PDE 267666 Murphy Road MPUD 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.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Dec 11, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 41m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 75% of 163 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
The next item on the agenda is item P6, and I would like to note that there are expertise that were received for this item and filed with the clerk's office. Item P6 is PDE 267666, a zoning amendment in the name of Murphy Road MPD, Oakley Pasco County Property Trust, a rezoning request from RMH, Mobile Home District, and AR Agricultural Residential District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of. 434 single family detached units and associated infrastructure on approximately 118.82
acres located in southeastern Pasco County, presented by staff.
Mm-hmm.
Alright, well
Mr. Remellian. Good afternoon, William Vermillion Planning Development Economic Growth. I wish I was uh as funny as Mr. Siversen, but I'll I'll do my best.
Don't we all
Did you have something to say to to our new friend here? Oh
uh could you introduce yourself? I don't recognize you. See
you're fine. That was good.
This is the uh the Murphy Road MPUD, PDE 26766. The commission will remember This project being quasi presented to them back in July. We had several residents come out and I answered some questions up here. And so today I'm going to be going over some of those changes that myself, the applicant, made in a in regard to those c citizen concerns as well as working with the city of Zephyrhills.
Like Ms. Gianna said, this is a rezoning from AR Agricultural Residential and R M H Mobile Home District to M PD Master Plan Unit Development for the maximum development of four hundred and thirty four single family detached units on a hundred and eighteen acres. This is on the north side of County Road fifty four, about a half mile west of the intersection with Chansey Road. Here's the subject site location in the northeast of Zephyrhills in the east market area.
current aerial of the site. Comprised of four parcels. The current flu of this object site reflecting majority res nine and a portion res six to the north. the current zoning reflecting majority RMH there in the center of the property and AR zoning. This i both the RMH and the AR are original zoning to this subject site. Here's a contextual map. Um I hope for Mr. Girardi this gives you a
wide enough context of the overall surrounding area here. The red is the subject site. To the south you'll see County Road 54. Outlined there in gray across the street is an I-1 parcel that's currently being used as an auto salvage yard. And you can see surrounding County Road fifty four, as you move to the south west, a majority of of those lots are currently zoned R M H and are uh currently occupied by mobile home dwelling units. There are a
couple vision roads in the area. Notably to the far north is the Pretty Pond extension, which eventually will connect uh to Old Lakeland Highway. And as you move south, uh that yellow line there, as you move from Pertity Pond south to County Road 54, that is Chinkin Road. That is not a Vision Road. Uh it's a current substandard road, but I wanted to highlight it in yellow that there is uh existing north-south that's being used as a residential road. And then as we move east to west across the screen
that bifurcates the property, that is the Daughtree Road extension, which eventually will come across the CSX rail line there in gray out to Old Lakeland Highway.
S some changes have been made since that uh July tenth hearing There was a reduction in total residential entitlements being sought by the applicant. The original proposal was for 672 total dwelling units. There was a mixture of some smaller single-family detached 40-foot, 45-foot and 50s, as well as platted townhomes. The request now is for a total of 434 single-family detached. Lots with an increased minimum lot size to fifty
five feet. As well as increased landscaping buffer buffers above what the land development code would have required. And I will show those. on the n on it the next line after this. So this is the new master plan here. You can see the open space delineated in green. Another thing that the applicant did in working to try to ameliorate some of the citizen concerns was moving the amenity center there in the center that it's in purple away from the existing
residential areas to keep some of the more high traffic areas away from the property's edge. You can see the two access points, one of which is the existing Murphy Road, which is actually County Rideaway, which will be built running north-south, as well as the secondary access point as you move a little further. to the east off of County Road 54.
the buffering that I just spoke about recently The type B buffer is above what the code would have required. The type B buffer there is illustrated, showing it's 15 foot in width, the 6-foot fence, the shade trees, and the ground cover and shrubs. And then along the right-of-way and along some of the other existing residential portions, I'll go back to the master plan to highlight where this is. There's the type D buffer which is a little bit more dense and includes the eight foot masonry wall. An
interesting thing to to note is that the type D buffer is also used uh I wish I could point, but if you were looking at the project where it's bifurcated by Dotchery Road up near those residential areas, the type D buffer is also being put in place up there as well.
the right-of-way typical sections for this MPUD. The first of which is your your standard 50 foot right-of-way typical section as adopted in PM26 with the travel lanes and the sidewalks, but the current Murphy road alignment is going to end up being a type 1 B collector road. And so with that it's a little bit larger to 60 feet and we incorporated an eight-foot multi-use trail as a part of that typical section.
There are two variation requests with this MPD, the first being from LDC 906 9016011 street design and dedication requirements. The applicant is not proposing to provide an interconnect. to the east or to the northwest. not limited to Forbes Road or to Chinkin Road. Let me go I'm gonna go back to the to the contacts map to show where those those variation analysis are. The
first being that a connection to Chinkin Road Uh that that's currently a substandard road and it's used as a as a residential road and there's uh not really any uh benefit in putting trips onto an existing dirt road that would disturb the the larger residential lots up there. And then as you move further east, which I now realize I didn't highlight on this contacts map, Running parallel to Chankin Road is actually Forbes Road there. Um Patty.
Patty, can you use your your cursor and kinda go over that for me?
So you see what the pretty Pond Road label is? Pretty pod.
Okay.
No the so the actual text box?
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, you see that dirt road, that smaller road that's running down? It's not actually a dirt road. Yeah. Yep. Right there. So that's that's actually Forbes Road there and the variation is to not connect to that road either. Forbes Road is also a substandard road. However, the connection will be made by the applicant at the time that the Dottry Road extension is actually done by the county. As it bifurcates the property, that connection would then be made all the way out to to Old Lakeland for the residents that live there. The second variation from the code being from Table
9013B, arterial and collector road standards, the applicant is requesting relief from the spacing requirements on State Road 54. The State Road 54 requirements, due to the type of road it is, as well as the speed limit, is 660 feet. The applicant is requesting that the two access points on one of those access points this be moved to six hundred feet and the other one to six hundred and forty feet for a total of sixty feet in relief. This
is largely due to the total frontage that the subject site sets up, sets up along the frontage of County Road 54. It's a total of twelve hundred and fifty feet in total. And whenever you take out the sixty feet of right-of-way for Murphy Road that's being built, mathematically you're not left with the possibility of being able to have two access points of six hundred and sixty feet spaced in between one another. And With the uh the turn lanes and access management improvements that the applicant is doing, this would not uh affect
the capacity and travel times. or the number or severity of accidents because there's no feasible engineering or construction solution PDE is amenable to this request. This comes with a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissioners. I'm here for any questions.
Do you know how n approximately how many units is gonna be to the south of Dow Tree Road and then how many units to the north?
Sure. Um I can let the I I'm not sure the approximate number. I can let the applicant's engineer speak to how much they think that they can fit on each one of those subject sites north and south of Dotry, but with the minimum of fifty five I'm not
Yeah, I was just curious with uh you know, I know the minimum uh anything over a hundred units needs the second access point, which of course we have that on the southern parcel, but we only have the one access point on the northern portion so I know it's looked at as the entire project, so
But I'm just curious.
Is there a timing also for the construction of Deltry Road? Is that known at this point?
No sir. So uh a lot of the the right-way that would be needed for the Dodgery Road extension is currently single family homes. So it's it's nowhere close in the in the future timeline.
Anything else?
Miam? Um I can from a school impact analysis. I know there was a reduction in um units, so I'm just gonna update some of those numbers that were provided from the school impact analysis that's attached to in the agenda packet. Um so 434 um single-family dwelling units would generate about 80 elementary students, um, 35 middle school students. and fifty three high school students. So that was would be a decrease from the school impact analysis that was um
s attached with our agenda packet.
I appreciate that. Yeah.
Good.
Thank you very much.
Alright, the applicant.
Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioner Oakley Hobby, Hobby and Hobby PA 109 North Brush Street, Tampa, Florida. I've been sworn. That was a very extensive presentation by staff. Uh I will say uh just a few things here. I won't reiterate everything that that they've said so we're not redundant, but the the subject area along County Road 54, so it's the area that you're running e Yeah. There's approximately a mile of that frontage is
taken up with legacy mobile home parks, RV parks, and other manufactured housing. And for that reason, this area since the comp plan was adopted in 89 has had either pretty much res 9 or res 6 on the whole area. So this is a case where we're actually really improving. the state of affairs because what we're allowed right now under the comp plan is 984 units. And if I take that and the existing zoning,
we're already allowed 680 units. Of which 631 could either be mobile homes or 40-foot lots. And those 40-foot lots would not have to meet the PM26 memo criteria that we're using for architectural redundancy in the way the houses look or the landscaping. So there's a lot of benefits here. some of the neighbors and we got comments from the
city of Zephyrhills since we first came. We didn't present, staff presented and a few folks spoke in July. And based on the input we had, we further downshifted again as Staff was is saying, we originally had townhouses in the proposal and we were proposing some 40 or 40 foot uh 45 foot lots and we've moved them all to 55 foot lots, no townhouses now. And we've increased the buffers, we've moved some of the active park areas
to the inside. and generally we've tried to do everything we can to ensure that this is gonna be a great project overall, but it will also leave the area in a better place than it could have been under the existing flu and the zoning. And that included making sure there are conditions that we couldn't con uh connect to Chinkin Road uh or to Forbes until the Vision Road uh connection is made down the road. We've also been in contact there about five or
six, I think maybe Seven property owners to the east of us along Forbes Road, and there's a few of them that have asked us for some help with some easements, etc., and we've tried to work with them on that stuff. So we feel like we've got a this is something that the Planning Commission and the Board should feel good about. This is an improvement from the existing state of affairs by any stretch. So I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Oh I and I might uh Uh I I uh I got Derek's question and and I would say on that one, it appears to
us it's between fifteen to twenty percent of the acreage, so our guess is probably about eighty units and and our engineer knows if we go to the hundred number we've gotta have the secondary access. Sure,
yeah. Well and that's going to kinda give us an idea of how much um traffic will be generated on Dot Tree when it's extended compared to
Right.
Uh down on fifty four.
Yeah, it went I I would imagine if and when Doctory's built, you know, it's cutting back through a lot of high uh density areas further to the west. Um it you know, our our traffic will probably be a very small portion of it when that connection's ever made. But happy to answer any other questions. Otherwise I'll just wait for comments from the public.
Okay.
Very good. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Is there anybody that would like to speak on this?
The only individual I have signed up to speak on this item, Mr. Chair, is a Megan Sandifer.
Okay.
So Megan, if you could just state your full name and address and you've been sworn? Yes. Okay, great.
So my name is Megan Sandifer, address is [address removed]. I just kind of have like a brief statement to read. Sure. Take your time. Okay. So hello, thank you. Um I just want to express my concern for the rezoning and building of this new development. on this um land. Um I said rezoning this property would significantly increase density and traffic in an area that already has congestion. The
existing roadways were not designed to support the elevated uh volume of vehicles that a large MPUD project would bring. Additionally, this area is highly vulnerable to flooding, and converting agricultural land into dense development will only worsen stormwater runoff and strain the drainage systems. The long-term environmental consequences, including reduced groundwater recharge and increased flood risk for nearby homes, can't be overlooked. As a homeowner of a property that borders
this land, I saw firsthand the effects that Hurricane Millton had on this land and the surrounding areas with the flooding that occurred. Stormwater flooded this land and overflowed into our property, which did not recede. quickly. It sat in our yard for months. Beyond infrastructure and flooding concerns, this proposal uh contributes to the ongoing pattern of overdevelopment that is diminishing the rural character of our community. Agricultural land provides open space, habitat and a buffer against uncontrolled
sprawl. Once these lands are rezoned and built upon, they are lost forever. For these reasons I urge you to deny the request to rezone this property to MPUD. Protecting our infrastructure, safety, and community character must remain a priority. And that's all. Thank you for hearing me.
Hold on one second. Hold on one second. Um so is anybody who would like to comment on his concerns? Uh I
understand the concern But the difficulty here, the decision we're gonna have to make is what type of development do we want. Right now they've already, as Mr. Hobby mentioned, they have entitlements for much more than they're asking for. Over nine hundred years. Which also includes mobile home development versus single family detached on wider than what we've been seeing over the last few years lots. So This
is a case of I understand you may not want it developed But we have an opportunity to actually reduce the amount of development entitlement here on the property. So with that I'm trying to understand the logic of why you would want to deny.
I d I just don't think I think it should stay Nothing. I don't
think
that's the thing.
Okay. Well I'm just I was just giving my thoughts. Oh, yeah. Yeah,
unfortunately we can't take away the rights of a property owner to do what they're already entitled to do. You know, it's that's just just as bad as, you know um pr um uh approving a development that is not good for the community.
But uh what's what is important also is that the fact that you did have the opportunity to come up here and make us aware because there may be things that you weren't aware of that that would you could bring to light. So yeah, I applaud you for coming up and giving us your opinion. I think you did a great job. And uh but we do what we want you to understand is that what we're trying to do is improve the situation. Some things we can't just we can't just tell somebody they can't use their land. We'd like you we'd like them to keep keep paying
taxes on it but they can't use it. You know, we just can't do that. So we have to come up with something that's gonna work for everybody and to go from mobile home to single family homes to from 40 foot, 35, 40 foot lots to 60 foot 55 and 60 foot lots, and half the number of actual dwelling units that they can put on it now. It would be almost irresponsible for us not to approve it. And so
I hope you understand that. And but we do welcome your comments and think you did a great job.
Thank you. Thank
you.
That's kind of the compromise, right? Between nine hundred units that they could build versus leaving it vacant. So we're kind of in the middle.
Yeah, and you've got a good neighbor for an applicant in that they're actually listening to you and reducing the density so it's it's a tough decision on our part, but they're they're really trying to work with the neighborhood and and reduce that density there.
All right. Thank you very much. So is anybody else signed up to speak?
I have no other individual signed up to speak, Mr Chair.
I will
Okay. Pl if you'd like to comment, please feel free to come forward.
What we would encourage you to do is if you're gonna comment, please try to comment on something that we haven't already heard. I'm going to come back. Yeah, come on up. Come on up. Come on up. Just give us your name and address. Right. And you've been sworn, sir? No. Not yet. Okay, let's take care of that right now.
Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you back?
Dude.
Okay.
Um my name is James Navarro. I live at [address removed]. I've been here a couple of times already. But in all defense of the young lady, one of the things, fine, you're trying to res uh do better for her, but why not add some mitigating um uh requirement to eliminate or at least uh reduce the amount of flooding in that area that this project
might bring on. Excuse me.
If I if I can ans answer that question for you. Um I I know that's important and it would be for me too. And unfortunately we do have three or four engineers on this board that can probably speak to that. So why don't one of you guys uh uh comment about the what the requirements are.
Because you bring all these projects in and they have rights to do what they want. But the overflow the the amount of uh of uh asphalt and and runoff increases the problem that she already stated.
Right.
the under the rules and regulations that the developers have to follow. They're not allowed to create any more runoff onto your property than you already have. So it you know, a it would either be the same or it'd be reduced. Well obviously we try to reduce it. I
see.
So that's the requirement. If they can't b if they can't develop it so that it doesn't increase the runoff on your property, then they then it won't be approved. Our job here is to approve the use But they have to go beyond that. They have to get permits to actually develop the property, and that's where they have to uh approve the site plan. So that that'll be a serious consideration.
Yeah, that that's that's what I was saying. Yeah. If if you're going to do something and it's going to cause more of an issue then we don't want that to be addressed. Yeah, we don't want that.
that the post-development amount of runoff can't exceed the pre-development amount of runoff. Okay,
good. They won't
be able to get a permit to move any earth out there until they've met that burden.
Very good. That's good to know. Thank you, Ms. Moody.
They're allowed to develop, they're just not allowed to do what they want,
like you mentioned.
Good.
Thank you for coming up though. Bringing up guarantee.
Yeah, and and also just important to note that that same that same process process follows through for traffic. Traffic's looked at, I mean there's all kinds of I mean environmental wetlands, traffic, I mean all those things are looked at. I mean listed species, all those things are looked at as part of the development process. So they're not getting the right to go out there and do it today. They still have to go through a permitting process with the various agencies. So yeah.
Okay.
Appreciate those
Thank you for coming out. And was there somebody else back there that wanted to speak that hasn't had a chance to speak?
You need my name again.
Yes, everything
all over again. Okay. Cindy Bacle. [address removed]. Okay. I travel pretty pond. Um To get to Rural King, I have horses and I do go up Forbes Um Mm-hmm and I'm just trying to get clarification here because what I understood Clark Hobby to say is that are they
trying to remove the manufactured homes from Pretty Pond because like I said I travel that road. Those homes are very well kept. There are both you know, regular homes and manufactured homes and most of these homes just had new siding put on. They're very well kept. The lots are very nice. They're large And many of these people have paid their their property off. So I'm just looking
for clarification. Are we actually trying to remove manufactured homes from Pasco County? Is that what we're trying to do? Because I'm wondering how these people are going to be able to afford to move into a home or why they should be forced to move in the first place because this has happened in many other places. Walmart for instance had the little mobile home park where the
car wash, the storage places and all of that, the everything that was built, those people were given fourteen hundred dollars apiece And I don't know where they went, but I've seen this over and over again, where small mobile home parks are disappearing. Um There's not very many pe places where people on fixed incomes can live. Right now, Forrest Lake Estates has S seventy five homes for sale and every
day more and more go up. Yet they're expanding it across the road. So I just need clarification about the manufactured homes because it almost seems like Pasco County is becoming an extension of New Tampa and that's not what most of us want. We moved out here, especially me, because I've had horses my entire life. And right now I am a quarter of a mile from the Polk
County line. That's how far out we've had to move. And with the new thing that's going on, the little bit of rain we got gateway was completely flooded all the way across, even with the retention ponds already in the new development. So I am concerned about runoff. And I do have pictures. I have pictures I took on my phone as I waited twenty minutes to get out to be able to make it to this meeting
on time today.
All right, thank you. Now when the applicant comes back up to answer those some of your questions, uh you'll get I think you'll get adequate responses on those. Okay. Thank you very much. Was there anyone else that didn't get a chance to speak?
Yes, sir. Come forward.
We could get your name and address, sir.
I'm Dennis Snacer. Former school teacher, Brooksville, Florida. Any of you been sworn? [address removed].
Do you swear from the testimony you've got to give is the truth of helping God? D.
[address removed]. Where I'm at. There was 300 cars on the road because of last year's hurricane.
The people couldn't get into their own property because of flooding. That's across the street from this proposed property. The flooding is extensive. I'm a fifty-five park owner. Presently the railroad tracks that goes north and south. It'll back up to 23rd Street. You can't get any emergency vehicles. Fire department The roads are congested. It doesn't
mean they can't develop, but presently we do not have accessibility to our own properties. People don't understand that. Maybe they put a four-lane road. What are you gonna do with the railroad? The railroad runs 24-7. It doesn't just take a break and let the traffic through. You're going to put an overpass. So the people that Alright, the other park that's out further, what is the name of the park?
More like
They're on that same road, they're blocked with traffic. I came here as a school teacher in the year 69. Spring Hill wasn't really here, and I thought this was a great place to live. I'm sadly disappointed. I'm in the process of removing all of my properties from here because it is too congested. My wife can't handle the driving. We have family in Palm Harbor. I understand Palm Harbor. But I don't understand where we're at. We're on the eastern side
of this county. It's totally, totally for us, congested. Now, the other thing is Your area is retirement area. Sundance. The other park, what's the other one across the street?
I'm sorry you're gonna have to speak into the microphone.
Hailside, Dimerall fifty five plus. So all of a sudden we're gonna build for All ages, school age children. A former school teacher again, I'm saying. All of a sudden now we're gonna have children on the side of the street.
I know what goes on in schools, I've been there. So all of a sudden we're gonna go from Oh. Fifty-five plus? to all age parks. Mm-hmm. It changes the dynamics. It changes the age group of people, just like if you go into Zephyrhills with the four-story apartments. You're not seeing retirees. My retirees are saying they're tired of this. Do you rather have all these school-aged children which require schools? Retired
people do not have Children going to school here unless they're taking care of their grandkids. So when we've made this transition, we've made our total economy upside down, meaning, oh, we gotta have a new school, new school, new school. Gotcha folks. I'm really sad though that this has come to this conclusion because it's overbuilt. My suggestion is turn it into a 55 plus park. I wouldn't have the opposition. Plus, find a way to deal with the water and
traffic because it flooded out the neighbor. They had 200 cars on the side of the road. That's not a very good PR for this county.
All right. Thank you. Anyone else that we haven't heard?
If the applicant would like to come and then respond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman Clark Hobby, again for the record. I'll try to go through these uh one at a time. The the Planning Commission is well aware, and it's already been stated by Planning Commission members with regard to the flooding. What our engineer who who's present here and listening to these comments will have to deal with is how how do I ensure that the pre-development flow, meaning rate and discharge and so forth, is not exceeded from the pre-development flow to the post-development flow. That's
what the county and Swift MUD rules are all about. And so we won't be able to make it any worse. A lot of what I think our residents are saying, we're hearing this around the county when people talk about flooding They're really talking about the second hurricane last year, which is widely acknowledged to have been about a five or six hundred year storm event. The Swift Bud rules are based generally, unless you're in a closed basin, on a hundred year storm event. In other words, the rules are not made to account for a
five to six hundred storm event. That's that's true in any of the water management districts around the state. So you know, we're going to have to follow the rules, whatever they may be, but last year was an aberration. When it comes to flooding. Th with regard to traffic and the distribution of trips and so forth, we're on an arterial roadway. It's County Road 54, it runs into Island Boulevard. The road's been there for eons. Yes, there are a significant number of age restricted mobile home
parks in our area, but not all of them are age restricted. And to my knowledge, neither the county nor the city have ever adopted any policy that encourages only age-restricted or only mobile homes in this in this area or manufactured housing. To quite the contrary, what I've heard from the city of Zephyrhills over many years is that they think that the city may have overshot on the amount of manufactured housing that they've had over many years. And so they're more interested in bringing in
stick built larger lots like this. everything else, you know, really boils down to this though. We're seeking 36% less units than we presently have under the existing zoning. and that's about two hundred units less than we're already allowed, and those units are thirty seven point five percent larger than the existing lots are that are already allowed under the zoning. So if you're an anti-development
person, if you feel like the area's already grown too much, you oughta get on board with this zoning because we're taking the number of entitlements down. So it if you get if you understand that, you need to vote in favor of this project. Happy to answer any other questions you may have.
Just just comment a quick question. Um so um to go back to what um um the lady was saying before talking about the uh mobile homes and so So it's another thing to point out that in the state of Florida where we're facing hurricane threats, mobile homes are not the best home to be in. And so by building single-family homes that are built with masonry construction. And that's gonna be uh
a lot better than uh people that are living in manufactured homes that have to then relocate to um you know uh evacuation shelters and so forth. So that's that's an improvement. Um but did you want to speak uh we talked a little bit about um before about potable water and um and what the potable water situation is because I know that's kind of limited. Yeah yeah,
and and and and I should say this for our neighbors benefit also. So that they may or may not be aware that the city of Zephyrhills has had a moratorium uh on new substantial residential projects for a couple of years now. That's because they're more or less out of potable water in the city. The project is in the City of Zephyrhills service area presently and the city's undertaking a larger area-wide study to determine how they might get more potable capacity. But as it stands
right now, until the city has more capacity, this project can't be developed. And it may be some period of time before anything's done before that is to occur. And the conditions are set up To say that we've got to, prior to our first site plan approval, we have to get essentially a commitment letter from Zephyrhills that says they have the capacity to serve. Failing that, the only other option is if the city were to just throw up its hands and say we're never gonna provide any more potable capacity
in the city, we could then if the county wanted to consider extending county facilities to the area, but they are quite a long ways away and I don't anticipate that ever happening. Uh and just for the Planning Commission's benefit, three of the things that the city is considering on on its uh to serve its uh existing and future potable demands, one would be looking at additional wells that may be out of the the constrained Basin, the northern
Tampa Bay uh area that the city of Zapper Hills is in. So they may want to get into the Widlacuche Basin and then basically create a smaller well field and run pipes down that way. They're looking at other connections, maybe even with the Dade City Business Park, which is a very long pipeline that would have to be run. And then thirdly, the city and the county have talked about, you know, potentially creating an interconnection between some of the county facilities on Island Boulevard. uh with the city and
doing a bulk service operation which the county already has done in West Pasco with the city of Port Ritchie for many years. So I don't know where the city will land on it and the project's not going to be developed for this community until that's solved. I don't know when that will be.
Okay, if you just uh speak to one more thing because I'm not as familiar with that area as you are. Uh the issue with the railroad, is that a ongoing problem? Is that a new problem?
Yeah, I I I think the folks who are speaking and and Mrs. Buckle, she lives on the the west side of the of the railroad. We're on the east side and so I don't perceive that there's a major problem because there's a grid Network in Zephyrhills. I think they're they're dealing with it primarily to the west. And some of what Ms. Buckle is speaking of, there's another project that that I was involved in that's in the middle of construction right now. And I think what you're hearing from her is some of the maintenance of traffic headache that's
occurring right by their neighborhood. But I'm not aware, and I don't believe our transportation engineers heard anything. From the county that there's a persistent issue on County Road 54. There are probably short-term operational issues with the, you know, related to the railroad being used. But it's about I think we all know none of the railroad, the the usage compared to like when I was a child compared to now is so much lower. They just don't run anywhere near as many trains as they used to. Yeah.
And there's no effort on the part to Yeah. Get people out of their mobile homes. Is that what you're saying?
I I've never heard that. I think what what think what I what I was trying to say was I mean that the city, you know, and then we're really in the city's sphere of influence over here. The city for sure is not trying to get people out of mobile homes. The city has a huge population base with people in mobile homes. So they're certainly not going to come out and try to force their own residence. out of the area. What we are hearing again, and this is going back many years and I'm not speaking to the existing city manager and Zephyrhills
or anything like that, but Dade City adopted an ordinance, I believe, in the early 50s that prohibited mobile homes. And what my dad always told me was that the mobile home folks and the snowbirds all immediately went to Zephyrhills. And so from the 50s through maybe the late 80s, there was an incredible growth of mobile homes in the city of Zephyrhills and around Zephyrhills. And I think the city's still Staff and and council members from uh over many years have told my father
and me that you know the city has felt like they've gotten out of a normal healthy mix and had too much manufactured housing compared to, you know, stick built housing as Mr. Pontletz was talking about. That's all I was referring to, but nobody's suggesting up on Pretty Pond, which by the way is about a mile away from this site that anybody would have to convert from manufactured housing or or change their way of life.
Well I just wanted to clarify that and I I knew that but I wanted to hear from you. Right. And so clarify from everybody and um are there any more questions or concerns from anybody up here?
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Thank you.
All right. Well if not, I hear a motion.
Motion to approve P6. Second.
Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All in favor? Signify by saying aye. Aye, aye. Opposed, like, sign. Okay, motion carries.