ZONING AMENDMENT (CONSENT) – Massey Partners, Ltd. – Change In Zoning From an A-C Agricultural District to an AR-5 Agricultural-Residential District – North Central Pasco County – On the Northwest Corner of Trilby Road and Dowling Lake Road – Containing Approximately 211.63 Acres
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Aug 8, 2019
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, Aug 8, 2019
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted — it is an image-only scan — so nothing in it is searchable here, but it reads normally.
This case, across meetings
PDD-19-7425 in full →PDD-19-7425 was taken up 4 times between Aug 8, 2019 and Oct 7, 2019, continued 1 time — this is appearance 1.
- Aug 8, 2019PlanningPC6▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Sep 3, 2019BoardP1Continued
- Sep 5, 2019PlanningP11Approved
- Oct 7, 2019BoardP8No disposition in the minutes
What was said
Machine transcription of 54m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 50% of 253 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Denise Hernandez Planning and Development. PC six is P D D nineteen seven four two five, the name of Massey Partners Limited. It's located in north central Pasco County on the northwest corner of Trilby Road and Dowling Lake Road. The uh current zoning is AC Agricultural District, which is um ten acre minimum lot sizes. The applicant is proposing AR5, which is five acre minimum lot sizes for site-built homes only. Um The surrounding
area is rural density residential development on lots that are between ten, I mean three acres and over ten acres and there are agricultural pursuits in the area.
As you can see the surrounding zoning to the west you've got Hernando County and we did send out a notice to Hernando County for comments. We did not get any comments from Hernando County. So to the north you have AC Agricultural District. To the south you've got AC and you've also got AR Agricultural Residential. Uh to the east you've got AC Agricultural District. Surrounding future land use is H the current location is AGR, which is five acre minimum
lots, one dwelling per five acres. Then to the north you've got AG, which is 10 acre lot areas, South AG, and East AG.
Sorry, that's the the wrong slide. The correct slide as far as the the aerial but the wrong access. So the access is from Trolby Road, uh Downlean Lake Road, and um
There's a third road, I apologize.
Eastern Road. Thank you. And this comes to you with a recommendation of approval. I know there's some folks here who have some concerns and some comments on the item.
Commissioner's again, Clark Hobby, represent the uh applicant Massey Partners Limited, which is comprised of the Pittman and Massey families from Dade City here who've owned this property since, I believe, around 1937. They've owned the property in various agricultural states. It was a grove for many, many years, went through three freezes, planted pine trees. The pine trees is uh pine trees became diseased. And so the family is
looking to do something else with the property other than the agricultural, which doesn't really seem a feasible and economic alternative at this point. After owning it for that period of time, obviously the family uh loves the area and and would prefer to have a viable economic use in agriculture, but I think most people realize that's just not there anymore. I am curious to see what the neighbors have to say and would love to chat with them, but there are three land future land
use classifications and densities that are presumed to be low density in the comp plan: Res1, AGR, which this is, and AG. And we were AG as of the two thousand seven adoption of the Comp plan, did a plan amendment to AGR without any objection to get to the density that's permitted by this rezoning and all we're trying to do is get five acre lots here to match our comp plan. It's the second lowest density in the entirety
of the county. Um we're not going to do anything that requires anything other than well and septic. The density is higher than some areas of northeast Pasco, so and we have extensive frontage on a collector road. So I'm not really sure what the objections might be, but I'm here to listen. With that I'll reserve the balance of my time.
All right. Who would like to come up and speak?
There you are. What's the
Oh yeah. Absolutely.
Well Denise is putting on a graphic um I'll introduce myself. Art Woodworth, [address removed]. I live on uh the south side of Lake Dowling. Um I live on a ten acre track. I actually developed the subdivision I live in, which was almost a hundred acres, and they're all ten acre tracks or greater.
This is going to be helpful to me. Pause it.
Well, not to protract this, I can go ahead. Um when she puts up the graphic you're gonna see that all the surrounding land use in Pasco County, their west boundaries with Hernando County. All the land use is ag um One to ten. Uh this track, I guess, had a land use amendment some time ago. I know it had a conservation subdivision approved some time ago. Um there it is. But
here's my biggest concern and what you see outlined in red is where I live. Um and there's a lake uh in between us. If you take a look at Trilby Road, Trilby Road may be a collector road, but Trilby Road is relatively narrow. Trilby Road has a lot of hills which create sight distance issues. In other words, when you approach the hill, when you're going up the hill, you have no idea what's coming up the other side. There's
very, very little sight distance. The sight distance is even worse around those two reverse curves you see right there. You cannot see around them. The speed limit on Trilby Road is 45 miles an hour. Post it. Those corners I have advisory signs um that I think are twenty miles per hour. The fact of the matter is everybody does well in excess of fifty miles an hour. It creates a very dangerous situation. There's blind driveways on those curves, those curves have Hills,
one up, one down, depending on which way you're going. Can't see around them. And on the weekends we get a lot of bicycle traffic, which is consistent with the San Antonio area. We get a lot of motorcycle clubs up there, not gangs clubs. Yeah. і just doesn't need more traffic on it. I sino reason why. We should add If we double the land u or double the zoning On this property, we're now going
to go from let's say 32, 33 lots to 16 lots. So that's 160 trips a day that we're going to add to a road that has navigational issues. And I would respectfully request that. You leave it as one to ten, uh, it would be consistent with the surrounding land use, and there's no reason why it can't be viable. Thank you. Thank you, Dor.
Can I ask Mr. Woodworth a question?
Yes. We have a question from David.
So there's a finding in our agenda memo, it's in finding twelve that says The applicant will be responsible for improving Tilby Road to county standards. So does that address
the reserve? David, I can't imagine that the applicant from that subdivision, even if it's 32 or 33 lots, is going to have the funds to improve Trilby Road to the extent that it can remove the hills, create better site distance, or straighten out those curves. It ain't possible. I mean we ha at some point in this planning process we have to use some common sense. And common sense is that you shouldn't add more trips to Trilby Road.
I know what I I know what it says.
Yes, sir.
Can you reach that mic?
Oh
okay.
Uh, yeah, I think uh late.
George L.
You're gonna have to speak under that mic there.
George L. Peterson.
[address removed].
Gentlemen, the last two, three years
I um Been in contact with the Mr. Drew Pittman. Drew Pittman is a relative of the Masseys, great lady. I don't know if you ever knew her, but Sally Matthew was a wonderful woman. Back when I bought my property there on Dowling Lake, it was in nineteen seventy nine. Dallin Lake had a rope go all the way back. Drew Pierre Drew came in and uh chose to go ahead and move that road, paying off some of the people
there by g putting up fencing and other things, to get them to sign over the access to Dowling Lake Road being changed for his benefit. In other words, the the everything was there Um Because when I looked at this property, the property man that first owned that, a guy named Miles Turner, was the first guy to own property on that lake other than the Dowlings. And that was in nineteen uh
Nineteen seventy nine I think it was when he bought that property. Nineteen ninety was when I bought it. Long long short is this. I rant Reve. For art, because guys, you cannot. You cannot put those in there. You see how that lake is? Look at the size of that lake, guys.
That's my heaven. I built a home on that. It is five thousand four hundred square feet. Georgian built that house. Log home. Beautiful. Any one number of you would love to have it. Guys. What they're gonna do to me now. I don't know how many They can tell you what they want to take. They're going to put a housing development in there. That lake Cannot take. Thirty, forty, twenty boats. Let's say on any given weekend. Because you see on the
the one end down there, right before they get to Hernando County, I guess. They own that little section of the lake. And so when they sell these properties it's gonna be with lake access because they're gonna put a a uh a A place where you can launch your boat and all that kind of stuff.
And it just seems to me that we have to fight for the right to have a nice place. This is not a business adventure for me. This is a business adventure. For For lack of a better term, the massive properties. to come in there, get it from ten down to five. Now what's the next time?
When Drew Drew Pittman came in there was gonna move. My property line. Right. A herb. Uh Picker trees. Gentlemen, there was we couldn't two of us couldn't retract. I'd have to move those trees to get off his proposal. He wanted me to move all that stuff back. And move the trees.
That might be. That's like Dowling Lake Road.
His attorneys oh Mr Hobby's yeah I think Mr Hobby's not w what anyway, I had an attorney also. I am claiming and have claimed from day one. Prescriptive easement. on Dowling Lake Road. In other words, When I bought that property And from nineteen seventy nine when it was first bought, There was a road. All the way back. Drew Pittman comes in, he moves the road over towards
us and takes back another twenty-five acres, another twenty-five feet. I claim prescriptive easement. Are you aware of pres prescriptive easement? I don't know if you are or not. Guys after so many years state of pharmacists If but You haven't objected to me. Over these years. Of using that road. Where it is at? I claim that We had a problem. Mr. Hobby, I think we may not be Mr. Hobby, but anyway.
This topic thing was involved in this way back when, when it first uh was sold with the massif. But I'm just saying Long short. Don't don't let these folks come and do this. The roads are gonna be absolutely horrible, like like uh Art said, Well, thank you, Art. Uh I'm speaking for the people that live on this lake and say listen
Time.
Don't take away our our piece of heaven. Don't let 'em come in there and put twenty-five or thirty boats on any given day trashing that lake. It's not right, it's not fair, and I thank you for your time.
Will you go anywhere? What where where is your home on that topic though?
I'm looking. Uh-huh. I live on the uh I guess the north side.
You got the pointer there.
I can't even see it.
Yeah, I wouldn't like it. Do you mind if I No, go ahead, sure.
Yeah,
I got it okay.
He lives right there.
Yeah. So do you have access to your property other than Dalling Lake Road? No, sir, I do not. And you that's how you get to your house? Yeah, Dow Lake Road. Okay, and you you claim prescriptive rights because you've been driving on for more than twenty years. Absolutely. And have you been paying taxes on that road too? I do. On that port you drive on and you paid the real estate tax?
I wanna also note my mate just for f Lutz around I forgot. When I was going through this problem with the prescriptive agent Drew Pittman and I had a problem. Him wanted all this. Um, he may stand there and tell ya. He told me one day out in the middle of that road Because we weren't getting along. And he says, You know, Mr. Peterson, I'm sorry. Now so you know Mr. Pittman, you got
that part right. You don't think about the people that live on its lake. You're a developer, you you're a real estate attorney, you live in Tampa, Florida. Beautiful spot it was. I don't really live that exactly. I used to be a policeman in Tampa. I don't really
I don't want to get too far for you. Let's try to stay on the on the topic. What I want to know is if that's your only access to your property and if you think it you think it's illegal access. I don't know if it is or not. I'm not an attorney but I do
know about
prescriptive rights.
I can say this. When we were talking the last thing I'll tell you about that, sir. Mr. Grape. He comes to me and says, Listen. I will allow you To leave your line your your your fencing. Where it's at right now. But I want you to cut a little section across at 15 feet. So the people coming down, they'll have to jot over and pick up Dallin Lake again 'cause he changed the road over. And he says, I'll sign off on that. If
whenever we have a commission meeting You'll agree to five acres.
That was Drew Pittman telling me. I'll sign off. And let you have your road. But you've got to give me something too. I want you to go down there and say it's okay for him to have change this to five acres. That's what I'm dealing with. That's wrong.
So that's not something
you agreed to. Thank
you.
I saw I have a question
too. Go ahead. Go ahead.
So your property, how how much of it is uh how how m how big is your property?
All right. In the beginning in 1979, I don't think it was zoned like that, how it was owned, but the Dowling sold two parcels. It was a ten foot ten-acre parcel that was split between two people. I got one of those parcels, I bought it from the guy originally owned it. I have five acres. Only like at the 207 foot of lake.
So and looking at this era, how how much of so you have a five acre parcel? How much of it is
I probably have uh Mr. Cox, I probably have uh and I'm stretching it here, four and a half, four and a half acres of dry land. The rest of it's underwater. I actually own uh probably three fourths across the lake.
Yeah, I see that.
Okay, but it's it's less than f five acres is you're saying is dry.
Hello. No. And it too, it's uh the reason I got five acres of the guy beside me really only once, uh is because it originally nineteen seventy nine that was allowed to be split between these two guys. Today it's not zoned that way, that's single on on ten acres. Um but I don't want to see it go to five. I really don't. For myself it not come bothering it.
Thank you.
I guess I'm not clear, so I don't know if Mr Hobby does or doesn't agree about your prescriptive rights, but I guess I'm unclear How that impacts this rezoning. I mean, because I've I'm assuming they could build their houses outside of your road. Let's just say you do have prescriptive rights. There's nothing in the zoning that says they're gonna build the houses to block your access. So if you have prescriptive rights, presumably they could still build their houses There may be other houses that
use the road too, but I don't know how that I'm not sure how that interferes with your prescriptive rights if we grant this rezoning.
Because when they develop that they're gonna take that twenty five feet back. They're gonna take my they're gonna take my prescriptor easement back.
Okay, I'm gonna have to ask Mr. Hobby if that's
Project
Lane. And So you b so that's your understanding is that if they build these, they're gonna take back your ro your only access to your house.
I'll have Battling Lake Road. They'll use it too, of course.
If y if other people are also using the road, how does that hurt you? How does that hurt your prescriptive rights?
No, no, no. It doesn't. It doesn't hurt my prescriptive rights because um They, I'm saying they I I say the Dowling are massive properties through Drew Pittman has allowed me to keep the old Dowling Lake Road in front of my property. And the the property the road now the way it's situated, the Dowling now. It comes in and it juts over at my property, it juts over to the old Dowling Lake Road. Because I wouldn't
uh my neighbor couldn't get in his property. It was otherwise. So
my question is, is us approving if the board approves this rezoning, does it any way interfere with your right to get to your property?
I wouldn't say so, no sir.
Okay, that was my question. I thought that was your argument. Okay. So that that's why I needed to clarify what he was asking.
Yeah, well maybe I wasn't very clear. I apologize for that.
That answers my question.
Okay.
Anybody else have any
questions?
Mr. Chairman Mariano may I ask the Planning Commission to move to receive and file the item that Mr. Woodworth showed on the LMO please?
Move to receive and file.
Second. Motion second for the discussion. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
All right, if there's no one else, Mr. Hobby, you wanna come up and No, there's Lady.
Okay, you gotta be quick. Gotta be quick here. Why don't you come up front? If you're gonna speak, come up front so we can get you up here. Don't be bashful.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Uh Calvin Weis. I live at [address removed]. I'm directly to the north of this subject property. I'm also the president of the property owners association for the 20 parcels that are the entire north. Boundary of this as well as the Hernando portion that wraps around the side.
Every one of our owners in our subdivision, as well as Greg Keith, who is in the uh
I would say northeast corner of that portion are opposed to this changing to five acres. We all purchased in a ten acre subdivision for the rural nature of it.
appreciate and enjoy the open space. Most of the surrounding properties are ten acres or more.
And there are a few exceptions, but most of them are more than 10 acres. And I think every one of us would like to see something conforming to the surrounding properties. Um I know in the community meeting we saw A breakdown of the parcels, and I think nearly all of the surrounding parcels except for one or two are 10 acres or more. So it's it may be something within three or five miles. There's uh examples of smaller parcels,
but that entire area, part of the uh uh rural uh whatever we're trying to be the green space we're trying to keep, um is uh i is all ten acres or more. So um I think I agree with the first gentleman that was up here. I definitely agree that Trailby Road can't handle um all that additional traffic. Um it's already very tight
road and I don't see how that could be uh the improvements of that. All the way to the north to 98, as well as all the way down to Blanton Road, could be part of this parcel's responsibility. So thank you. Any questions?
Any questions? I I just I mean I know you're you're alluding to the size of the tracks there, but I just There are no dimensions on the map I'm looking at, but I I can see an awful lot of tracts that are less than ten acres.
I'm talking about all the pr surrounding properties that border this parcel. Every one of them that is adjacent to that parcel is ten acres or more except for one or two. I think there's seventeen.
Sure.
There's a couple that are on the old Whittington Lane Road that's a private road that used to be part of our subdivision, a way of getting in. um that there are two or three, I think two five acre parcels on that road, but they are not adjacent to this subject property.
All right, thank you. Any questions? Okay, thanks.
Yes sir.
Name and address please.
Charles Easton, [address removed]. Um I've lived there for about 33 years. I am just inside the Hernando Line and Easton Lane is my D-Dedisement as access. I don't utilize it because I also purchased in the Spirit Hills subdivision uh for the for for the rural nature. and to have additional lake access.
Uh so
which one are you? Can you point that
out? Uh that if you look at the very top of the red box and to the left is that big green area. Right there. That's all mine right there. That green down lower. Right there we down lower.
That trap is over.
Right there. That's all mine and all the way down to the lake is all mine.
Okay. Um Some of the points that Mr. Peterson brought up are correct.
Mr. Hobby even led us to believe, uh insinuated, that they've owned this property for a long time. They didn't own the 40 acres on the lake that was owned by Andy Latosha. and they changed the comprehensive plan which I didn't get a notice of, but apparently maybe you don't need to notice that particular item when you change the land use. But Mr. Peterson is correct about Lake Dowling. Uh what he didn't let you to believe
is that's a one car road. Currently. I don't know what the right-of-way for the right the size of the road is, but it is currently a one no-pass road. So I don't see how adding and the proposal that Mr Hobby showed us at the community meeting So they're gonna stack in nine properties finger like properties on that lake. in that lower left hand box on the w west side. Um
That I find troubling because not only is it directly adjacent to my property. But I wonder how as Mr. Cox asked or or the other gentleman I don't have a name tag on um About the size of the lots. Um If they're gonna put nine properties in there You can see Lake Dalling runs even with that blue line that intersects
the southern section. Um They're not gonna have any land.
Now their proposed map that they showed us showed houses in there with a half an acre of actual land.
What I would suggest, and I ask the Commission to do this is to postpone this until they do two things. One, they do a wetlands lake study For the impact on that lake, there are not many lakes in Pasco County that are privately owned that have 10 acres on them. That's a jewel. And all the landowners are protective of that jewel. Just like I'm sure women appreciate their diamond rings. That's our diamond. And
the second thing I would say is that, yes, they may have in their wording that they're going to adjust Troby Road. But I've been a contractor for thirty years and what that means is they're gonna adjust their access. And nothing further. They're not going to impact that curve, that double S curve there. That road is ten feet wide. That's it. Typical DOT road is 12 feet wide. That gives people a lot of room to move
around on the road. This road is up and down, sideways, whatever. And ten feet wide doesn't leave you a lot of room. There's no shoulder whatsoever. None. If you order them to do a traffic study and a wetlands lake impact, I think you'll see that redu uh increasing that to thirty to forty homes will ruin the jewel that we have. Thank you.
All right. State your name and address.
Sylvia Kelly, [address removed]. I we have the lot that's next to arts on the south side. So our view is totally across, which I agree definitely with uh this gentleman here. The uh proposal they put on the section that's red into the lake. They did have the houses like there was he said nine, there's nine. Just little tiny piece of land. Well all those nine septic tanks are
gonna fall in there. And our houses uh when our planted our subdivision, our houses are way away. Nobody was allowed to build on that lake. We are up on a hill, way away from the lake. Uh how many acres? A way up, maybe four or five. Off the lake. So nobody's on the lake. They're gonna put nine people on there and a boat dock. It's a little tiny lake. You can't even ride a ski dew in there. The I'm I'm for the land ten acre use. It it just doesn't
need to be changed. You change that and then you look at the forty acres over here behind our place, well are they gonna put another uh twenty houses on that and have that go into the lake? The road is the main situation. We're on that curve. There was a guy killed maybe two or three years ago right there because you can't get off the road. The counties let the trees go over, you can't even see. Somebody'd have to r redo the road. That's why they said they were gonna make the road compatible. It's not. It's a little tiny road you can't get by the
trucks. Semi trucks go up that road and I think, why aren't they denied? Because they're over the line and we're all squishing off to even get there. So you put eighty more cars on the road there, it's gonna be very dangerous. So I agree with everybody what they said. And um Mr Hobbs or I'm sorry, I I don't do well with names. I've had a little Probably with names. But he said the plan that they're proposing is not the real plan. That's what he told us at the other meeting. It can
be changed. It's just a proposal plan. So let's propose ten acres. The Masseys make their money. They're still gonna sell it. And we're not gonna have an overcrowded situation and then the next people with the big lot Over there next to Mr. Peterson's, I believe, no, or the last person that spoke here, his his acreage up there, then what are you gonna do? Make that five two? So that then there'll be four hundred people on there? Let's keep ten. You promised us ten in the past. Let's keep ten. That's
all I have to say. You have any questions?
I guess not. All right, anyone else?
Mr.
Hobby?
I
have
a question for staff.
Okay.
Go ahead, David. So Denise, I I recognize you're probably not gonna be able to answer this question, but I'm hoping there's somebody in the back of the can. Okay. The statement in finding 12 that says that the applicant will be responsible for improving Trilby Road to county standards. I'm not sure I understand what that means and it appears to be relevant to the Planning Commission's decision today. So How much which will be road what what does that mean? I mean does that
Well the the following statement also says that a substandard road analysis which will identify the re required improvements will um happen at the time of site plan submittal.
So Well. I get that, but if it's if those improvements are substantial enough, maybe cost prohibitive for this applicant. So That's what I'm trying to figure out. under our normal rules, how much of Trilby Road would they have to improve to county standards and do they have to straighten out these per I mean that's
And I'm not certain that there's anyone on staff that can answer that question at this exact moment in time as I look to the back of the room.
Okay. Well my general understanding is that they have to improve it to wherever the nearest standard road is. I don't know where the nearest standard road is in this area. Like w what
So how how far away are those roads?
You can't talk from the audio, I'm asking staff.
I can do a measure.
Well I guess I'll also ask for Mr. Hobby what his plan is because I
And I'm not sure what what they're intending to do on Troy Road.
Clark Howby, Commissioner Oakley, I I I guess I'll first address David's issue. To the extent the code requires us to do a substandard road analysis at the time of development, like everyone else, when they do a non-MPUD rezoning, we will do so. So prior to that time, we'll do the substandard road analysis. I think David's aware also that the code allows for uh proportionate share. mitigation payments made in lieu of us totally redoing the road. I mean no one's ever been required to redo
a collector road that was substandard for miles. So that will have to be addressed at the time of development as it always is. I didn't to be honest with you, I did not see that statement in the findings of fact and I find it unusual in a Euclidean rezoning.
The reason I'm concerned is there was just another one we approved earlier where Denise actually wrote in had the Planning Commission approve it said unless otherwise approved through an alternative standard to allow the payment of proportionate share. They'll have to approve it to county standards. This one doesn't say that. It just says Shelby Road is considered to be substantial road. The applicant will be responsible for improving
Shelby Road to County Standard.
And that I think sh we should address with staff to conform with the way this is handled on every other Euclidean rezoning.
So basically your position is you're not going to improve it to county standards.
We're going we're going to follow the code like everybody else does in every other Euclidean rezoning.
So at the time at the
time
Okay, but I want to be clear with you. But the code says my understanding, and I wish somebody was here to address it, but they're not. Um
My understanding is that if it's if you're increasing density you have to bring it up to county standards. The ability to pay prop share is really when you're not increasing density. Unless we granted alternative standards to
what
we're doing.
I've never seen somebody improve a county collector road. as part of any Euclidean rezoning. I've never seen that. I will work but I will tell you this much. I understand your concern. I will work with you and work with Denise on the language to make sure it conforms to what we do on every other Euclidean zoning. That's adjacent to a collective. The reason
I have some doubts is because we just approved one today, Clark, where we specifically added the phrase unless otherwise approved through an alternative standard to allow the payment of a portion of your own.
That's why I'm saying I I
think that leads me to believe our practice is that you have to approve it to County Standard unless we grant an alternative standard. Otherwise, why would you need to answer insert that clause in the other
I think it's fine, but it uh but if it I do want to the only thing I would say was I want to make sure it doesn't preclude the other rights that are under the code. So that's why I say I don't have the language in front of me from the other
zone. If assuming Planning Commission is okay with that, I think my opinion that same clause that we added on the other one needs to be added to twelve because otherwise this it is almost implying that You're gonna improve it to County Standard.
And and again, I did not catch that before today. I I've never seen that in any other Euclidean rezoning on a collector road. So I uh for today's purposes I don't have my clients authority to agree to it, but i I am not going to strenuously object if the commission wants to add that wording to the finding effect.
Well, So I'm not sure I want to get into the wording part. My bigger concern is that that what I'm hearing you say and I'm not hearing anybody on staff disagreeing is that it it's likely that it won't get approved at county standards, that it you just may have to make some payment to improve it to county scan.
I'm not sure David and the reason why we don't normally deal this at the time of rezoning on a collector road is because we don't know when we're actually gonna develop the site and it may the county might have repaved it by that point. And that's why we wait to do it at the time that we're proposing a development.
This to my understanding is unlike a lot of collector roads in the urban area, there's I don't have the county any plans to widen Chilby Road. So I'm it is relevant, Clark, because that is the objection we're hearing. I mean that is the main issue we're hearing about the rezoning is the condition of Chilby Road. So I wanna understand What is staff planning to make you do truly? So I don't know that it's something I agree that in many cases we defer this to site plan approval, but that is the main objection we're hearing. No,
I I I under I understand that. But I've never seen any developer in any circumstance take on a collector road in this scenario. So I will again this is an issue for right now of coming up with wording that I don't have my client here. Uh but again if you wanna insert the language it was inserted from the other one earlier. I will work with my client to make sure that that's accepted.
I really wanna know what staff's going to do when it comes in. I mean that's what I really want to know and there's nobody here to answer the question. So Don, why don't we have anybody here from transportation to answer these questions?
David, is an oversight that we'll correct in the future? We just uh we just wasn't prepared for it. Maybe we ought to maybe we ought to continue this until we have somebody to say that but maybe that's what we should do.
I mean this project, just so we're clear on the scale of this guys, is totally de minimis and it's beneath the timing and phasing numbers. I haven't looked at it. It may not even generate the number of trips that are required. to conduct a substandard road analysis.
And Clark, you may be right. It's somebody on our staff put this condition in there. And I I don't or this finding in there. And I don't know what they intended by it. Denise, do you have any help?
I'm going to read from the timing and phasing analysis. Toby Road is recognized as substandard road and needs to be improved to the county standards.
Okay, that's exactly what this finding says. That doesn't help me any.
Where where it came from is it came from the timing and phasing announced staff's report on timing
and phasing. Okay, but how much of trouble do they need to approve? Are they allowed to pay proportion and share instead of bringing it to County Standard? That's my question.
I can't imagine that Anybody's gonna agree that
I think you're probably right, but that's why I'm I that's why I'm concerned that staff is under this assumption. If if if If staff is recommending approval of this because of the s you assume the applicant was gonna bring it up to county standards and there's no way that's realistically gonna happen, that's problematic.
Yeah, I d I don't think that that was the assumption.
We'll give them why it's finding twelve in there. I mean that's okay.
Uh Yeah, well the the effect of it is is I think we're asking the surrounding property owners to assume that that's what it means.
Well i I mean and uh there are times when we say, Okay, you don't have to bring up the full county standards, maybe just add some shoulders or th there's things we do in lieu of a full reconstruction of the county standards. But I don't know what staff is willing to allow on this road for this project and I agree that it would be burdensome to make this many units and prove all the Trilby Road. I'm not disagreeing with anybody. But I'd like to know what what are they going to do? No, I'm not sure.
That's why I I think uh if you don't mind. at the very least we need to continue with continue this so you can have a brother
I mean Mr. Chairman Mariano that's primarily one before we handle before getting to a development that this is just a wording of a finding of fact. that we can address between now and the board.
Well Clark, I'm not sure I fully agree because it effects in my opinion
Whether cause that it does affect whether Planning Commissioner the Board want to improve this zoning. I think they have a right to know what is going to happen to Toby Row. If it's nothing, fine, it's nothing. If they want to approve it with nothing happening to Tilbury Road, I don't care. If they want to prove it with you only on your shoulders at Shirley Road, I don't care. But I think we deserve to know what's going to happen to Trilby Road.
Your code says that you don't at the time of this on a Euclidean rezoning. That's my point.
Your code actually says though that your access to the property is relevant to a rezoning. This th this this is your main access.
So So you're I mean what you're saying is you want me to conduct a substandard road analysis when the code says I
don't know. I'm not saying that you have to do the full analysis now. I want to know when staff put this in there, what were they expecting?
Because somebody on
our staff thought you were
improved in
the right-of-way.
And and and in fairness, I mean I agree with you. I did not see that language. It we didn't submit it. Someone on the transportation staff wrote it, you know, and my assumption is we're gonna follow the code like every other Euclidean rezoning does. And so, you know, again But You know, I I I don't know what the pleasure of the Planning Commission is, but I mean I can address the other issues that were brought up because some of them I mean there's it's three quarters of a mile from where that S
is till you get to the north boundary of this property. We have a quarter mile of frontage along this collector road. So it's you know, there's plenty of ways to make sure that people are safely traveling on a forty five mile an hour road out there. We're not proposing to cut any of our neighbors off. AGR land use and five-acre tracts are the most popular residential land use in all of Northeast Pasco.
Forty percent of all of Northeast Pasco has this size lot and this size land use. And the lots that are north you know north of where we were talking about, a lot of them are five or less. So s if we put aside Mr. Goldstein's issue, I don't think there's anything else that we're not doing that is not consistent with the Northeast Pasco rural area, the policies and objective. We're not required to conduct lake studies. I don't even know what that means. And we're exempt
from timing and phasing under 901.12-2, the table, because we generate less than the 50 p.m. peak hour trips. This the site's going to literally only have 35 five-acre tracks on it. That's all this is. So it's it's not a large impact and I would respectfully request Mr Chairman that you move it along and I will work with staff in the next couple of days to come up with the appropriate language.
I didn't write it. I wouldn't have written it that way 'cause I'm aware of what the code says. I mean I I have to follow the code on the substandard road stuff.
I I just I have a feeling that it was written that way on purpose because they figured that if you didn't do that you wouldn't develop it. I I
can't imagine that they were gonna anybody on our transportation staff was thinking a person who was gonna have thirty-five units was going to build two miles of roadway.
Yeah, the biggest concern I have is not the road, it's access to the lake. Uh I I think it's uh I think it's I don't see how you're gonna g give thirty-five more people access to that lake.
I'm not suggesting that we are. We we won't be able to I mean I could scale it out right here. You have a minimum lot width of two hundred feet in AR five, which is what we're proposing. So I there could be eight or nine people uh lots maximum. That's what we showed the neighbors with a very conceptual graphic we have but But most of our lots will be running back where the majority of the acreage is going back towards Trilby Road. It's simply it's not feasible. You can't run flag lots. There's a minimum two hundred
foot lot width in AR five. If I was doing an MPUD or a conservation subdivision, I could, but I'm not proposing that. That's AR five zoning.
So you're not putting any
community docks on the lake or anything like that? I we haven't even talked, I mean, this is just a rezoning. We're not proposing anything like that. I can't imagine the Pittmans doing that. I Yes, sir.
Right up.
Yes. Um I believe that we have some lack of comunicación. I think we need more information. I believe uh Mr. Hobbit with all the respect that at least we need to have we cannot uh uh approve something based on assumptions here. When I say this one And your concern, Mr. Chairman Mariano is about the lake access. We don't know. We don't have a preliminary side plan to show us how this subdivision will be subdivided and how those properties
will be attached to the lake. The second, I believe that we need to be consistent with every single project that we approve in the development side. So the language is It's missing from staff, from you. We need to read it, we need to see it. So, in my opinion, we need to continue this uh item.
Okay.
But I I want to make this very clear when we're talking about treating people fairly The Planning Commission and the Board have approved these AR five rezoning time after time after time out here and you don't have to you don't have to show a site plan. No doubt.
But it again we have citizens that are concerned. We are uh we have
the right- I and then like I said, I'm fine on the continuous. I just want to make sure I'm not being asked to do something that's above and beyond what you're asking.
I don't ask I just suggest. Okay.
I don't ask for the consent. Fair enough.
Well I mean so can I just add to that? So even uh I don't he may be sending I mean we have in the past though if they offer one propose a deed restriction that says that limits the number of lots that would access the lake, that's something that has that Planning Commission has looked at in the past. I mean so it's Yes, I don't know that you have to do a site plan, but if if you could if you are saying that you're not gonna have more than X lots accessing the lake that could be handled through a DJ or something.
I'm saying my client hasn't even gotten that far on the development plant because it's a re it's a Euclidean rezoning.
But in Euclideans we have that has happened. I mean, so I and I
so I I'm I'm not aware of it, but I mean I I take your word. But I'm I take I take your word for it. But if it's the pleasure of the Chairman and the Commission I'll I'll accept a continuous. continuance we'll work with staff on the transportation side. Try to get everybody on the same page. I don't think it's gonna change anything and to be I just want to be absolutely clear. The board changed the density on this thing under the Comp Plan to AGR after the adoption of the two thousand seven Comp
Plan. So My options are either to do an MPUD with smaller lot sizes with the same number of units. If I want to get to the what the board approved for this property, do a conservation subdivision to double it or to do five acre tracks. All I'm trying to do is the five acre tracks. I mean that's in keeping with the majority of Northeast Pasco. So I'm not sure what else I I'm supposed to be doing with the property.
Yeah, I don't uh I don't personally think five acres is not is out of out of keeping with that particular area, but I am concerned about the lake usage.
Well, I as I said, I'll I mean if that's the pleasure of the chairman and the board members, if that's I mean I I'm not sure it's necessary but I will defer to
I try to put myself in the position of the people that live there. And if I was there and I had my acreage and my house on that lake, I'd be concerned about how many people could use it. 'Cause it can only accommodate certain people. So
Okay.
I'd like to know going in.
Okay.
This is Germany.
So as I'm I'm looking at this map here and you start counting the parcels around this map that have access now. And uh I'm I counted nineteen. Um and a lot of these parcels are much bigger On the land side than they are on the lake side. So they intentionally gave a lot of parcels access to that lake by narrowing the lots as they got closer to
the lake. And the current code says they have to have roughly 200 feet of frontage for the access. Then I think they'd be hard-pressed and even get nine lots with access to that lake. So I don't really see that to be an issue. The surrounding area has three acres to ten acres. That's the standard there. So five is certainly not unreasonable for this piece of property.
this property was used for agricultural purposes. So Now, maybe not during the the the pine forest, but certainly during the citrus grove times, there was a lot of impact in Trilby Road from trucks from that piece of property. So I hear the argument that, you know, there's gonna be people living there and they're gonna use Trilby Road, but where's the trade off? I mean there's a trade off where you had heavy trucks on Trilby Road, now
you're gonna have vehicular traffic. So I mean that has to be taken into account as well. It's consistent with the comp plan, and I don't really see a reason to postpone it. Yeah, we'll keep this truck. This might be a lot more. All right.
Somebody needs to make a motion. I'll
move for approval.
Is there a second?
I'll move to continue.
I second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye.
I'll get with staff on it. I appreciate your time.
I think it was a different thing.
And for the record the continuance to is to September fifth, two thousand and nineteen, one thirty in Dade City. Is that the motion to continue it to September fifteenth, twenty and nineteen? Thank you.
That's what I said. Yeah, when you say it's
Waiting a few seconds and that's okay.
Yeah.