff was fighting with the board saying we don't want to add those areas to our urban service area. And the board said we want them part of our urban service area. So it was not an accident. The board made a very conscious, intentional decision to urbanize the Interstate Corridor and urbanize the Sun Coast Corridor.
I'd also like to add that it it follows the same boundary as the South Market area, which envisions the same. So the South Market area runs along State Road 54 and then up those two spines, so 589 and I-75. So essentially the urban service area or the urban concentration area is implementing the vision of the South Market area that establishes the criteria for. for the level of density and intensity.
Pasco.
There was also the other urban expansion area you mentioned we weren't including at this time. Why is that? Yeah. Tyrion.
That we aren't including at this time to include into the urban area. Why why are we not including that one now?
Uh that area is a much larger uh area. What we know about the finger of I-75 is that there's quite a bit of development that has been recently approved. Uh the Gateway Hub is at the northwest corner of I-75 and Sierra Fifty Two, Pasco Town Center, the double branch development and Connected City is at the southeast corner of I-75 and Sierra Fifty Two. And there's a lot of development happening around the overpass interchange as well. So
that whole area is filling in quite a bit. A lot of utilities have already come through to service that development. Pursuant to the urbanization that the urban expansion area was envisioned. Yeah.
But as I said originally, I'm not sure there's any material difference between the urban service area and the urban expansion area in terms of our regulatory framework. They're still they're both the urban concentration area and they both have the same mobility fee district. There there's no
Yeah he answered. It's part of the Urban Mobility Fee District. That brown color you see on the screens, that's the Urban Mobility Fee standard. So it's already in the urban mobility fee district.
And and I realize that most of the people sitting here today were not here when we had those fights and discussions with the board, but it was it was discussed far more than whatever decision was made to put rural protection over that property, I can guarantee you that the discussion about putting urban on the boundaries that they are It was a far more extensive discussion by the Board of County Commissioners than the original decision to put rural there.
Because the developers in the money.
And we're I mean I mean I I I can't tell you why the board did what they did, but it but it it was it was a vigorous debate about these boundaries of the urban service area. And I remember Richard Gehring getting up and arguing with the board. We don't want to go we don't want to include these fingers. He he was emphatic and we need to draw the line somewhere. We can't have fingers of urban going all up everywhere in the county. And the board said, We want these to be urban.
And to be clear we're making a recommendation to the board for this. This is going to go to the board as well? It goes to
the board.
Yeah. That's all all everything we do other than special exception.
I I just don't want I I feel like some people are arguing that this was a mistake to put urban over this piece of property and I guarantee you I was here, it was intentional, not a mistake. So I probably call Barbara up here and she Barbara
was here when
I was
the mistake was more than not removing the rural. Yes. Right. And the oversight was not removing the rural at that time.
Which is what we're
trying to do today.
So then the question becomes Do we want to make it or is it appropriate to make it urban service area where we're trying to prioritize, if I understood the comment right, where we're trying to prioritize additional density? in the area. Is that am I correct in the understanding of that aliens? It's confusing because we've got urban expansions and urban concentrations and urban service areas and
But that's what I'm saying. That label I please do not put too much into that label. But what's the necessity to have three? Because DCA made us have three. That's the only reason we have three. The concentration area is the overall. And then the two underneath. If if if it's called urban concentration area, it was intended to the board wanted it to be urban. Whether it's has a sub label of urban service or urban expansion is only because the Department of Community Affairs said we got too aggressive
on our boundaries for the urban service area, so we had to relabel part of it as urban expansion. And a year later the Department of Community Affairs went
away. All right. So what was the reasoning that they said the county was too aggressive? in expanding the USA into that area at that time.
Based on what I hear what Amy read, I can only assume it's because the infrastructure is not in place. That's the that's the part of it
wasn't I've also tell you at the time that was done a lot of the new planning things that have happened in this area that Terry just talked about did not exist. We didn't have double branch, we didn't have gateway hub. There's a lot of new development that has been
So
And the interstate has been widened since that happened. The time that happened, I believe the interstate was not in its current configuration. So there's a lot that has occurred since DCA made that decision. I don't know the DCA first of all they don't exist anymore. And they brought there's no there's no state agency to object to our boundaries anymore, but even if they there was, I'm not sure they would object. For example, they objected to the eastern extension as well. We've since built State Route fifty six east that did not exist when DCA
objected. So I can't tell you that that decision would be made the same way today.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Can uh s can we put on the map with the um MPUDs and an aerial and just could zoom into that area? Is that a question over there?
M P D layer and then the aerial layer.
And then take off the yeah, take off the middle. And just kind of zoom in there.
undeveloped tract there to the right of the The cursor. Yeah. Can you zoom in just a little bit more above that? Yeah. So that's the right-of-way. Can you go up a little bit to the left? That property there. It's a large land area, just s south of there. You're you're good. Just that open area there, just to south of that. So could they come in and develop at Res three today, this open area of land there?
Bayonet Po I'm sorry, which open mind is it?
No, no, no, no, no. No. Yeah, right there. Right where
I believe that's uh an old landfill.
Okay, so that's not gonna be developed. Yeah, that's landfill. And then go a little bit to the south. And they're just all these little so what would happen if it was going to be developed, you'd have to buy up these pieces. And de I mean I what I'm trying to get at is the odds of this being developed is very slim, I think. Because you've got a bunch of small acre or not small acre, but there's They're single. Yeah. And so so what's the idea what's the possibility of that going? Then to the south that you got a wetland.
Well apparently we had an application a year ago to do that very thing. That was the one there. Was that at Hadlock?
Yeah.
Not had one? Yeah. Okay. And what was it for, Res six?
Red six for town holds.
Right. And we denied it.
Yeah.
So we could do that again if it came in again.
Yeah, we're not changing the land use here. We're cleaning up a map.
Yeah. That's
all we're doing.
Thank you. I did want to one more thing I wanted to say. I was looking on the um the CIP map. And the one that's on the county website shows And I'll read it off. Old Pasco Road. Where is this at? Let me uh El Pasco Road widening two to four lanes, north of County Road fifty four to State Road fifty two. It has conduction uh construction which is the sea, For fiscal year twenty six twenty seven. And I got that off the website. I don't know if that's in
stone.
What are those limits
again? Fifty
four to fifty four.
North of County Road fifty four to State Road fifty two. Widening two to four lanes, Old Pasco Road.
Yeah, without having the county engineer here I can't. I know that the there's been discussions about immediate plans to build it to the high school. And I think you all may have been participating in some of those discussions in terms of
Well yeah, we built I mean the from the high school it's all done for nine.
Of course. But I'm just saying we I I can't speak to I think it is being done in phases. Yeah. So it's possible that that second phase is an RCIP. I don't know. Yeah. But I'm fairly confident that the first phase will be bringing it to the high school.
Down to Wesley Chapel Boulevard. Uh they're just doing P D and E now, so it's makes sense that two thousand twenty seven would be the construction
screen.
But it's a good point, Mr. Tanell, which is that this road is a priority for the Board of County Commissioners. The board has recognized that it's got there's a lot of development occurring on it and that it's in need of widening. So it is a high high priority for the board.
We'll show it on the overhead real quick, just so
Um ascome metro experience. I do that.
Yeah.
What are you pulling up here, Terry? Just so we know.
This is the capital improvement program. The green line is indicating the construction year 2025 for Old Pasco Road, which basically goes to the high school and then the south to the purple line there. Uh that's also a widening um to four lanes. If you click on the purple line, Patty. Yeah.
And it's a twenty twenty eight construction year for the purple. Twenty twenty eight.
Nancy, unless somebody wants to call you up I I keep already had your chance, so that you know the policy.
And just Terry, does this mean that those that there's the funding has already been allocated for the that's within five years twenty twenty-eight. So does that mean the funding's been set aside for that road or
if they're identifying a construction year, so very high likelihood that that's the construction that's that's been the same.
I think the answer is yes.
I don't
know if it could have been Management is here. And how far does the purple go to?
That should go down to fifty
four
fifty-four.
Willsie Jackable.
Yeah,
Wesley
Chapel R that's right. Yeah,
fifty-four. I get that. Okay.
And we're also winding less than Drapple Boulevard too.
Okay. That this is that's actually the most helpful thing I've seen.
Okay. Anybody ready to make a motion?
More questions?
So
To put something in the urban service area the infrastructure needs to be in place. I'm not sure the infrastructure's in place. But I'm now for the first time seeing when we were here a year ago we were told that this section of Old Pasco Road is ten years out. This map tends to indicate it's four years out. That makes me think differently than I might have thought. A year ago.
Did did you say there's no regulatory difference essentially between urban expansion area and
urban area? In terms of the I don't I mean Terry can come and tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't know that our Com plan treats them they're both part of the urban concentration area. I don't believe there's any regulatory difference unless I'm missing something. And they're both in the same urban mobility fee district. But I staff can tell me if they think that there's some material difference between the two.
I think traditionally in in previous uh applications that have come before this body and the Board of County Commissioners, the urban expansion area has been treated as the same as part of the urban service area. That we are we are intending to s we're anticipating urban style development to fill this in. And that's exactly what's taking place over the years.
This is the first time we've seen that there's a plan to build the road sooner. I don't know what's changed, but that would be the case when we were here a year ago. We were talking like ten years.
Well, I will tell you what part of what drew it drove it is the opening of the interchange.
Okay, well Nonetheless it's done. Yes. Okay. All right. That's a different consideration.
And there's an industrial park, as Damon will tell you, the the Brooker Industrial Park. Is which is opened and so there's a need to get more free traffic.
They're less than
suburban or rural fees. So you pay less mobility fees when we actually have to build you a road to support you. Think about it.
But you're trying to limit the roads you have to build. By concentrating the development there.
I I don't want to get into all that's a that's I don't either. That's a that's a two hour discussion.
Next time we update our mobility fees we'll happy to have that conversation with you. How about that?
To me that makes a difference. That's a difference we had. I re I recall the discussion last year when we were voting on the case and I recall the newspaper article about the discussion when we voted on the case centered around What we see today We were we were told by the applicant you should approve this because this is all going to be a four-lane highway. And we said, no, no, what we see here today is a two-lane rural road, and we were told at the
time that where there was no evidence presented at that hearing that there was any imminent plan to widen that road. It wasn't on any capital improvement project. But if it is on
If you're telling me that's what it is, that's diff that's a different situation than what we looked at a year ago. If the road to me, if that roadway widening is imminent I don't know how if you're going to have a four-lane divided road.
that it becomes
Mm not practical or impractical not to look at the higher density along that roadway.
I can tell you this, if they built a four lane roadway in front of my property, I'd move.
Well if I could add to that, this property is also has the interstate on the side of it. I Well
Mr. You weren't here last year, but we talked about that. I I remember in my discussion and I actually went back and listened to it before coming to the hearing today, I also said I recognized what was going on with Connected City on the other side of the interstate, that that was going to be a highly urbanized area.
So I my only point is that it is it it
is
somewhat difficult to protect a piece of property that has interstate visibility. It's hard to protect the r its rural character. That's um that's another point.
Work. I mean again, all we're doing's cleaning up a map here. We're not changing anybody's density. That whole discussion can be had again. I I
understand that, Jamie, I understand that. And I think for for those of us that
work and operate in this world. We operate in the world of land use entitlements and land use and land developments. The people that are sitting in the audience don't. No, I get it. I understand. To them this is you're taking my rural area.
Right.
And I think it's poor that's important for them to understand.
And the reason I brought up the mobility fee shoes and I think it's important is because 'Cause our board intentionally had higher mobility fees in the rural area to help protect the rural area. That w that was an intentional decision by our board. Yeah, I and so you said it was a two hour discussion. Right. But but my point is that they designated this area for urban mobility fees, which means they weren't trying to protect it for rural levels of density. If they had they would have made it to higher rural fees.
Yeah, I'm done. I
speak to you.
Where these people should be coming up and outgrounds if the board tries to lower the fees in the rural area because that to me is a more conscious decision to say now we're opening up the rural area for more development.
I I'll I'll just say this.
the mobility fees get passed on to the homeowner so the developer doesn't give a damn whether or not he pays high mobility fees or low mobility fees. So whoever came up with that cockamania idea was
Oh you Mr. Mooney, if you'd been here when we did it, you would you would have thought that we were Killing landowners by putting rural Yeah. Putting them in the rural mobility
fee district. So I agree. And they just pass it on in the price of the house.
I'm just saying that the people that lobbied for those fingers didn't feel the same way that you feel. Otherwise there wouldn't be two fingers there.
I'm not saying I don't support I'm just saying if you're going to develop a four-lane roadway there, then I'm not really sure how you
Protect. the area anymore. If that is imminent It's different. For me it's different. When we're talking as if it was ten years out That's a different story than than the people who live there have ten years to enjoy their property before a highway Reminded of the Jethro Tull song, a farm on the freeway here. Before the highway goes through their farm. But if it's imminent, if we're only four years out, that's
a pretty short time to build a four-lane roadway, I can tell you that, my world. then I do think differently about that. If maybe it should be designated as part of the urban service area.
So the chair asked for a motion. Are you making a motion? What's this?
Keep waiting for a mo I keep waiting for a motion. Come on, somebody. I haven't
heard any of you guys make one yet either, okay? Because I know what the problem is. You're looking at these people going, what are you gonna tell them when you make the motion? Alright?
I have a feeling Mr. Jordy would have already made one if he wasn't the chair.
I'm just telling you that because of that fact, that's different that's different evidence than what we had a year ago that would persuade me. Two include this to approve the complan amendment. Yes, I'll make a motion to that effect. You can take that as a motion. But that's why I think differently about it than I did a year ago. It wasn't until Mr. Pito showed me the purple line on the map. That's
the big difference.
Okay, we have a motion on the floor, is there a second?
Yeah, I will I will second that and I think that you know uh Mr. Tanella made a a good case that you know if we're gonna protect this area more we can do it at a at a zoning level. And I think that's you know, we're talking to your point, Jamie, we're talking about a a map correction here that should have never been made in the first place. We shouldn't have to be correcting this. So With that I will second it.
Okay. Motion on the floor in a second. Is there any other discussion? Not all in favor? Aye. Aye. Close?
Motion carries.