P45 P56 Elite 52 comprehensive plan and rezoning
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.
What was said
Machine transcription of 33m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 91% of 164 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. All right, so now we're gonna go back. To hear items P forty five and fifty six.
P forty-five, we have proof of publication temp daytime, December seventeenth, twenty twenty-five, supplemented by an affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
Item P45 is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, provided 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 a process. Approximately 156 acres of real property located north of State Road 52, approximately 0.60 miles east of the intersection of State Road 52 and U.S. Highway 41, and a text amendment
creating sub-area policy. Policy flu 7.1.81, Elite 52 PD, and a map amendment to the future land use map 2-9, adding sub-area map 2-981, Elite 52 PD, and providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer, subrability, and an effective date. And staff is available for the presentation.
Um please present.
Sure.
Good afternoon. Hi, it is Daly Planning Development Economic Growth, and I will be presenting the Elite 52 project. We'll start with the project's overview. The applicant is proposing a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use classification from AG, agricultural, and AGR, agricultural rural, to PD. Planned development. And the intent is to allow for the development of a mixed-use project on approximately 156 acres. The
proposed development includes 175,000 square feet of commercial and retail, 120-room hotel, and 108 single-family homes. The subject site is located on the north side of State Road 52 and east of US Highway 41.
There is a sub-area policy, Policy Flu 7.1.81, Elite State Road 52 PD, which is created to establish maximum development potential on the site, as well as other provisions that are implemented through the MPUD conditions of approval. And speaking of MPUD, there is a companion rezoning petition in the name of RZ7811 Elite State Road 52 MPUD to rezone to MPUD, and that will be presented to you
right after my presentation.
Is it sure? Uh do you wanna take an do any questions for the P forty five at this point.
Okay.
Okay, thank you. So this is a map showing the subject site general location. It is located in the North Market area and portion of the site, as you can see on this map, is located within the rural transition area. This is a an aerial showing the exact location of the subject subject site. As I mentioned before, it is north of State Road 52 and east of US 41 with direct frontage along State Road 52.
And this slide provides the surrounding context of the subject site. Immediately west of the subject site, as you can see, is Pilot Country Airport, and further west along US-41 are approved and existing residential developments, including Telavera, which consists of 884 single-family detached units. So the southwest and south along State Route 52, there are several approved mix-use developments, including Sand
Ridge, Tibbetts Land at Gowers, and Longleaf Grove, which collectively include residential units as well as commercial and office entitlements. To the east is the rural transition area. And as you can see, to the northern portions of and eastern portions of the subject site are located within this rural transition area. And the applicant has agreed to a conservation easement to protect the
sensitive lands, which include Category One wetlands. Overall, the proposed mixed use development is consistent with the evolving development pattern that's in this area.
Next, we have the transportation network that's serving the subject site. As brief previously mentioned, the subject site has frontage along State Route 52 and it is located just east of US 41. State Route 52 is currently improved with 12-foot. Multi-use path from US 41 to the Sun Coast. An additional 12 foot multi-use path is currently in the design phase along the north side of State Road
52, which directly, which is directly adjacent to the subject site.
This is the concept plan and I'm not gonna go into well the concept plan shows the overall layout of the development. I'm not gonna go into too much details about this since Mr. William Vermillion will give more details when he does his presentation.
This is a map showing the existing future land use classification as AG and AGR on the subject site. AG is to the north, Res 3.
There you go, thank you. Rest three is to the south, Connors or Newtown is to the south, and AGR is to the east.
This is another future land use map showing the proposed future land use as P D.
And this is a snippet of the proposed sub-area policy establishing the maximum development potential of 175,000 square feet of retail office and commercial, 120-room hotel, and 108 single-family detached. The policy also specifies that nonresidential entitlement may not be converted to residential. residential uses and that certain commercial uses are prohibited to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. Final finally, at
number C. The policy directs that the southern portion of the site along State Road 52 contain non residential uses.
So after review and analysis, Planning and Development Economic Growth found the proposed amendment to be consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies.
And with that, Planning Development Economic Growth recommends the board to accept public comments and adopt the proposed comprehensive plan. And ordinance by local vote and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.
Any questions?
I'll I'll uh have a question. So they're donating the ride over that we need for State Road fifty two?
I'm sorry, say that again, sir.
They're donating the right-of-way we need for State Road fifty two?
Correct.
Yes. Um and the conservation land is pr pretty much where the rural protected area is? Correct. So separate. That's all done on the side plan.
Okay.
Any other questions? Okay.
Um we we do have a stub out right to the property to the east. I think so. That would be the rezoning scrapping of the thing. I get those all mixed up even after all these years.
Okay, so now's the time for public comment then. So does anyone want to speak to item P forty five or P fifty six?
We have uh signed up in advance. Uh Cheryl Buell. I'm I'm looking at the
applicant applicant's
presentation.
Would would you like to hear the MPUD presentation and then applicant then public comment so you hear both of them? Sure. That would give all the information you might need.
Okay.
So you'll have to open the rezoning that would be fifty-six. We've sworn but
Good afternoon. William for Million Planning Development Economic Growth. PDE 267811, the Comprehensive Master Plan Unit Development. The clerk proof of publication. Proof of publication. That's my fault. I appreciate it.
We have proof of publication of the hearing of this matter in the December 17th, 2025 edition of the Tampa Bay Times, supplemented by an affidavit of certified millings and site postings.
William Vermillion, Planning Development, Economic Growth, Companion Rezoning to Master Plan Unit Development.
This is a rezoning request from AR Agricultural Residential and AC Agricultural District to Master Plan Unit Development to allow for the maximum development of 108 single-family detached units, 175,000 square feet of commercial retail, and 120 hotel rooms on approximately at 156.2 total acres. This is in central Penny for Pasco. Located approximately point six miles east of the intersection of State Road 52 and US forty one.
The original uh proposal when it went to Planning Commission originally contemplated 300 platted townhomes. And over the past few months, the applicant has worked with the residents and Planning Development Economic Growth to cut that number down to 108 single-family detached units instead of the previous contemplated three.
compatible with the surrounding land uses and the concerns of the the neighbors at the airport.
Here's the location map.
The site aerial.
The future land use map. into the current zoning map.
This is the MPD master plan along the southern portion of the subject site. You can see the non-residential portions along State Road 52. And as you move northward, you hit the residential portion with the single-family detached units, as well as the access to the to the east, like was the aforementioned question. Is a connection to that eastern property, and it highlighted there in orange is the right-of-way dedication for State Road 52, which is based upon F.60% design
plans, which were previously spoken to when talking about the alternative transportation network in the area. That 12-foot multi-use path is a part of. those 60% design plans. And you can see that the orange there isn't exactly uniform in terms of its width from center line. That's because it's actually based on a plan set and the wide right-of-way width varies between 25 feet and 64 feet along the subject site.
Wonderful. This context map on the MPD side aims to show the relation to the airport ordinance that's adopted and the various layers within the airport ordinance as it pertains to the allowable uses in the area. You can see highlighted there in green, you have the approach surface and the R. RPZ highlighted there in that black and white checkered. The subject site does not is not encumbered by either the RPZ or the approach area. However, it is within airport influence area, which is
a large um
ellipse around the airp around the airport as well as the airport zone.
Here, pursuant to Land Development Code 605, this speaks to the allowable uses within both the airport influence area and the airport zone. A quick summary of these tables here: the proposed uses within this MPD, the single-family detach, as well as the commercial retail, and the hotel are all. allowable pursuant to 605 within both the airport influence area and the airport zone. The only thing worth mentioning is that specifically hotel is demarcated with an AR, which
means that they're going to have additional review at site plan for the hotel to make sure that it's in conformance with the surrounding airport.
This is the binding conceptual plan and you'll see here that Now with the 108 platted single family detached, the the pink there is the larger lots, which abut the uh the existing residential neighborhood along the airport, offering larger lots behind the existing residential uses with the smaller lots being shielded by those larger lots.
And the What's shown on the plan is the enhanced landscape buffer. Typically, this project would require a type A buffer, which is only 10 feet in width, and has shade trees, one per every 30 feet. In this case, this is a 15-foot-wide buffer, with the shade trees being 12 feet apart, and they must be 12-foot. feet tall at least at planting and with the specific species which is the southern red cedar so the species is already picked out for the residents
as well as those evergreen shrubs and the eight foot tall waller fence.
And if I if I go back one slide.
You can see that that enhanced buffer is essentially splitting those purple lots from the existing residential for that enhanced buffer.
There are two variations from the land development code with this application, the first being from 901-6 D11 street design and dedication requirements. The applicant is not proposing an interconnect to the north or to the west. To the west is the existing airport community, and to the north Is the category one wetlands and from Land Development Code 8056, restrictions on post-development wetlands and up upland buffers? This is for parcels under single ownership, like the commercial, retail, and hotel, to maintain their common space. This
comes to you with a recommendation both from the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Economic Growth Department. I'm available for any questions.
Okay. Any questions for staff?
Is that the time for the applicant?
Exportes were submitted to the clerk's office on this record as well. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Barbara Wilhite, 6327 Grand Boulevard for the applicant. Just a couple things to note from the discussions. Yes, uh Chairman Mariano, we are having a state of 52 dedication at no cost. My client could have requested right-of-credits against the right-of-way portion of the ability fee, but they agreed to convey that at no cost to the county. Yes, the portion of the property is in the rural transitional area. That is the property where the our wetlands are located. Our wetlands are going into a conservation easement.
So there'll be no development on those wetlands within the rural transitional area. I would note that we started out with a density of 300 townhomes. Consistent with what is on the west side of Pilot Country. There are apartments adjacent to the homes on the west side. There's 40 foot lots. So we originally came in with the townhome project at 5.5 Uh dwelling units per net acre. After hearing comments about the the project, my client decided to change his project to single family detached
homes That is a density of two. Um two point zero units per developable acre. So we went from 5.5 to 2. I would note that the land use to our west is res three. Three units per developable acre is the land use designation. So consistency there. We I think staff did a great job going over our enhanced enhanced buffer. We came in with an enhanced buffer to begin with because we knew of the adjacency with the uh the existing homes on our west. and Planning Commission said,
Hey, we'd like to you to beef that up. And we picked a particular species of tree, the southern red cedar, because the cedars tend to be not just the trunk and then the leafy part of the tree all the way from ground all the way up. They're pretty consistent. We're gonna plant those at twelve feet high um so Those will grow to be a nice buffer and they'll start out as a very nice buffer. Instead of thirty feet on center, they're twelve feet on center. Um with that we'll would like to hear from the questions that might be from the um residents
and uh we'll be back. We have our team available if you have any questions.
Any questions
for the applicant? Robert, Ms. Rokley. This project before you and you were talking about the changes you made. This project came to us about two or three years ago.
This project never got to the board on your agenda. We saw it on your agenda because we had it noticed, but when we noticed it, then we had um the community, the pilot country community um wanted to talk to the to the my clients, Spencer Brass. Um he had meetings with them and then he decided to change his project from townhomes to single family homes. But yes, you've seen it before, you just never got to hear it until now. We slowed down and and worked on it some more.
Yeah, I recollect Seeing and hearing about it, but never to this point. So thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Okay, thank you. And time for public comment?
Yes, first signed up Caitlyn Buell.
Hello, my name is Caitlin Buell. My address is [address removed] and I have been sworn.
So as I said, my name is Caitlin Buell. My husband and I live in pilot country. I'm a flight nurse and a private pilot. My husband is a commercial pilot. I wanted to say thank you to you all for all the work you have done so far to preserve the airport as a Pasco County resource. I understand that this parcel of land won't remain a perfectly good cow pasture forever, and I'm not opposed to having neighbors back there, but there are a few points I would like to bring up. The developments of similar density cited in this proposal
On the west side of the airport are separated from the airport by basically a forest. These lots on the east side are right up against my property line. They are 0.165 acres compared to the one-acre lots in Pilot Country and the five to ten acre lots at Pasco Trails on the other side. Uh I am going to have four or five neighbors just on my section of the fence line. The density of the lots combined with the height of the buildings is going to remove
any privacy I have in my own backyard. I have asked before that they limit the houses bordering Pilot Country to one story, but that is apparently an unreasonable request. The attorney last time stated that the houses could be up to three stories with a current height limit of thirty five feet, but that she was willing to change the wording to two stories. I request that the wording is changed to two stories before the project is approved. Secondly, the project documentation states that the barrier will be an eight-foot wall or opaque fence. Um I request that
this be specified as a wall. A fence would be blown over on an annual basis, and children or pets may find themselves with sudden access to an active taxiway. This is a predictable safety issue that could be easily avoided. Lastly, I would like to say that the layout of this development illustrates my point that the density will have a negative impact on privacy and property values. The person behind this project has spared his own property from the impact. The project team have said they didn't know where he lived when they designed it. However, this
person's name and address are in the list of households notified by mail of the rezoning. I do not begrudge the owner of the property anything. I think that most people given the opportunity would do the same. I would ask, however, that this board helps his neighbors in whatever ways are possible to preserve their privacy and their property values. Thank you for listening.
Mr. Strartler. Can um I
get your address, please? Yeah, [address removed]. One oh nine. Sorry, [address removed]
One one nine three four.
Thank you. Okay. Is there anything I can clarify before I leave?
No, we just it's just input for you.
All
right,
thank
you. Thank you. Mark Budd.
Okay, Mark. I've been sworn. [address removed] in pilot country. Down the street from Caitlin. I agree with everything Caitlin said. So I'm not gonna read it.
Can you talk into the microphone?
I agree with everything uh Caitlin said. I have the same concerns. Uh I'm not opposed to a development there, but still I think that uh even when it was originally proposed with the the uh three hundred plus was r just ridiculous, you know, so th no way that was gonna get through. So they finally reduced it to something a little bit better, but it's still not the density is still high. And uh and I have the concerns about the height looking at I'm
I'm right on the border there too. Actually I live just south of uh one of the uh Mark Twilight Alvin that's one of the guys pushing this development. He has the uh park behind him, so he doesn't have to worry about a wall of three-story uh structures behind him. And I was just uh told last time I was here that I don't own the view. I never intended on owning the view, but I sure don't want This
monstrosity behind my house and my privacy violated and my property values go down. So something that reasonable has to be done there. The other thing I want to point out is uh Around the airport, everybody thinks that oh you know, as long as you're not coming in on the approach path or the departure path, that you're safe. I'm gonna bring your attention to uh accident that happened down at Boca Ratone. Uh last year, about this time. Good friend of mine,
actually. Very experienced pilot. Military guy. Advanced aerobatic guy, airline guy. Probably one of the one percent guys that that really knows his stuff. Very experienced flyer. Took off from Boca Ratone. And an issue right after takeoff, part over on the rudder. You could barely keep the thing in the sky. Circled the airport for seventeen minutes, trying to keep it under control. With
uh Yeah, very narrow airspeed. window that he had to stay within. So he was with if you if you look around that airport, our airport Several miles around his radius. You can look it up on the net. Unfortunately he ended up losing control, but he was trying to get back to the airport. It was amazing that he didn't hit something on the ground other than another vehicle. Three three people perish there. So the idea that everything is safe around the airport
except for the that entryway and the exit way. Yeah, you're just fooling yourselves. Yeah, so there is that risk. We all understand that risk there. When these other people come in and they sign a little thing saying, Oh, you can't go after anybody on the airport, you know. They don't know what they're getting into. Even though that risk is very minute, it's still there. Okay, so they need to understand that. And so the wording that they need to be. Looking at needs
to let them really know what that risk is. And you guys oughta know what that risk is too, because I don't think you do.
Thank you. And Commissioner, you wanted to get to his address?
Um yeah, what was your address?
[address removed].
One one seven four.
Eight.
[address removed]. Thank you.
Anyone was here to speak to this item?
Okay. To the to the applicant.
Barbara Wilhite again for the applicant. And yes, we will agree on the record that the homes will be no more than two stories. I noticed that in my notes when I was getting ready for today that we did talk about that at Planning Commission. I usually don't miss things coming into the board. Um but yes, two stories are fine. The with re I'll say on the record again with regard to the owner of a portion of this property and where the park's located, I'm stating on the record under oath, no idea. that the owner had property adjacent to this project and
the park was located where it was located as a result of planning and design, not as a result of us being told where to put something. Uh the west side comparison of the projects on the west, I've represented both of those projects. On the west side there are four adjacent homes to retail and apartments and the only thing separating them are parking spaces. So the notice that we we have to put forth are the notices that are in your airport ordinance that you all adopted and we have to follow. So with that um we would ask for your support of the project.
Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Okay. To the board.
Move approval.
I second.
And that'll be for P forty five.
Yes. We've got two items there.
So P forty five, that'll be the land use that'll be okay. So we do them separate or we do them together. You gotta do them
separately.
P
forty five is roll call. Okay, we have a motion. We have a motion on the second, yes. Where was the second? Uh me. You should take it. Okay. Uh District One, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Is absent District three, Commissioner Starkey? Aye. District four, Commissioner Yeager. Aye. Excuse me. District five, Chairman Mariano. Aye.
Commissioner Weightman is excused. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. 4-0. And now P item P fifty six. And let's note that there was a change and maybe you'll address the uh two-story limitation.
Okay.
So the they made comments of going down to a two story limitation? Yes.
On P fifty six? Yeah, should you put that on record? Yes, correct.
Which condition are you amending to do that?
Let us find that one moment, please.
Those dimensional standards are on the face of the M P U D plan, so we'll be amending the M P D plan to include the two story height limitation on the residential homes. Um, I do have
a question for Barbara.
For staff. The um the airplane hangers. W what is the setback from the property line for those?
Well, I didn't measure the hangars, but I can say the closest home to the to our homes is a hundred and thirty feet. The average is about a hundred and sixty feet distance between what the homes will be.
Yeah, it just seems like the hangers are right there in the new people's backyards. So I mean hopefully they're I guess our our think it's has to be at least Fifteen feet for the property line of building? I don't know. I'm just wondering the I see I'm looking at the addresses, especially this last gentleman who spoke, [address removed], the hanger. Will block his view of any houses back there. So um
plus our buffer and then we have our setback is fifteen feet. On top of our fifteen foot buffer and then the setbacks that they have. Yeah.
Okay, we're gonna close the discussion. Back to the board. Item P fifty six at this point.
Um
Certain ad respond to her.
No.
Um I I do there I I have a couple of thoughts. And looking at the You know. If you zoomed out and looked at the picture, I see larger lots to the right. Kind of larger lots and pilot country. So When I spoke with Barbara this last time I I thought, you know, for me if I have wished we had some larger lots in here. I don't think it could be to the size of pilot country or the other or the other one, but these people have given
up a lot of land to for conservation over there. And um and I wouldn't Say that at this far along in the process, that's not fair. But Just something that I think about that I I'd like to see some of the larger lots aro around here because Um to me that's kind of development pattern, except what we did over there. By forty one. But I'm gonna vote for this. Um I also mentioned that I don't
know why It's the new guys. responsibility to buffer from the house that's there. Um You don't you don't own your view, you don't own the property behind you But we put this requirement on the new guy To block the view of an existing house. I I mean It's to me we do that all the time. I just have always been a little bit uncomfortable. If you don't want to see your neighbor, you can plant a tree in your yard. Uh but But I I'll be voting for the
project.
And I think they part of the reason for the buffer is to accommodate further lot sizes. So
But we don't typically buffer residential to residential.
No, I think goodwill on the applic on the applicant to go forward and do it.
So that's an extra step that we're having in the
right-of-way.
I just have a comment that um when this first was a townhome project I I wasn't a fan of this project and I think you guys worked really hard and uh got it right this time. So thank you to staff, thank you to uh Barbara and her client as well.
Mr. Rupert.
I think some of that buffering you see that they're being required to do is because it is a airport and uh the setbacks from that very important I think. So
Um, I did listen to the Planning Commission meeting on this and I did hear them say that trees were taken out. Probably without a permit in the top part of this and I think as part of the applicant's Is it still as part of the applicant's responsibility to mitigate for those trees that were taken out without permission? Is that right?
Barbara Woolhagen for the record, a prior owner or alleged owner, um did a lot of things to this property prior to my client and me I there's actually two client owners of this property in total. Um, they're ultimately responsible 'cause they own the property, so the ordinance relative to trees and when you take trees out Um when you go to develop, we'll all apply to them. So But they My clients did not do those things to the property, but they are responsible for the property and responsible to comply with your ordinance and your new tree ordinance.
So nothing happens to anyone
for all the trees that were taken out?
No, it's your tree ordinance has a clawback in it.
A clawback. Okay. That's what I thought. I just want to remember a conversation. Thank you.
Okay, so item P fifty six to the board. Uh
move. Second.
Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passed a 4-0. Okay, now we're going to go to the second set. That would be item P40, P46, and then P54.
P fifty-eight is the companion.
Yeah.