ZONING AMENDMENT (REGULAR) - Truman D. and Margaret G. Campbell and Truman Don Campbell Revocable Trust - Change in Zoning From C-2 General Commercial District to R-MH Mobile Home District- Central Pasco County - on the East Side of US Highway 41, Approximately .5 Miles North of State Road 52 - Containing Approximately 43.9 Acres
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Oct 6, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Oct 6, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-20-7489 in full →PDD-20-7489 was taken up 4 times between Aug 4, 2020 and Oct 6, 2020, continued 1 time — this is appearance 4.
- Aug 4, 2020BoardC2Approved
- Aug 19, 2020BoardC2Approved
- Sep 8, 2020BoardP9▶Continued
- Oct 6, 2020BoardP8▶Approvedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 2h 19m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 90% of 501 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
PA zoning amendment. Um Truman D and Margaret G. Campbell. Truman Campbell Revocable Trust Change is only from C2 General Commercial District, RH Mobile Home District. Central Pascoal on the east side of Hill. Approximately point five miles north of the state route 52 containing approximately 43.9 acres. Ms. Hernandez, which is yours.
Thank you. Great. So if you would move on to the next slide, Commissioner Oakley. I'm
sorry, Mr. Hannes.
I can I get the uh publication.
Oh, thank you so much. Yes. Uh Tampa Bay, it was PA was published in the Tampa Bay Times on September 23rd, 2020. Thank you.
Thank you. This is PDD 27489. It's a request for a change in zoning from C2 General Commercial District to RMH. It's located in central Pasco County on the east side of 41, approximately. a mile north of State Route 52. Next slide please. The subject site is undeveloped and contains approximately 43.9 acres. The surrounding area is characterized by residential development, entitled residential development, entitled commercial parcels, and agricultural pursuits. The Pilot Country Estates subdivision and the Pilot Country
Airport is adjacent to the east. The owner's applicants proposed to rezone the property in order to develop the site with single-family detached subdivision in conformance with RMH Mobile Home District standards for development. Next slide, please. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to record a deed restriction that provides the following. The nearest residential lot on the eastern boundary of the property shall be a minimum of 200 feet. The site is limited to 109 single-family detached site-built dwellings. Mobile manufactured homes, modular homes
are expressly prohibited. And a provision will be included in all sales contracts disclosing that the existing public use airport is located near the eastern boundary of the property. Following slide. A noise exposure map mapping report for the pilot country airport was provided by the applicant stating that the property is outside of the 65 decibel day-night average sound level. Noise exposure contour for the pilot country airport. I believe the
applicant may have the Mr. Thompson on the line to discuss that item, and that's in your agenda attachment for. They also have received an FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, aeronautical study that determined that there's no hazard to air navigation. That's in your attachment three. Next slide, please. The surrounding zonings are as follows. You've got R1MH to the north. You've got Talavera Master Plan Unit Development District adjacent
to across the road US 41 to the northwest. Those are lots between 60-foot-wide and 80-foot-wide lots. You've got Enterprise Commerce Park MPUD, which is approved for 30 industrial and commercial flex lots. It is an expired MPUD to the west across 41. You've got some churches, Achieve of Pasco, which is a special needs program. To the south across from State Road 52,
you've got Conerton Village 5, which has approvals for 35-foot wide lots, 50-foot-wide lots, and 18-foot-wide townhome lots for both their neighborhood 6 and their neighborhood 5, which is adjacent across the street to the Um Just a um a few thousand feet from the from the actual property, but it's on the south side of 52. And if I can point there, pointer doesn't work. The MPUD that's on the south portion of that property is the Conerton. Um Village uh
five. Um additionally you have to the south East of the intersection of 41 and 52, you've got two MPUDs. You've got Tibbett and Sand Ridge. Those are typically commercial and industrial MPUDs, but just south of that you've got the Lester Darian FCI MPUDs, which are approved for 40 by 110 foot lots. If you go to the next slide, please. The future land use on the subject property is ROR Retail Office Residential. Retail
Office Residential contemplates commercial, residential, hotels, motels uh compet comparable light manufacturing processing and assembly of goods uh for in the intensity in terms of density in terms of residential it would be 24 maximum units per developable acre. This project is about 3.9 or so units per acre. Following slide please. That's just showing the access to the site off of US 41. Following site, please.
So this comes to you with a different split recommendation. So the Planning Commission recommended that the zoning amendment be denied. They found that the zoning amendment is not consistent with the land use pattern in the area. The Planning and Development Department recommends that the zoning amendment be adopted. So approved. If you have any questions, I am here to answer them.
So before we move on to the applicant, do we have any questions for Ms. Hernandez? Seeing none, move to the applicant. Ms. Wolheit?
Uh you're on mute. We'll give you one second. Ms. Will Hyde, hold on one second.
I am off mute now. Can you hear me?
We can now hear you, yes.
This is Barbara Will Hight. Cindy Terrapini um on our team is going to uh present for us. We also have some folks for rebuttal depending on what the public comment is. But um Cindy if you'd like to move forward.
Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioner members. I'm Cindy Terrapani with Terrypani Planning Strategies, 128 East Tarpon Avenue in Tarpon Springs, Florida, and I have been sworn. I'm the authorized agent for the property owners Truman and Margaret Campbell, who are Florida Pioneer families in Pasco County. This rezoning application is a downzoning from C2 General Commercial to the RMH district to allow 109 single-family detached homes. Since residential use is not allowed in C2, the applicant has to do with rezoning
application. The RMH district was chosen for the site based on our understanding from the County Commission that small sites with only one proposed land use don't really need to go through the detailed time-consuming MPD process. This site meets both of those criteria. It's only 44 acres, as your staff mentioned, and only 28 of those acres are upland and developable. The site is also proposing only one type of use, which is single family detached homes. Recently complies with the comp plan and the land development code
and is compatible with the sort of heat man, done cool.
Analysis that goes to this cat as well.
The site does have water and sewer service available immediately adjacent in 41. the site will d the rezoning site with the homes will generate significantly less traffic than the the development that could be done in the C two. In fact the commercial use will generate twenty times more traffic than the residential use. Sable 52 is under construction to be expanded from a two-lane to a six-lane road from the parkway east to 41. Also 41 is also under construction by DOT from Connor Boulevard North to State Road 52 to expand
from a two-lane to a four-lane road. Both of these construction projects will improve the road and their intersection to level of service C. The completion of both roads will align with the timeframe that the first few homes will be available for CO and purchase in the rezoning site. Although a concept plan is not required for this rezoning, we have prepared one to show you and demonstrate that it meets the county's development standards and the efforts we have gone through to ensure compatibility with our neighbor to the east pilot country estates. We could have the first slide, please.
Next slide, please. So here you see the Can we go back one to this concept plan, please?
Oh, it was delayed uh
So you can see on the console plan north is to the right, 41 is at the top of the page. We have one entry into the project. The wetlands have already been approved by SwiftMode, and this the exact wetland line is shown on this graphic and it's shown in green. The uh a lot there is uh uh obviously a road system internally. We meet all the development standards for by Capasco County, including wetland preservation, the neighborhood parks, and stormwater management. As you can also see at the bottom of this slide, there are only four homes adjacent to
the site's eastern border. Pilot County Administrator is not adjacent to the site. Only the home four homes within the product the residential portion are adjacent to our property. The new stormwater pond is shown in blue and it's in between the two wetlands. So along that eastern border between our property and the Power County Estates homes, there will be a 20-foot wide natural buffer in which no construction will be allowed. This 20-foot-wide natural buffer will be implemented and enforced through the deed restriction.
Next slide, please.
This photograph is of you standing on one of the Pilot Country Estate's homes at about the middle of the rezoning site, looking towards the rezoning site, and you can see the mature trees on both properties that will assist in providing that natural buffer. Compatibility in your code does not require that the uses be exactly the same. Compatibility is defined in your code as the following, and I quote, uses can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time, such that
no use is unduly negatively impacted. There's three tests of compatibility. One, how similar or dissimilar are the uses? In this case, the uses are exactly the same. Single family detached residential homes. Secondly, what is the distance between those two uses? Again, in this situation, the minimum separation will be 200 feet between the two home developments. And third, any mitigating factors. And again, here we have a 200-foot-wide natural buffer composed of mature trees, landscaping,
wetlands, and a stormwater pond that will not allow any development between these two uses. Therefore, based on your definition of compatibility, compatibility with the rezoning site and the pilot country estates project is assured. The next slide, please. The sole difference between the rezoning site and the residential use on pilot country estates is lot size. We are proposing 40-foot lots that responds to the current homeowner's wishes for a well-built, quality, detached home with minimal yard
maintenance. No one wants to do landscaping anymore. Forty-foot lots have been approved throughout the county and specifically in the central market area in which this site is located, 10 projects have been approved for lots with 40 feet or less. And as I learned today from Ms. Hernandez, Connerton also has 40-foot lots. So there are 11 projects in the central market area of 40-foot lots. Seven of those, again, including Connerton, are on properties on US 41 south of the rezoning site. And since these 40-foot lots
have been approved since 2003, it's not a new phenomenon, and they've been approved since um for over 17 years. Next slide, please. To demonstrate the quality of the homes has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the lot, I'd like to show you the existing homes in Cypress Preserve, one of the developments that has been approved for 40-foot lots. As many of you know, Cypress Preserve is on 41, immediately to the south of the rezoning site. These homes have been constructed, sold, and occupied in this successful neighborhood. I'd
like to speak a little bit about Pilot Country Estate's airport, the Pilot Country Airport and their concerns. First, it's important to note that Mr. Campbell's father and brother-in-law owned the airport property and were the original developers of both the airport and the homes within it. After construction of the airport, Mr. Campbell's father and mother continue to live south of the rezoning site, immediately adjacent to Pilot Country Estates. Mr Campbell's father would never have developed that airport if he knew that it would later become the reason why his son's property
rights would be harmed and his son would be prevented from obtaining a zoning approval to develop the site. We have performed two noise studies to confirm that the existence of the airport will not have a negative impact on the rezoning site. Next slide, please.
The first study was performed by Michael Thompson of the firm Michael Baker International using the methodology approved by the Code of Federal Regulation Part 150. Based on that code, a noise level of 65 decibels or less is compatible residential use, government, schools, churches, commercial, and industrial uses. When you apply that to this site, as you can see, you can see the noise contours on this property. Almost all of the rezoning site will experience noise levels. excuse
me, no part of the rezoning site will experience noise above 60 decibels and most of the site, in fact almost all of it, will be in the 55 decibel range. Therefore, based on the federal standards, the proposed residential use is compatible with the airport with regard to expected sound. You can see it on this graphic, but it's a little hard to read, so I'd like to point it out to you that in contrast, 35 homes within pilot country estates are located directly on the airport. That's the big white line you see in the middle of that 65
decibel noise contour. And all of those homes are within, those 35 homes are within the 65 noise contour, which is considered incompatible with residential zoning.
Next slide, please. The second study was performed by Michael Alberts of KB Environmental Services, and this site used a sound meter located directly on the rezoning site to measure actual sounds heard on the rezoning site. To put these measurements in perspective, these are typical sound levels also measured in decibels. So you can see a house, urban residence is 50, classroom chatter is 70, a construction site is 100 decibels. So to go to the next slide, please. Again,
as measured of aircraft and non-aircraft noise on the rezoning site with a professional and professional sound equipment. A plane that was landing on Pilot Country Airport could not be measured as it was below the ambient noise level. A plane directly overhead, measured at 56.5 decibels, a plane uh taking off, that's the typo in there, the plane taking off is 61 decibels. And just to compare that, one motorcycle on 41 from the rezoning site measures at
54, almost 55 decibels, similar to the plane flying overhead. While a group of motorcycles that can be heard on the rezoning site measures at 62.6, slightly above the plane taking off from the pilot country. The noise measurements cited in Mr. Twelfhaven's uh letter that he may speak about today appear to have been measured on the runway. Clearly measuring on the runway you're going to get dramatically different numbers. Also, it's unclear whether or not the data that Mr.
Twalhaven cites was done by a professional or use professional documentation to do that.
We believe our presentation I just need uh two seconds if I might, Mr. Chairman.
We can finish. That's I don't think you were supposed to get deep, but go ahead.
Thank you. We believe our presentation and the document it submitted show that the rezoning is consistent with the comp plan and the land development code and should be approved for the following reasons. And you can delete the slides if you like, please. Thank you. First, the requested 40-foot lots have been approved in this central market area for a total of eleven projects since 2003, and seven of these projects are located south of the rezoning site in close proximity on US 41. Therefore, the proposed forty foot lots are consistent with the land use development
pattern. All public services and utilities are available to the site. Third, the deed restrictions will limit the development to 109 single-family homes only. It will require a disclosure about the airport and it will require a 200-foot natural buffer along that eastern property line. As many of you know, at any time a title search is done, whenever a property is sold, the deed restrictions will pick up and everyone will be aware of that. And finally Pasco County, excuse me, pilot country estates want
you to place their interests above everybody else's. We're asking you to recognize the rights of the property owners, the Campbells, who have done everything possible to protect their neighbors and allow both parcels to develop and prosper. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you so much.
Okay. Um Do we have any questions from the board at this time for staff? Or The applicant. No. Okay. I mean I have something but I don't know if we could put it up on the Scoot. Possible
Possibly put something on the screen off a phone, maybe?
I'll I'll wait. I'm gonna start I'll start public comment and then I'll see if we can pull it off.
So um Madam Clerk we have a number of um emails and people signed up to speak on this item. So I'd like to do first is to go ahead and any emails that were you were asked to read into the record. We will start with that, please. Yeah.
So there are thirteen emails to be that have been requested to read into the record. There's a total of eight. Uh let's see, a total of thirty-seven, but thirteen of those has to be read. One of those is um was submitted at the prior meeting that was continued. So I'm including that in the count of thirteen. Yeah. In addition, um, I just want some direction. One of the letters is from Holland and Knight representing Mr. and Mrs.
Campbell. So I don't know if you want to uh me to read that one. It was required.
Let me ask the can m Ms. Wilhite.
You're on the line. So there's a you're representing the applicant, but I also have a letter from Hall and Knight that states they're also representing the applicant. They're representing the property owner. Well the property owner, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, the property.
Right, right. Yeah, if you could they do have the unique perspective of the property owner, the Campbell, so I think you might
find
their letter interesting.
Okay. All right, we can we can go ahead and then
I will start with that letter. Um this letter is from Glenn Adams at 200 South Orange Avenue, suite 2600, Orlando, Florida, 32801. Dear Commissioners, the law firm of Holland and Night represents Mr. and Mrs. Truman Campbell. The beneficial owners of the property at issue in Petition 7489. Our firm respectfully submits this letter in support of Petition 7489. The property at issue is a tract of land located in
central Pasco near the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and State Road 52, known locally as Gowers Corner. Mr and Mrs. Truman are both members of Pioneer Pasco County families and the property at issue has been in mister Tr in Mr. Campbell's family for several generations. As Pasco County continues its inevitable growth, the agricultural activities and agricultural related activities of the Campbell family over the past several generations are no longer feasible for this future.
Appropriate land use changes with time and legacy families like the Campbells acquire vested rights in their land over many years of good stewardship. Rights and third parties would now have their have you deny rights that third parties would now have you deny without legal merit to further their own interest. In particular, Pilot Country Airport X05 LLC referred to as Pilot Country and Mr. Mark Twelf Twelfhoven, a principal of Pilot County. Have expressed
opposition to the zoning reclassification. Mr. Twelfhofhoven is a homeowner in Pilot County's Estates subdivision, which is contigu contiguous to both the Campbells property and the airport owned by Pilot Count Pilot by Pilot Country. Pilot Country Estates is a flying community with numerous existing homes and vacant parcels, which are much closer to the Pilot Country Airport runway and flight path. than the Campbell property. Based on a review of Pasco County public records, in addition to the airport related parcels owned by Pilot
County, mister Troughhoven Individually owns two homes and several vacant residential parcels within pilot country estate and a nearby home outside of pilot country estates. Mr. Trofoven has expressed through his counsel that he wishes to protect his investment in pilot country and pilot country estates and has raised several objections without legal justification. These objections are a smoke screen. Trofhoven would ask the Commission to limit or deny the Campbells
the right of residential use through, even though Mr. Trofho Trofhoven's similarly situated pilot country estate slots are allowed residential use. Such an action to deny the Campbells legacy. the same as Mr. Trof Trofhoven has in the recent acquired nearby lots would be at the very least unfair and inequitable. For the reasons stated above and for the other reasons presented to the Commission in support of the petition, we respectfully request on behalf of Mr. and Mr. Campbells that
the Commissioner Commission approve the proposed rezoning of their property.
Thank you. So the next letter items
I guess wanna make sure that we're timing the letters. We are Okay.
The next letter I have is from Michael Hatfield. He lives at [address removed]. Dear Commissioners, I've owned property at Pilot Country for over 27 years and utilize airport services primarily for commerce. The aircraft landing pattern for Runway 36 is designated by the FFA. Will require aircraft, some with high horse. Power. Multi-engine and grow and heavy gross weight to fly directly above the proposed residential high density
mobile park. The aircraft will be at a relatively low altitude with noticeable engine noise and visual intrusion. The mobile home residential project does not belong next to Pilot Country Airport and beneath air traffic pattern. The tragedy of an accident notwithstanding. I request this objection to be read to Commissioners and filed at meeting of September 8th, 2020, at 1 30. Yours truly, Michaels Hatfield.
The next letter I have is from Doreen Alvarez. Dear Count Pasco County Commissioners, my name is Doreen Alvarez. I live at [address removed]. I have never written a letter to County Commissioners before, and frankly, it is somewhat difficult. The purpose of this letter is to express my opinion, my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the above property. This is a very nice neighborhood and I know every single owner because we have a common interest, aviation.
Do you know all of your neighbors in your entire neighborhood? Yes. We love the wonderful noise aircraft makes. In fact, it is one of the reasons we live here. Flights go on day and night and no one here has an issue with the noise. A subdivision like the one proposed will bring an onslaught of complaints from non aviation neighbors. Even though the n the commissioners approve Telavera With the outstand with the understanding of the neighborhood developer that Pilot Country existed and were supposed to inform every new homeowner. Of
the fact that We were here first as an airport. Those neighbors complain about af aircraft noise from time to time. What is going to happen when you build a subdivision even closer to pilot country than Talavera? We prefer to see the commercial zoning to remain. We know the noise will not be an issue. I would like uh to have this letter read into the minutes of the meeting. Please do not approve the rezoning. Thank you, Doreen Alvarez.
Next letter.
Okay.
Next letter is from Spencer T. Brass, Flight Chief Instructure with FLY X05 at [address removed]. Board of County Commissioners, I am writing in strong opposition to the rezoning of property adjacent to Pilot Country Estates and Pilot County Airport X05 from C2 General Commercial District to RMH Mobile Home District, located in
central Pasco in Central Pasco County on the east side of U.S. Highway 41, approximately half miles, one half miles north of State Road 52, and containing approximately 43%. As the Chief Flight Instructor for Fly X05 Pilot Country Airport's newest flying training center, it is my duty to inform you of the noise impacts, both current and future, of Pilot Country Airport due to airplane activities. The yearly day-night average sound noise level, uh level noise exposure
exposure mapping that was conducted by Michael. Baker International Inc., dated august eleventh, twenty twenty, simply cannot be used as an accurate measure of the noise created by Pilot County Airport. As published in the report, the ANSA requires the FAA to designate two noise metrics. For the purpose of this letter, we will look at the exposure of individuals to airport noise, i.e., for evaluating the cumulative impacts of multiple noise events, required consolidation
of the effects of intensity, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. The DNL is used to Evaluate a person's cumulative exposure to sound over a 24-hour period. Part of the data that was used to make the determination of the exposure to sound was the Florida Department of Transportation Aviation's Office's annual aircraft operation forecast, 2016 to 2035, to derive approximately 10,673 total annual aircraft operations. The data collection Of the annual
aircraft operation forecast of Pilot County County Airport considers two metrics.
Of activity, uh based aircraft and GA operations. It was reflected in the airport in the report that Pilot Country Airport has 27 aircraft based on the field. This number is incorrect due to the fact that the homes in Pilot Count Country Airport estates are privately owned with privately owned hangars and are not included in the number of based airplanes for F DOT purposes. Through an independent study of pilot country airport management, the correct number of based aircraft at Pilot Country Airport is approximately 115
aircraft, nearly 400% more than originally accounted for. The increased number of aircraft based at Pilot Country Airport should be considered to add many additional yearly flight operations. Pilot Country Airport and Fly X05 will develop over the next several months a sophisticated flight training program using various makes and models of aircraft. This type of operation will increase the number of aircraft activities significantly. Accordingly, 14 CFR Section 150.21, which
was used to guide the noise exposure mapping process, states that any substantial new Am I is that my time?
Um that I think that was it.
Well you read fast.
Yeah. Okay.
Okay. Um the next email or the next email is from Roberto Garcia. My name is Roberto P. Garcia, and I live at [address removed]. I have lived at Pilot Country since 1978. In fact, there is no other person living here since the beginning of the runway. The purpose of this letter is to strongly object to the request for rezoning of the Campbell property from C2 to RMH, a
non-aviation Related subdivision, extremely adjacent to pilot country, is going to bring all kinds of issues such as eventual court challenges due to noise complaints, attempts to limit airport activities, and probably an increase in runway incursions. Needless to say, the huge addition of local traffic and its consequences. I can see where the developer needs to increase his profit by building as many homes as you let them, but there is another way to solve the problem. Just
a few months ago, a lot at the west end of the neighborhood sold for 200,000. Almost every week someone stops me to ask me if there are any lots for sale. Yeah. My answer is simply, lots never come up for sale in this neighborhood. Why not build an aviation-based neighborhood extension to pilot country in lieu of the proposed subdivision? Has anyone proposed this type of subdivision where the lots go for two hundred to three hundred thousand and the homes will be in the seven hundred to one million dollar range? It
will require some negotiations with the runway owner and the HOA. There is already an extension, an existing extension of the West Taxiway Road, which was created back in the nineteen seventies by Mr. Campbell's brother-in-law. for that specific purpose. That type of neighborhood will create several acceptable results, such as one, the developer can sell thirty to fifty lots at two hundred to three hundred thousand each. There will be two, there will be no there will be there will not be a noise issue to debate in the future. Three, the county
will have a much higher real estate tax income. Four, the entire area's appearance will look like an upscale neighborhood. Five, every single legal cost where no one wins except the lawyers. Please consider my idea or deny the proposed rezoning. Please read this letter into the minutes.
Next letter. Is from Peggy Jasper. She lives at [address removed]. Two BCC members, this is a request for your disapproval of the zoning change in the subject case PEEP D D 20-7489. I live in Pilot County Airport and do not Want to see housing built adjacent to my property. Such development is not consistent with the existing land use and may not only devalue my property, but also being
Uh begin to crowd out the airport and its use. The area in question is under the flight path as pilots take off, land, and fly over the airport. Another concern is if new residents begin to complain about aircraft noise, it may result in future and further issues and threaten our existence. This is a very active airport, has been here for since the 1970s. The homeowners at Pilot Country want to continue to be a very desirable airport community. Please record this email and read it into the uh board members at the October
6, 2020 meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Next um email Is from Michael and Diane Jones. They live at [address removed]. Board of County Commissioners, Pasco County, Florida. We have resided at Pasco County Estates for over 20 years, having purchased the property in 1986, some 14 years prior to building our home. During that time, we have seen numerous changes in the surrounding Areas due mostly to people moving in. Quite frankly, the
changes have been less than beneficial, and yet developers continue to get their way. They finish a project. They leave the area residents to cope with the results. The results including the following detriments to mention a few. Destruction of wetlands, dried up wells due to overpumping of water, sinkholes again due to overpumping, loss of wildlife habitat, traffic standstill. Backflow of stormwater due to rising property levels at development site. People moved to pilot
country to get away from the high density neighborhoods where they could maintain private aircraft without harassment, where they could enjoy observing wildlife where the environment provided a modicum of serenity. No longer do we have deer and flocks of wild turkeys in our yards. No longer do we see herds of deer from The air. People move in, and wildlife has no choice but to move out or die. In either case, they are gone forever, all for the sake of what is termed progress. Make no mistake, aircraft are allowed
when departing, and they do so at any hour of the day or night. Placing such a neighborhood directly under the flight path of departing and arriving aircraft will result in a multitude of complaints, including cyber. A safety concern despite the non-occurrence of such an unfortunate event. Ultimately, as in numerous other similar situations, there will be a call to abolish the airport even though it existed decades before any proposed development was contemplated. In the meantime, property values of both
pilot country and the proposed development will fall into decline as no one will want to live under those conditions. conditions. We are against rezoning for high density residential purposes and believe the commercial zoning should be maintained. Commercial commercial use will not pose the problem of for of residential use and will be most beneficial in the long run. Also we respectfully request that our letter be read and recorded during the course of the September eighth sub meeting. Sincerely, Michael and Diana Jones.
Okay, my next letter. is from David G. Cubler? He resides at [address removed]. To BCC members, I am David Kubler, an active pilot, living in P Living at Pilot Country Estates for more than 20 years. I am requesting that my letter be read into the minutes of the meeting October 6, 2020, and I am un as I am unable to attend in person. I
oppose the use of the land for the project as laid out to us. 109 homes packed into eleven acres of a 40-acre parcel. Developers planned planning these subdivisions do not think of or consider the impact on surrounding properties or even the people they are selling the lots to, the lots and homes to. With an airport next to them, our traffic pattern for landing on runway 36 is right over the proposed subdivision. This is not a good idea. The low flying planes are noisy and the complaints will start after a period
of time. Statistics show this is this to be true when subdivisions are built in close proximity to a small airport. The airport will the airport has been here for 40 plus years. The subdivision south of 52 on 41 has 92 plus lots of similar size. They're in front of the large subdivision. This subdivision has 150 plus lots of slightly larger size, but are spread. Spread out and not all packed together. To the north on 41 is Talavera Subdivision, which
has much larger lot sizes and is able to accommodate approximately five homes per acre. The following are comparison of numbers of homes per acre in this area. Talavera Talavera averages five homes per acre. Pilot County averages one home per acre. Campbell properties averages ten homes per acre. Pasco trails average one home per fifteen acres. I believe that this land should remain commercial and not and no zoning change be made. This
property needs to stay commercial. This is the best use for it. Thank you. The next email I have is from Leslie McLean. And Rosemary Mc McKean and they reside at [address removed]. Dear Board of County Commissioners As homeowners and residents of Pasco County Estates, we would like to express our strong opposition to the possible rezoning of
the subject property just west of Pilot County. It is our understanding that the intention is to change the zoning to RMH and build or put as as I understand 120 homes. uh houses and or mobile homes on forty acres. My reasons for not allowing this to happen are based upon the following. One, a drop down effect in groundwater aquifier levels due to more use of from additional residential Will negatively affect the usability of our private wells. Two, the influx of new drivers
will cause more traffic. Our roads already have traffic jams and they are poorly designed to meet the traffic flow now, much less the additional cars that could be added. Three, concern about complaints from new residents regarding our airplanes and the flight path has That have been actively used for nearly 50 years since pilot country has been designated an airport. Four, property values in pilot country could be negatively affected by lower-income homes on subject property. Five, crime-related activities could
also result from the inclusion introduction of low-priced homes attracting lower-income residents. Six, the buffer between pilot country and the proposed development is very minimal and provides little protective barrier to our neighborhood neighboring homes. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to voice our opinion. We requ we request that the letter be read and recorded in the minutes of your meeting as strongly and sorry, in your meeting as strongly opposed to the rezoning of the proposed development.
Next letter I have is from Ed and Pat, none.
Dear let's see. Um they live at [address removed]. Dear BCC members, we are writing to request your disapproval of the zoning change in subject case. We live in Pilot Country Airport and do not want to see housing built adjacent to our property. Such development is not consistent with the existing land use and may not only devalue our property but also begin to crowd out the airport and its use. The area in question is under the flight path as pilots take off. Land
and fly over the airport. And if new residents begin to complain about aircraft noise, it may result in further issues that threaten our existence. This active airport has been here for since the 1970s. or earlier and is a very desirable airport community. Please record this email and read it into the board members read it to the board members at the October 6, 2020 meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration.
My next email is from Ryan Sampson, the owner of Old Florida Ranch LLC.
This guy's bored.
I do not see an address. Dear Honorable Chairman and Commissioners, I am unable to make the public hearing tomorrow, but would request that this letter be read out loud then. I am a partner in approximately 1,100 acres at State Road 52 in U.S. 41, known as Old Florida Ranch. It is within a half mile of the Campbell property. That is being downsized with case number 7489. I want to let you know that we 100% support
the rezoning application submitted by Truman and Margaret. To rezone their property on U.S. Highway 41 from the C2 Commercial Zoning District to the RMH Residential Mobile Home Zoning District. Residential is a much more appropriate use than commercial for this parcel. The less traffic on northern U.S. 41, the better, and I believe residential will be quieter than the potential commercial. I appreciate you taking my thoughts into consideration. Yeah.
It's from Jill A. Troton? Um she lives at [address removed]. Dear Board of County Administrator, I'm a resident of Pilot County Airport. And the reason for my email is to express my disapproval of the possible rezoning of the subject property just west of Pilot Country. It is currently a commercially zoned property, and if the intention is to change the zoning to RMH
and build or put, as I understand, 120 homes and our mobile homes on 40 acres, my reason for not allowing this to happen are based on the following. One, a drawdown effect on groundwater aquifer levels due to more use from residential from additional residents will negatively affect the usability of our private wells. Two, wildlife and protected species will be affected as they will be forced out of the natural habitat. Three, property values in pilot country will be negatively affected by lower income homes on Subject
property. Four, crime-related activities could also result from the introduction of lower-priced homes attracting lower-income residents. Security is a big concern of mine. Five, the buffer between pilot country and the proposed development is very minimal and provides little protective barrier to our neighboring homes. Six, Concerned about complaints from the new residents regarding our airplane and the flight path that has been active for nearly 50 years since Pilot
County has been designated an airport. Seven, the influx of new drivers will cause more traffic. Our roads already have traffic jams and they are poorly designed to meet the traffic flow now, much less the additional cars that could be added. Again, I am not in favor of the rezoning and protection. proposed development, please keep it a commercial zone. Thank you for allowing the opportunity to voice my opinion on the above subject matter and please have my letter read and recorded in the minutes of your meeting. I believe this is the last letter. It
is from Daryl Wallace and Carolyn Adams Wallace. They live at What can you never mind. We live at [address removed], Lots 40 and 41 and own Lot 72. We are vehemently opposed to the proposed rezoning from commercial to high density residential to the adjacent property. Several issues come to mind. First, this is an airport community. The
said area is directly under the flight pattern, flight path of the landing aircraft. Planes will be flying over the property at low altitudes. This is a private public airport community. Please reference Florida Statute 333, Airport Zoning. The 120 proposed homes on 40 acres is incompatible with the one acre and five-acre requirements in two of the closest established communities. In addition, the overly dense housing will have a negative impact
on property values in Pilot Country as well as Pasco Trails. Furthermore, the proposal is incompatible with Pasco County's Master Plan twenty twenty five, R O R. We respectfully request that this email be read and recorded in the record. And that's it.
So thank you. And do we have an e body at the kiosk?
Um Chairman Mariano at the kiosk for P eight.
That person did um so you might get off the
And name and address for the record and we still Please sworn, right? Yes, I think. Yeah, and if you've been sworn, please.
Good afternoon. My name is Jim McBride, [address removed]. Commissioner's up here this afternoon, drove over here from Coward's Corners to present some.
You've been sworn, sir. I'm sorry. Did can you have you been sworn?
Yes, I have been sworn. I'm sorry.
That's okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
I want to Speak in favor of the Campbell Subdivision rezoning. That property's beautiful property. It's gonna add a lot to the value of central Pasco County. I want to let you know that I've been here in the Gowers Corners area for an excess of 60 years. I've seen a lot of positive changes, I've seen some negative changes. But by the use of the county staff and your oversight. The five or six subdivisions
that are along US forty one. North and south of fifty two are absolutely beautiful. The Campbell project will add to that amenity of the central Pasco County area.
There's no question in my mind that uh central Pasco County is a blossom that's ready to be picked and you all realize that with what's coming up with the uh Moffat Cancer Center. Around the corner. on fifty two, the property that the county owns at the jail and the utilities complex are all ripe for development and further use of the citizens of Pasco County. The development of uh uh The
hospital will allow the need for a considerable amount of commercial, other properties and residentials. The Campbell project is a beautiful addition that will be close to the hospital, close to the future judicial complex. And several other uh developments that I understand are in the mill for the central Pasco County area.
We need more homes. We need to get people in Pasco County that'll live and work and spend their resources right here for development of the county tax rolls. The Campbell Subdivision is a beautifully laid out. It's been approved by the staff. Uh as a good recommendation for uh commercial, uh for the reducing of commercial into residential. It's uh several hundred feet from any other residential
area. It has a volume of wetlands and preserve And uh Apple exit and entrance onto State Road forty or correct US forty one, as does the other subdivisions that's been previously mentioned here. There's a lot of open space and recharge area there on the Campbell property. Pasco County, the center part of Pasco County Commissioner, as you know, is uh is an untouched blossom,
and that's why I believe that you all bought that property years ago where the jail is. Commissioners, let me just say this.
We lost you, sir.
All right, sir. I'm sorry, you're th the they cut you off 'cause you're three minutes. I apologize. So yeah.
Yeah.
That's great. So do we uh do we have anybody else at the kiosk at this time?
Seeing none. Um
don't forget we have WebEx.
Yeah, we have WebEx. So um just going forward, like we mentioned this a lot when we have um Quite a few people signed up for public comment, whether um for and against the item. Um You know, if you think for some r you know, your your your point has been made by Um prior speakers, I mean do you have to stay on. You can I mean if you f it's again it's up to you totally, but if you've hear your points been made over and over again and you feel like dropping off, you can just you can just drop off. I mean if you were here you would just get out of line.
But if you if you uh whether you again if you are for or against an item and you feel your point's been made over and over again by other speakers, you know, you do have the ability or the right to go ahead and drop off too if you feel Mm-hmm. Like you like to do so. Okay, with that I'm going to go back to the clerk because we have people signed up on WebEx now. And um Everybody if you would do me a favor. On WebEx, when you come on, just say your name and address for the record and if you've and say yes, you've been sworn. If
you haven't been sworn, you need to let us know, and the clerk will have to swear you in. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk.
Thank you. We had 20 people signed up, but only 13 are in the queue. So we'll start with number two, Mr. Spencer Brass.
Oh wait so we so we already read into the record an email.
An email. Uh but not for him. Yeah, yeah, you can.
It's spelt differently on the on the documents. It's bass on one and brass on the other, but I did read his email.
I think you need to give him his three minutes. Okay, go ahead, please. But we remember everybody going forward, we need to look at if we have somebody that's already Yeah. It's It's email or public comment. That's the rules. But we'll let Mr. Brass go ahead and and and go ahead.
Our team's fault for allowing that to go through. Go ahead, sir.
Okay, I think everybody can hear.
Sir, if you could start over again with you were breaking up a little bit on your phone.
Okay. Every sh everybody should be able to hear me, yeah.
Yes, sir.
So please state your name, address, and if you've been sworn for the record.
Okay, okay, there we go. Now we got it to work. Uh [address removed]. I have been sworn. Um yes, part of the email was read. I would just like we spoke to Christina Costa. Um there are six people here with us. We're gonna be using the same video that was said to be allowed. So we have Mark Twelfhoven, Paul Prince, myself, Prayad, Nam Namquin. And Robert Garcia all in the room. So there's thirteen in the queue, but we are all here
on the same chat. Um Like Uh the clerk began to say that the information that was gathered By from the FD Aviation Office annual aircraft operations forecast for the DNL exposure over a twenty-four-hour period. Um states that the data collection used two metrics, based aircraft and GA operations. They use Pilot Country Airport as having 27 aircraft based on the field, when in reality there's 115
aircraft based on the field, which is nearly 400% more than what was originally accounted for and used in the one of the two metrics for that DL forecast. Additionally, 14 CFR section 150.21 states that. That's the guy for the noise exposure mapping. States that any substantial new non-compatible use shall warrant a revised noise exposure map. As a flight instructor, I can speak to during flight instruction operations. There are multiple
different occasions where during that process, takeoff and landings will occur. Uh naturally, so that the student can accomplish that in their training. Uh if we speak hypothetically, in 15 students enrolled in flight training at pilot country, which we do expect that or more. Um each flying the recommendation as a flight instructor of three times per week should result in approximately 23,000 additional takeoff and landing flight operations per year at pilot country. Which would increase the
total noise exposure to those that would be proposed to live in the subdivision. So with the above knowledge. Um we can accurately measure the DNL due to the inaccurate number of based aircraft and the creation of the flight training program. I urge you each to oppose this uh proposal.
Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else on WebEx?
Yes. The next person that we have on WebEx number three. Uh Adela. Or Alata Bud.
Yeah.
We miss that?
I think they have more Mm, your
your phone, pick it up, say hello. William. I
think
you're up. Oh, can you hear me now?
Mm-hmm.
Yes, I'm here. I don't know why we're getting that echo.
You should be okay now.
Okay, good. Hi, good afternoon. Um my name is Alita Budd. I live at [address removed]. Um, thank you for your time today. Uh as a b a twenty-two year resident at Pile County Airport. I too have some of the same concerns that have already been addressed by my neighbors, and I'd like to have that noted here at the meeting. But today I am speaking as your as the airport manager of Pilot Country Airport X05 LLC.
We here at Pilot County X05 are not just a flying community, but we are also an access point for disaster relief staging and damage assessment. We have the Pasco County Sheriff Helicopter Division conduct trainings here at least once a month. had the US Army practice night trainings, and at one point Marine One helicopter was staged here during one of the campaign rallies for President George W. Bush. Since COVID-19 and with the hurricanes, F. FAA has requested that
all airports in the state of Florida report daily on the preparedness and accessibility of our airport. Are we open, ready, available, and selling fuel? We are considered an asset for not only Pasco County, but our surrounding counties as well. On to another hot topic is the noise-related issues. On an average, I receive three calls a week with complaints from surrounding subdivisions about the recurring airplane noise. With the recent development of our Fly XO5
X05 Flight Training Center, we will have five to seven new aircraft added within this year. or next year, I s apologize, which will bring an increase of approximately four to six hours a day of training in each of these aircraft. I anticipate that the calls will be increasing and that the county too could potentially be receiving these noise-related calls. With the business development and the economic impact of X05, what we bring into the county, I ask that you deny this rezoning petition. Thank
you.
Yeah, Dade City if you're talking you're on mute.
He's not muted. Okay, there you go, you're good.
Okay. Um if Miss Budd is available, can she please state whether or not she was sworn?
Yes, I will I apologize. Thank you. Next up we have uh Mark Budd. Mr. Budd, if you could state your name and address for the record and whether you were sworn.
Oh there you go. Okay. Yes I was sworn and uh Um, name's Mark Budd, [address removed]. I'm a owner owner at uh pilot country estates, obviously, and a commercial pilot. And uh things have already been addressed, but uh I think uh port and other remaining airports within Casco County are valuable hubs of economic activity and uh support the county and state in many
ways outlined in the impact.
I believe the re-volume is and the proposed development is an incompatible land use with respect to the other surrounding developments and normal airport operations. It would be detrimental to the airport and surrounding communities. And uh I would reiterate the uh densely packed dwellings are inconsistent with the surrounding developments. And I kind of wonder even a little bit about the uh change in using the RMH designated for mobile home development, which is supposedly
not what the applicant is intending to do. And why would they be staying at the RMH? zoning when they're not going to do that anyway. So is there some other reason why they would do that that sidesteps the normal zoning process and protections? That's just a rhetorical question. Uh the proposed uh development is directly under the landing pattern, as already mentioned, and it's not consistent with FAA and
F DOC guidelines concerning land use compatibility and planning. And uh and also uh it's been mentioned the Florida statute 333 and uh O2 and 33303. Talking about the incompatibilities and the proper planning in the vicinity of the airport. It seems to me that uh the Florida statute chapter 333 concerning airport zoning has not even been taken into consideration.
Residents of the pilot country and uh are well aware of airport operations and associated issues with living in the vicinity of an airport and have chosen to live there. I dare say that there are probably some people that would not share a passion for living on or near an airport community and would Uh as such would likely not understand the normal airport operations and issues. This generally results in complaints and activities detrimental to the airport and pilots, and
residents of the community, even the proposed new community. So I've seen many cases where uh subdivisions grow up around airports and tend to choke off all the activity of the airport and and it doesn't end well. So that's We can look at uh other airports and other counties and other municipalities that have undergone Alright. If it can change due to Basically, of course.
Next person that is signed up is Richard Budd.
Mr. Butt, name and address for the record please, and if you've been sworn.
He has been unmuted.
Yeah, quit that a little quicker if we can. Mr. Butter, are you there? Name and address of the record, and if you've been sworn.
Okay. I think we lost them if we can go ahead.
Okay. The next person that we have is Peggy Campbell.
Ms. Campbell, if you can hear me, um name and address for the record please it if you Yeah.
Here good. Uh Peggy Campbell, [address removed]. Uh I'm here to speak for myself and my husband, Truman Campbell. We are the property owners and we are requesting the rezoning of the site. We have raised cattle on the property.
I had to I hate to interrupt, but we have to ask if you've been sworn. Have you been sworn?
Yes, I have. Yeah.
Thank you.
Okay. We have raised cattle on this property for decades. However, it is getting harder due to pilot countries' encroaching development. One of the residents, Mr. Garcia, self-contracted an airplane hangar, which concrete slabs that are just over two feet away from our fence line, busting our six-strand bob wire fence twice while it was being constructed, once allowing our cattle to escape with the potential to cause a hazard on the runway. He never made us aware of the situation. After multiple attempts to
reach Mr. Garcia, we had to call their HOA president to express our concern. Mr. Garcia has a lot that's over 40,000 square feet, but he chose to build that close to our property line. Other residents have used our fence post for target practice, and others have broken our fence with falling limbs when they were having their trees trimmed. At this point, it seems haphazardous for us to continue to raise cattle on this property. Truman and I have spent most days over almost 50 years at our business here at Gowers Corner. I
can tell you the road traffic noise from State Road 52 and US 41 is a great deal louder than any noise that comes from the airport. And no, we do not see low-flying planes. And now it is time for us to do something different with this property and we would like to have the opportunity to develop it as we see fit. We would like to ask for your approval on our rezoning application. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Um next please.
The next person signed up on WebEx is Carolyn Myers.
Ms. Myers, name and address for the record and if you've been sworn, please.
I have not been sworn. My name is Carolyn Myers and I've lived at [address removed] at Pilot Country for twenty-two years.
Okay, we're gonna have to uh um swear yen again. So if you just raise your right hand and uh m the clerk will swear yen.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God.
I do. Thank you. I am a reti retired county uh Pasco County Math teacher and pilot. And my husband and I manage Pilot Country Airport from two thousand eleven to two thousand nineteen. We also in those eight years got lots of calls about the sound and uh oh I think a an airplane's gonna crash into my house and I'm threatening a lawsuit and that kind of thing. But uh no one has mentioned that the sound
study that was done by the applicant was done during those three weeks when we had Terrible flying weather. We had thunderstorms almost every day, clouds, uh it was IFR, hard to fly, so I don't really think that that sound study is valid. But at any rate, I can say unequivocally that this proposed zoning change will jeopardize the function and safety of our airport. This airport had an impact study done and it brings in loads of Revenue. Believe
it or not, it seems quiet here, but it is busy, busy, busy at times. It provides a vital service to the Pasco community. In a case of disasters, such as the fires that ravaged the county when I moved here, or hurricanes and tornadoes, Pilot Country Airport provides ready access for equipment and emergency supplies to be brought in quickly and for people to be evacuated in emergencies. Approving this requested zoning change would mean a depletion of our Pasco County resources,
such as water, foliage, habitat for wildlife, and would be a detriment to the pastoral and economic quality of life. This proposed development would add about 200 automobiles to one of the most dangerous intersections in the county. State road fifty two and highway forty one. It would add to the congestion and gridlock if you've been here Uh in the mornings and in the afternoons, every day these two highways are congested and the intersection is a mess, many accidents. We,
the citizens of Pasco County, chose to elect Pasco County officials who would care for the health and safety of our community. It would be incredibly irresponsible to care more for the developers that would destroy it. Thank you.
In the Welture Property. Um next please.
Okay. We have Bob. Hmm. Is it Pro Cassini?
A bo Bo Pro Cassini.
Sir, if you're on the line if you uh name and address the record and if you've been sworn please.
Uh no I have not been sworn. My name is Bo Praccoccini of [address removed].
Okay, sir, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give? Is the truth so help you, God?
I do.
Thank you.
Thank you for the you allow me the time to speak. I'm very much not in favor of the proposed RMH zoning and subdivision, approximately only hundreds of feet west of our home. Not to mention directly underneath the pilot country's public use airport long time and FAA established airport's traffic pattern area. Myself, like most all others at Pilot Country community, is perceiving this clear as the day is long to be an inappropriate and definitive example of incompatible land uses. This phrase
is commonly and repeatedly referred directly out of the FDOT, Fourth Department of Transportation Aviation Office Code, Statute 333, FS and Foxtrot, SS and Sierra, Section. five and I quote and compatible land uses around general aviation airports jeopardize the safety and the efficiency of flying activities and the quality of life of the community residents. And quite frankly, in all fairness, this alone may be one of the many injustices to potential
homebuyers of this proposed very densely populated community. Most people of pilot country have devoted their lifestyle to this flying community in protecting and preserving the longevity of this airport. To include the valued investment of their own personal homes and other responsibilities, such as maintaining the airport to stringent FAA standards for continuing airport and safe operations. To include individual recurring training, frequent medical exams, mandatory aircraft
maintenance, and so on. This airport, like many others, is not only to benefit just pilots, but also complements Pasco County as an invaluable asset during potential and unusual circumstances. Such as already mentioned, disaster relief plans to coordinate with local officials, and for instance, more often than none, to include ready air support with medical actions to interact with the already most obnoxious and jammed up intersection of 41 and 52 that has and still
remains, in my opinion and others, to be one of the most dangerous intersections in the state of Florida. And you can bet. apples to oranges, that this proposed very densely populated community is not going to make this horrendous intersection any less life-threatening to passing motorists, bicycles, and or pedestrians. In closing, a final concerning matter in my opinion that should be deemed as highly important and duly noted, if not already done so, this proposed, very densely concentrated development
is in queue to be constructed in the nearby vicinity of the heartbeat of Florida's known Sinkhole District, Spring Hill. And it would not at all take much imagination to visualize the geographical and favorable odds of a sinkhole catastrophe targeted in this proposed very densely populated development that could most likely trigger a funnel-like effect of high casualties and or loss of life like. Again, in my opinion, this is another possible injustice to potential home buyers
that could, in the event of the
Oh shit. Yeah. Shit, shit, shit. I hung up.
Um I don't remember what the whole meaning number is yet.
Have not been sworn, that name is Craig Saunders [address removed].
Okay, we're gonna swear you in. And if there's anybody else on the line right now that was not sworn previously, I need you to raise your right hand. In addition to Mr. Saunders. And Say I do at the end. Madam Clerk.
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God.
I do. Thank you, sir. And if there was anybody else, hopefully you did the same. Mr. Saunders, we're gonna start your time over again, sir. Name and address to the record and you can say again if you've been sworn.
Very good. Craig Saunders, [address removed]. And yes, I have been sworn. Thank you, sir.
All right, Mr Chairman and uh and County Commissioners, I'd just like to re reiterate the previous points everybody has made. I think they're all legitimate um Especially the point about incompatibility of l land use Let's support a statute three three three. Um As we know that the the encroachment of residential areas always jeopardizes airports and It's kind of common knowledge with us pilots, uh, throughout the community. that meantime residential areas start
building up around airports, it uh It impacts the airport. With increased complaints. But um What I'd really like to say if we turned this whole situation around And we said if I wanted to build an airport and have it zoned in the middle of a residential area, would that be approved? And the answer to that's probably pretty obvious. I think some of the main reason why Pilot Country was built uh so far away from Hillsborough County. Up here in Pasco when it was a agricultural community. That's
that's all the points I have to make, just things to consider.
Thank
you.
Thank you, sir. Do we have anybody else on?
Yes, we haven't. Five more. We have um Elisa. Or Elisa uh Speakman.
If a speaker's on the line, please um state your name and address to the record and if you've been sworn.
Hello, my name is Eliza Speakman. My address is [address removed]. I have been sworn in. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Thank you.
Thank you. My home was built in 1978, is directly abutting the proposed development. I am one of those four homes that the person spoke of earlier. Uh I strongly disagree with the proposed change in zoning for the following reasons. Number one, Airports and residential neighborhoods are not compatible due to noise and other risk factors. It's like having a
nuclear power plant next to an elementary school. Number two. If zoning was approved. We know what would happen. Just like with Talavera, there have been endless noise complaints. Now just multiply that by a hundred or two hundred. The reason that people would be be claiming be complaining is because of the flight pattern at the airport. I am not a pilot, however, I do know that when an airplane comes into land
on a runway, they have to follow a highway in the sky. There's no traffic lights, no yield signs or stop signs, but they have to follow the flight pattern. Coming into flight pattern altitude I believe is about around a thousand feet. If you're coming in to land at the airport, you have to begin your descent to safely land at the airport. That would mean that the airplanes are going to be right overhead the rooftops of those 102 homes, right over their heads. So
I again disagree with the zoning. What I would question the county is, uh this hasn't been brought up, is would the county instead consider buying this land from the Campbells for open space, maybe bike trails, keep it pastures? This would help to promote Pasco as a premier county. I've reviewed the 2025 Comprehensive Plan, 255 pages of it. And I've also looked at the Mobility 2045.
Where does Pilot Country fit into these models? Hindsight is 2020. If you were to change the zoning, this would negatively affect the trajectory of Pasco County. Don't change the zoning because this has the potential to be unrecoverable. Thank you for your service to Pasco County. Goodbye.
Thank you, ma'am.
Uh next we have up is Susan K. Spurgian.
Mr. Skurgeon, name and address of the record and if you've been sworn, please.
My name is Susan Spurgeon. My address is [address removed], and I have been sworn. I am the representative for Pilot Country Airport X05 LLC, the owner of the airport. And I adopt the concerns that were raised in my record in my letter, as well as many of the concerns that would have been
The petitioners character.
And I apologize one second. For the record or for the timekeeper, this individual is an attorney that's representing a a corporation and a client, and we are allowing the six minutes. So please go ahead and put the timer at six instead of three.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, man.
The petitioners characterize Pilot Country as selfish and seeking to protect only their own needs at the expense of the Campbells. What I asked the commissioners to focus on instead is the asset that Pilot Country Airport is to Pasco County. The positive economic impact of Pilot Country Airport has been documented by the FDOT Aviation Office to be $374,000 annually. Also, Pilot Country provides invaluable training
opportunities. for both first responders and helicopters, which is primarily through, I'm sorry, for first responders and military, which is primarily through helicopter training. Pilot Country also provides support for disaster relief. And as Ms. Bud stated, they are report each week to the FTOT to assure the state that they are available to provide Relief in the event of hurricane threats or natural disasters such as the COVID
pandemic. All of these assets are threatened if incompatible land uses in the vicinity of Pilot Country Airport are approved.
Further, the Pilot Country Airport is entitled to airport protection zoning. Chapter 333 of the Florida Statutes has, since its initial adoption in 1945, 75 years ago, required that existing public use airports be given airport protection zoning. Pasco County's Airport Zoning Ordinance is not complete, but PASCO's statutory duty to protect Pilot
Country Airport mandates denial of incompatible uses as proposed. As found unanimously by the Planning Commission, Pasco County may deny this petition as not being consistent with the character of existing land uses, which is review consideration number one. And the proposed change will result in lower property values in the adjacent area. Review consideration number eight.
A concern of the Planning Commission is that Pasco County failed to protect the West Pasco Airport, also known as the Tampa Bay Executive Airport, from incompatible surrounding development. One of the reasons cited by mister Lou Friedman, a principal at the Tampa Bay Executive Airport, for closing, was that they were being sued due to incompatible surrounding land uses which grew up over time.
I also asked the board to consider that this rezoning to RMH was not an intended use of this zoning classification by the County Commission. The board made a change in 2017 or 2018 to allow Habitat for Humanity to provide some site-built homes to redevelop property in existing RMH zoning. This is an attempt to exploit that change in the
zoning code and to be a loophole to allow site-built homes on 40-foot lots with five-foot side setbacks. This loophole, I understand, is now in the process of being closed by Pasco County. The petitioner would like to characterize this as residential next to residential, but there's a difference between a 40-foot lot with a five-foot side setback and the one-acre lots at Pilot
Country Estates. This proposed zoning is not a down zoning. The petitioner states that it is, and that is misleading. They are entitled to more than 600 square feet of commercial use on the site. That commercial use is much more compatible with Pilot Country Airport than the small lot, dense residential. that has been proposed by the petitioner. And as one of the residents stated, if
you look at airports around the state and around the country, they are surrounded by commercial use, not residential. RMH is a minimum lot size of only 4,000 square feet. It's 60% smaller than the existing C2 zoning. and the setbacks are much smaller. the impact of the proposed rezoning on the pilot country airport are greater than under a reasonable C2
development. The petitioner does have the right to develop its property to its highest and best use. However, that right is not an automatic entitlement to the zoning change of the Campbell's choosing or even to the most economically advantageous zoning. The airport zoning protection statute The recognized positive impact of Pilot Country Airport, the community service it provides
to first responders, military and disaster relief gives it an entitlement. to a protection of its existence. There are other commercial
No, that was that was six minutes. I'm sorry, we missed the one minute mark. Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Um the next person, um, they disconnected. So we have Greg Taylor.
Mr Taylor, if you're on the line, uh name and address for the record and if you've been swimming, please.
My name is Greg Taylor. My address is [address removed]. And I have informed.
Thank you.
Um, I'd just like to to stress a couple of points that have already been brought up, but I wanna make them a little more clear. So I I I definitely have seen um throughout the country uh other airports get um have their operations reduced and even get closed down due to residential um uh properties being built around them until the point where the residential um uh issues become more important than that airport and that airport being shut down. And it and as somebody that has
moved here in the last five years um for this specific um life style, both in terms of the size of the property and the type of property. Having Pasco Pasco trails next door and having large lots definitely is the reason I moved to Pasco County. That that concerns me and and obviously the airport being being another big factor there. Um so I'm I'm very concerned about the the the rezoning and and and and definitely
against it. Um the other thing I want to point out is uh I want to make it clear that the pattern, the highway in the sky that somebody was talking about uh a little bit earlier, I want to make that clear that that pattern is is is a recommended pattern by the FAA to pilots to fly. It is the it is the correct, if you will, way to to approach an airport and and land safely. And just me personally, when I am taking plates for to to keep my skills up and and to to keep myself safe,
um in a single day, I can fly over that particular set of of where those houses will be ten times easily in a day, just myself in my single airplane. Um and and I I you know my backyard is in the is in the pattern on on the other side. and I see hundreds of planes a day and I love it. But if I if I'm not into airplanes, I'm not going to love that and I'm going to definitely complain. Um and I'm not going to be happy. And it's not fair for people. Um
that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anybody else, Madam Clerk?
Yes, uh one last person signed up is on the call is Mark and I Twalf Hoven, I believe.
Sir, um if you're on the line, name and address of the record if you've been sworn.
Mark Twelfhoven [address removed]. I have been sworn. And I just want to set for the record that I am here to be with several other individuals who have also registered to speak, but they're using my computer, which is uh Paul Prince, Apple Sangtsuk, and Jean Newgrad. If I could carry on, I had also asked for a PowerPoint to be available of six pages, if that is available to be shown. Otherwise, yes, thank you. I show
there my credentials because in the earlier talking of Cindy Trapantani, she mentioned the expertise of sound measurement. And I would assure you that I have my fair background in sound measurements. Next page, please, two pages down. Please. Um Next page please. The concerns for development, I say number one is the noise, the incompatible incompatibility with the public use and the negative value of impact to existing homes, as well as
the financial impact. I need to state I'm also the owner of the airport, so therefore the impact to the airport ownership. There was a comment made by Ms. Tarapani that I own multiple lots. That is correct. When I purchased the airport, I also purchased several available lots with the intent, which I'm doing now. Three homes are being built as I speak of value that are extremely high into the million-dollar level. So we are building high-level homes. I also would like
to comment that one of the photos that was being shown to you that is the existing landscape that in fact is my lot. It's not looking towards the development, it is looking to the wetlands of my other lot. So these photos seem incompatible. Also regarding the noise measurements, I would like to comment that the measurement that was being shown was landing traffic noise, not takeoff traffic noise. Next slide, please.
If I could go to the next slide. Yes, the Pilot Country Airport, as was stated, has a 46-year history. The Campbell family knows very well that it was their father who realized that this would be an airport that was his dream and it was dedicated to be an airport. And that was the original intent. That was actually the son-in-law of Mr. Campbell's father, that is currently trying to do the development that called. the airport to be developed. If I could go to the next slide, please.
Basically, we have here 53 homes, 150 residents, about 115 aircraft, and we have this land on the left where you can see not the wetlands that is directly adjacent to our land. And we are very worried about the impact of noise. I would like to go to the next slide, please.
We did measurements on October 2nd. And if you recollect, there has been a diagram of noise. We are getting 104 decibels on takeoff, where the study is showing 65 decibels. So we are 40 decibels higher than the theoretical study. And that means that the noise level over the development. development is also much higher. In summary, I think we can go to the last slide. If I could go to the very
last slide. Then The others we've discussed, the last slide, please. I think that probably Um Okay, I want to ask you to vote against the rezoning and not to allow it and to implement the Florida Statute 330 and 333 for compatibility zoning, to have a buffer of 5,000 feet surrounding the airport for no residential development, and to protect the economic contribution
of pilot country airport. Thank you very much. And if allowed, I have additional people who register to speak.
So the clerk told me now there's more people signed up than
Well they're signed up. They just are all on one connection. They're
on my connection. Additional people, Paul Prince, Apple Seth Weightman
I have them listed and go through their names. Okay, so um the first person I have is Tr uh Patricia Foley. You could state your name and address as well as if you've been sworn for the record.
Yeah.
Okay. Time out for one second. I'm I'm seeing people still online that have already spoken. Is that what's what do we have Are they in the same room? Is that what's going on?
Yes, sir. Uh he had stated that he had a bunch of other people with him to speak.
Okay. I just wanna see I see okay. So Let me go again with the neck uh the person that you just mentioned again they're not coming on
she's with mr spencer brass
okay okay
And there's a lot of things.
You're gonna need to mute something on your side. You're causing the echo.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay. I think somebody might be watching one
more.
Okay. Um I can I can tell you who is here. Paul Prince. Tryad. Apple Sang suck and Robert Garcia.
Are those people signed up?
So I have uh Paul Prince signed up. Um, but I don't think I have the others. I had Patricio Folk, Joel G I don't go to know. Uh Pat Samboonnap.
Okay, who do we have signed up and that's who we're going to to next if they're online.
So the next we have um Joel Oh sorry, Patricia Foley and then we had Joel uh I think it's Ghirtino.
Okay, if Joel is there with you No. I don't know if David.
Okay, so Joel is not present and then uh the next person signed up is Paul Prince.
If Mr. Prince is there, name and address for the record if he's been sworn, please.
Hello, my name is Paul Prince. My address is [address removed], and I have been sworn. I'm close to this. Uh zoning change. I have been a pilot country resident for over twenty-three years. I have forty plus years in the airline industry. I have a son who conducts flight instruction out of pilot country who will be increasing his number of students exponentially. My experience at the airline and
six different airports in my career leads me to a definite conclusion. Residential areas and airports do not mix well. A given city or county will build an airport, usually away from the metro area. Inevitably, this will attract commerce, which then attracts residential development. Without exception, the residents will begin to complain about the noise from the aircraft. My standout example is RSW Field in Fort Myers. which was built way out of town in a swamp. Communities
like Gateway and Fiddlestick sprang up around the airport and then began to complain about the noise. There are countless other examples around the world. One of our residents has already been threatened on his doorstep by a nearby neighbor complaining about the noise his aircraft made while practicing maneuvers. Could have ended a lot worse than it did. It's not a good mix for these two. Our county would be better served if this land remained agricultural or was developed
commercially. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. The next I have on the list that has been identified with Mr. Brass is Pat Samboonsap.
Yeah, she's here.
Thank you.
Name and address for the record and if you've been sworn, please.
Hello, my name is Kat Sambun Sap, [address removed]. Yeah, if you want.
Thank you.
Okay. Um I do not live on the airport, but I keep my airplane over here for over 20 years. And I'm opposed to the development of the county proposals because if you allow more houses to be built around the airport, there will be complaints for sure. And I have seen this before. I live right next to the airport myself at this time, right next to uh executive airport in Port Lauderdale. And they tried that. Once, you know, the
land developed over time s you know, people complain and It's not coexistent and I think if you're gonna let, you know, anybody build anything, you need to allow the airport to continue its operation, meaning you have to keep safe distance from housing. Uh uh approaching the uh End of the runway at departure, end of the runway, clear. There's needs to be a certain, you know, code in restriction uh you know enforced allowed or airport
uh to be You know, staying in business. We need airport. In the future I don't think um You know airplane would be into the future and not you know driving. You know, a anytime you restricting flying. W we bad for the you know, continually for future uses. And So if you're gonna develop anything, it needs to be followed,
you know, strictly, closely to coexist with the airport, because the airport's been here for over forty years. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you. The next person that is signed up with Mr. Brass is Vicki Taylor.
Mr. name and address uh name and address for the record if you've been sworn, please. No, she's not here.
Thank you. Uh the next person I have signed up with, Mr. Brass, is Matthew Wallace. Mr.
Wallace is there, name and address of the record if he's been sworn, please.
He he might have his own connection. You may it should show up.
Okay.
He is not online with us.
Next please.
Okay. Um the last one I have I believe is with Mr. Uh Tolfhoven, which is Prayad. Nomagram, it's P-R-A-Y-A-D, last name, N-O-U-M-N-G-R-A-M.
My name is Kayat Longam. [address removed]. I am a fair.
I don't want development.
Okay.
Okay, well thank you.
That's all we have.
Okay, that does it for who we have um signed up. Um If we could go ahead and clear clear the queue except for the applicant for rebuttal now.
Before we go to the commission questions, the applicant does have time to rebuttal.
For Roboto, I should
say. Bike Measures. This is Barbara Will Hight. Can you hear me?
Yes.
Thank you very much. We want to go through some of the items that you've heard and tell you a little bit more about some of those things. For example, this property sits in the ROR land use designation, which allows 24 units per acre. So the Comp plant vision for this property is between three to 24 acres. Unlike somebody that testified that said that we're 10 units per acre, we're the density proposed is 3.9 units per acre. So you can see we are in the lower end between 3 and 24. That's your comprehensive
plan that sets it with the division being twenty four units per acre. We're also in the central market area. The Pasco Trails and some of the other projects you heard about with the lower density are in the north market area. So when you did the Comprehensive Plan amendments in 2008, as a result of the ULI recommendations, you picked market areas. And this is the market area where you've said you want to have more density. Um you've heard Jim McBride probably wanted to most eloquent um statements I've ever heard
of pulling together all the facts regarding Gowers Corner and it being the jewel. I think he's lived there, he knows it, he has a division for it. The vision is the same in line with the vision that you have set in your central market area. We're the essence of what the ROR land use category says, retail office residential. We are the residential component. This piece of property is not adjacent to the intersection of 52 and 41. It's separated by wetlands. We'll make a great development being surrounded by the wetlands.
It is not a commercial property. It's not viable for commercial property, as Ms. Terrapini has said. significant public investment made in this location, which supports the density requested. It's very important that you make sure that you put density where you've made your investment. Water and sewer is at the front door. You have millions and millions and millions of dollars of transportation improvements being made to the intersection of 41 and 52. all the way down, improvements all the way down to multi-lane 52, all the way down to the Sunclose
Parkway and down to the area where Moffett's gonna be. Improvements being made to 41 south of 52. So it's absolutely consistent what we're proposing with with um your vision and the comprehensive plan. The MPUD versus the R RMH, there's no substance to the to that, saying that there's something wrong with the RMH district. We have provided deed restrictions that staff has requested and required. There
was no review that was avoided. I can just say that emphatically, I'm aware that there's no review that was avoided by following a zoning district versus one of your zoning districts versus your MPUD. But you heard over and over about um values and in and affecting values, we filed the affidavit, uh actually hired an appraiser to look at that issue because we know that that's often said by residents with no expertise. So we have appraiser Frank County's professional opinion affidavit in the record that the development of the Campbell subdivision as proposed will not create
any adverse impact on market values of pilot country estates. He mentions it's well buffered. This project does not drive through. um pilot country estates and pilot country states does not drive through this project. This project is accessed off a U US forty one, pilot country estates is accessed off fifty-two. Access points are nowhere near each other. There is no statutory protection other than the required FAA approvals that protects the airspace obstructions. We have received the FAA
approvals that we will not obstruct airspace in violation of any requirements. And um We also have uh there's no statutory uh mandate that requires denial and you can check with your county attorney's office because I've had conversations with Mr. Goldstein about the statutes. The property is not located within a runway protection zone. The attorney her for the airport owner has misstated that to you a couple times. Again, she's an attorney. I'm not trying to state anything that's not in the record.
Um all of everything I say to you is backed up by a report by an expert with that substantial competent evidence just because the attorney said it doesn't make it true, and for example, is not in the Red and Way Protection Zone. As if you look at Mr. Um Thompson's um affidavit. The project it's important. Our project's not adjacent to the airport. Residential construction continues in pilot country estates adjacent to the airport. You just heard the airport owner admitted that he's the very one doing residential construction next adjacent to the airport. But then
everybody testifies that residential is not compatible with airport activities, but the airport owner himself is doing residential construction and continues that to this day. There are already 35 homes adjacent to pilot country estates adjacent to the airport that are within that 65 DNL noise contour where the federal regulations say that residential is not compatible. So half the homes in pilot country estates are within the noise contour where the federal federal regulations say they're not compatible. So that's the noise they're experiencing
in their own home. We have a noise study. that we put in the record. We followed an accepted methodology, but our expert did. We um The DNL is the only acceptable method to determine land use compatibility. So it's it's apples to apples. The airport owner is responsible for the information that was given to FAA and F D O T that Mr. Thompson relied upon and used. You notice the airport owner did not make an issue with the data that our expert used
because he's the responsible one to report it.
See um You heard from Let me just have one more thing about the airport noise. We also had a noise study go out on site, a noise crew to go out on site. And you've heard a little bit that about that from Ms. Terrapini. Motorcycles traveling along 41 or 60 point 62.6 DBA. A takeoff from the runway that occurred while they were there was 61, which is less than the motorcycles. You had a SASNEM 172, which is one of the larger and more frequent uh planes to use this type of airport.
We came overhead while our noise crew was out there. That event event measured 56.5. These are actually actually at the property. And keep in mind that our noise crew was standing out and not in a structure just standing out on the property. The um As Ms. Campbell said, who was a direct witness of lives on has lived on the property in this area, she said road road traffic noise is much more of an impact than the airport noise. She doesn't see lot low flying planes over the
property. We have examples of Tampa, North Tampa Aero Park, Hidden Lake are also um Airports within the county, North Tampa Air Park has residential. They coexist, they've coexist for a long time. We've got Seven Oaks, we've got Lexington Oaks, many subdivisions that are around, including the subdivision directly adjacent to North Tampa Air Park. I would take issue, direct issue with the statements made by the attorney on behalf of the airport owner regarding West
Pasco Executive Airport. That is my client. My client owned that property. I have specifically spoken to the client. And he said he did not shut down the airport because of any um homeowner incompatibility, any kind of noise issues or um lawsuits. He clearly shut it down because he wanted to develop it for a different use. So anybody to say to the contrary that that's somehow an example of what'll happen here when it didn't happen there and it hasn't happened at North Campo Air Park um is
just um misleading.
I have my team available. I don't we've been at this for a while. We're we're happy to answer any questions. Um Uh but um but I'm happy to summarize on their behalf because I have spent lots of time with them and lots of time with their reports and their affidavits.
All right. Thank you, Ms. Woolhai. No, it's back to the board. I if you don't mind me I I asked staff. So listen to the um speakers earlier, um I got to thinking and like, Well where I live is right by n um North Tampa Aero Park and uh the planes do fly over my subdivisions on a daily basis, obviously, pretty low. Um Yeah, I have kids, so when they fly over we kinda get a kick out of it and they get a
kick out of it. But I I and I just wanna use this as an example once I thought about it. I'll be honest with you. I mean, it does not bother us. I mean the airport there was there long before our subdivision was there and um You know, we knew it was there. So if you I don't know if we could zoom in. So if you you can see the there's the subdivision. There's 75 in the in the Flight pattern goes right over. That
subdivision in our houses.
And then you have the you have the adjacent homes on both sides of that airstrip. And then you have Lexington Oaks. It's funny the applicant just mentioned that, but that was just something I was thinking when I was hearing the speakers earlier about Noise complaints and things. I mean I I'm not saying that by no means am I saying it doesn't happen. I mean it very well could happen and I've and I believe that they said it it does happen. I I I've lived in my neighborhood since two thousand and seven and I have not heard of
one person in my neighborhood ever complaining about the uh planes flying over. We actually had a one of those empty fields. Well this came up to us one time. where the hospital's being built and that's where the um the the folks in the the makeshift uh uh parachute little one pl cedar planes things were taken off and on on. And they would like s almost skim our our houses but and that's where they're hot air balloons. Nobody complained. I mean, I've never heard anybody complain about it, but
So Just my thought was if they're gonna build a new neighborhood there Um the folks moving into that new neighborhood would would be very, very aware that There's an airport right next to it. And I did ask this question of the applicant, because again, it was a concern of mine. And I asked the applicant, I go, okay, well, what are you doing or what's the applicant doing to make sure, even though they should be able to tell considering it's on the same road, um what
are you gonna do to make sure that That the possible n residents of that or b purchasers of that um in the of homes in that community know about the airport. Wasn't there?
You're muted.
They have to tell 'em.
Ya midi.
I can I can add to that, uh Chairman. Um we'll not only have it in our sales contracts that we're next to an airport, uh we're actually near an airport, we're actually next to the airport. But unlike Talo Verde, we actually have recorded a deed restriction. It's gonna go every house when it's sold will see the deed restriction on their title and see the reference to what's required, was required in the initial sales contract. So it is different than the Taliburde experience because in this regard, we've agreed to encumber the
property with a deed restriction that will come up. all over time when anybody about both title.
Okay. Well that's important because I think, you know, uh uh uh obviously the residents that were on with us today, I hopeful that would make them feel at ease that that's taking place. Um something else that I think was mentioned, and I just wanted to ask um not the applicant but staff or Ms. Hernandez, if you can answer that. Um one of the or not I think it was maybe two of the speakers. spoke about um wells but from my understanding this is not gonna be this community is
not gonna be on wells it's actually county sewer and water which would not obviously have any effect on the right-of-way
sewer lines are available to the property
Okay. So it'll be County Water and Sewer.
And the applicant can verify that, but water and sewer is available to the public.
Is this County Water and Surrey?
Correct. It's out the front door along forty one.
Okay. Just gonna make sure 'cause I know that's one of the things that they mentioned. And and just one more thing I heard. Um I heard some people stating that about property values because of the size of homes. Um again, it's not the same community, it's a separate community. Um Even though I I do appreciate those statements, I would disagree with that. And I I take I disagree because of firsthand knowledge of a master plan community where I live that has anywhere from um Villas to townhouses that
you know we're in the maybe the $200,000 range to houses for over a million dollars. And they're they abut each other. So um I don't think there's any worries there. And that's in the same actual community, you know, sharing the same roads. And Commercial wise, I have another question. Um Currently its own commercial. They could build a Home Depot.
Absolutely. They can build a Home Depot, they can build a Walmart Walmart. Build a McDonald's. They can build yeah. High high traffic. So I
want to make sure that the people that were on the call today understand that Yes,
and sixty feet in height, whereas residential is limited to thirty five, I believe. How high? How high? Sixty feet is the maximum height for promotion.
I would think that could affect a f flight pattern if there's a sixty foot high building. Mm-hmm.
The the the structures they're proposing, I believe, um according to what was submitted to the FAA for the do not does not exceed obstruction, uh 30 feet is what they're proposing.
Okay. Okay. So that would be that would be a good thing. I mean I that's what I would be concerned about commercial. And then traffic wise, uh commercial development like that would obviously have a l quite a bit more traffic than a hundred and something um home residential um
area. Um because well, I mean 'cause you if you're allowed to have that commercial product there of that magnitude and that size. That's gonna be a l quite a bit more traffic than
That's just things I was thinking about. But I don't think again I I mean I grew you know, small houses. I mean I uh houses I grew up in where we didn't affect our neighbors. I I I grew up at a house less than a thousand squ Square foot and the second one I think was fifteen hundred square foot. So um we all turn out okay.
Yes, Commissioner Oakley.
To add to what you're saying, this residential area, they they enter and exit onto 41, which is to the west of Pilot Country. Pilot Country exits on and off from 52. I thought I heard someone and and Ms. Will I you can Correct me if I was wrong, but I thought I heard two or three people state that this new commercial or residential property was in line with the takeoff and landing on on pilot
country. Which I think pilot country has set up their runway. It's set up north and south. And this property sits to the west of that. So I d I don't understand why they were making that statement, but there's not planes, you know, taking off or landing across this residential area that we're talking about. So,
That's correct, Commissioner Oakley. We're well west of the runway protection zones as uh identified by our expert and his affidavit. Absolutely not in a runway protection zone.
Well that's I mean it's just a uh I think it's a good project, but it's You know
They have to understand they're gonna sign off on every contract and every property. They're gonna know they're near that airport. And like I say, I hear airplanes, no matter where you are, you hear airplanes fly over on pretty much all day long somewhere. So it's not a real issue as far as I was concerned.
Okay, Mariano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got a few questions. Um first of all, as we look at the agenda item Planning Commission recommends five zero. Um
Usually when that comes in or used to be where that was the recommended staff recommendation. Yeah, I don't see where we're doing it now. Now we're doing the Choice of order the staff recommendation that was done before or to this. Any any reason for that change?
Um, I can provide the reason, absolutely. So when the Planning Commission made the recommendation, Planning Commission looked at specifically Talavera, which is um It it's a developed subdivision that has 60 to 80 foot wide lots, but didn't look at all the other entitlements that are in the area. So that's that's why staff recommends approval because it is consistent with entitled properties in the area.
So they weren't given the same information? Commission commission.
To further on it, Planning Development made a recommendation to the Planning Commission. That recommendation doesn't change with the Planning Commission's recommendation. And so their recommendation is still what you see today, regardless of what the Planning Commission made. So the reason the reason you see two is the Planning Commission made a different recommendation than what your Planning Department staff. recommendation was. Oh I understand the Planning Department's recommendation based on the I understand.
What I'm saying is it used to be that the The prevalent one would be the latter one would would be the clan and com commission would then become the staff recommendation, even if it didn't change, but that's how it'd be presented. And I'm just saying something completely different.
Years ago, that's what we used to do. And I've never seen it I've never seen a five O switch to going the other way without part of
it was in in in past it would have ness not may not have been the Planning Commission, but the DRC, which was a different body. Which effective was a county administrator and the other assistant county administrators, which would then change the planning and department's recommendations. So that's another reason why you see disconnect and we don't have the DRC anymore. Right. Okay. Yeah,
I believe the DRC was considered staff, therefore the change. So it would be a staff.
Okay. Yeah recommendations. Um anyway, like I said, it was just unique for me to see that. And I and I've never seen it go that way. All right, so let me ask a question. Um Florida statutes, they were quoting 3301-16. How have we not done something we should do as far as Putting an ordinance in place about airport protection zones. Is that the right one? Is that the right number?
So I think the question you're asking about is airport zoning regulations. So um as you may recall, the Board of County Commissioners put together an airport zoning commission or Um uh approved the putting together of an airport zoning commission in twenty seventeen. And uh we had we met, the airport zoning commission met in December of that year, so of 2017. This was done in June of 2017 when the board adopted Airport Zoning Commission. We met in December of 2017.
We met in I'm sorry, November 2017, we met in January of 2017, we met in March of 2017, and we met in May of 2017. We have draft airport zoning regulations. We're waiting on a couple of things. We're waiting on the guiding principles, which is the COP plan, to be brought forward. And that will hopefully happen the first part of 2021. And we also need to get a consultant to do airport noise
contouring. So, but there there are uh draft regulations put together, just haven't been adopted by the by the Board of County Commissioners yet.
So if we did take them in and we had that protection zone of five thousand square Five thousand feet in each runway. Would this have got a little bit of a
that's not accurate. I think what you're talking about is like runway protection zone. And uh Ms. Will Hyde has explained that according to her expert, it's not within the runway protection zone. And that's a defined term.
So when they say the five thousand. Feed on each. Runway side.
I'm not familiar with what that means. I apologize. Don't know what that five thousand feet for Mr. Twalhoff Hoffin. Not sure where he got that information. That's I think his request that that's what he would like to have to establish a 5,000 foot protection area around the airport. I believe that's what he said in his presentation.
But you have fifty two. Where's the so I don't know how you can you can't Uh there's a highway there.
Uh before I go further, let me let me just say that I did meet with the applicant, um, the county attorney that uh the attorney that is. And I also uh did meet Mr. Campbell. Um A little bit a little bit before all this. Um by the way, is where I got my boots, great sets of boots up there. He's got on 41. Uh very nice, very nice man. Um all right, next next question. So the study validity. Um when I look at
the decibel readings that they used, um it shows that they used decibel of fifty-one for the plane taking off. Uh the owner seems to contradict that where the First in in the letter I see from the attorney um Kimberly Carroll from Pennington, uh she states the number should have been used was ninety-two decibels. Uh the owner, Ms. Twelfth Hoven, uh says it should have been like a hundred would be the number, and sometimes a takeoff
it'd be a hundred and four. Um how valid is the study compared to what we're hearing? Um, especially when it doesn't include anything about helicopters, which if the Pasco Sheriff's out there, and I think they used to be over on the other side, so they they must have moved here at some point. So with those numbers and the differences, you know, should that study be re-looked at to see if it's valid?
I believe the applicant has the expert uh available to answer those questions. I'm not a noise expert.
Okay.
Anything else, Commissioner? Well I'd like to get that answer first. Oh okay.
So this is Barbara Wallaha. I'm just trying to I'm just trying to understand what the question is. We've had somebody went out on site on our property and our a noise crew went out on site on our property with the correct calibrated machines by an expert and recorded what occurred when they were at the property, at this subject property. And those are in your records and those are the numbers that I referenced. The the W the property owner, excuse me, the airport owner and their attorney
Um I don't know what I don't know what basis the attorney is for anything the attorney's saying because I they didn't represent any experts. But for the property owner, the airport owner, I don't know where he was. He wasn't said he was on our property, he said he was on his property. So I think that might be the discrepancy between what you're seeing between what happened on our property and what he is saying when it's up on his property. Um
Um, not really because I think when I looked at a map, it showed the runway decibel number was like sixty-five. And again, if they're saying it's either ninety two, a hundred, a hundred and four. it's a significant difference. So it may be an expert that did it I'm not s I'm not doubting what the expert found when they did their study. I'm just saying with what is used and they talked about uses as well that may not have been accounted for when the study was done. If these numbers are not significantly different, even though it's a qualified person who put the statistics in front of
us, are they accurate compared to what's going on in reality?
So the 65 is a DBL and that is a noise metric. That's a day, excuse me, nate day night DNL, day night uh average, day night average. And that is the metric that the FAA uses. For applying the federal regulations on land use compatibility. So we've also got a lot of apples and oranges going on here. You've got um measurements that are being taken that are different from by the airport owner with whatever whatever he's using that are different from
the metric that um the noise expert is using based upon FAA required. DNL. So you can't take the statute that talks about six 65 DNL and apply a different noise metric. So you have to do the DNL. Which is a noise metric that's adopted by the FAA and used everywhere for the land use compatibility in the federal regulations. So I think you've got apples and oranges going on. The data that my expert used was the data
from the noise study. We have the on-site noise study, and then we have the noise study by Mr. Thompson. The data that was used was the data from the airport as reported. to the FAA. But that's the data we use. That's the data we have. And he ha did not testify today that he questioned that data. So could he record it? I imagine that's why he didn't.
Right. So on on page two of the Pennington Kimberly Crowell at law Letter to the Pasco County Commission. Number argument number one, it says airport noise study dated august eleventh, twenty twenty, and relied upon by the planning and development departments based upon estimates and predictions and did not conduct actual noise readings of a single noise exposure level. It then goes on to say Um it does have daily helicopter traffic. And the reading
measurements indicate close to 92 dB. I assume that's decibels. And it didn't ref it wasn't reflective of actual noise levels that occur during peak noise events, as indicated below.
It just seems to contradict what you're saying to what the study's saying and Go ahead and respond to that.
Well well I'm saying what the expert says. I don't know what she's relying upon for her um her statements. I have, you know, affidavits in a noise study and I'm uh what I'm saying is that Do I Explain the difference between DNL and the single noise of events and DNL is what's required by the SAA for noise studies for land use compatibility because the the federal regulations that you use are in DNL. So you have to do a DNL to then
use the federal regulation to say, okay, once you use DNL, what where is the contour and where is that in the compatibility in the in the federal regulations?
So so when I look at Page twenty three of the report that you're citing. It talks about planes landing at pilot country. planes taking off at Pilot Country and planes directly over a rezoning site. It Significant differences in decibel. readings and it doesn't include the helicopters even at all. Why wouldn't why wouldn't the society state helicopter take helicopter readings?
You're talking about the study by uh Mr. Alpert that was um based upon the field noise um measurement.
I'm I'm well I'm talking about the one that was submitted by Cynthia Cynthia Tarapani.
Okay, well We have there's Mr. Alpert. that his company went out and did the field noise and we have Mr. Thompson's report. Um and that's the DNL um compatibility report. So which one is it?
So on page twenty three. So it's on page twenty-three it was submitted to us. It says summary of sound levels on rezoning site, excerpt of table one of A B technical memorandum.
Barbara, that's in my report. Maybe I can add a couple of comments if that's possible.
Go ahead.
So yes, sir, Ms um Chair Mariano, the Pages that you're recommending, you're referencing is in my report on page 23, and it references the second study that we did. Prepared by Mr. Alberts of KB Environmental, who's a gentleman with education and experience in sound measurement for over 30 years. What he did was measure the sound that you could hear on the rezoning site. What Mr. and those number and on page 23 I just excerpt some of them, but you can clearly
see that many of them are below ambient noise. The takeoff is the loudest and it's at 61 decibels measured heard on the rezoning site. It's really not clear where Mr. Twelfhaven is measuring th this, but uh based on the photograph that he provides where he's showing a hundred and four, it looks like he's measuring it standing on the runway. Well our site is 880 feet away from the runway. So that's truly comparing apples and oranges. The correct way to do it is to say, what sound do you hear
on the rezoning site? That's what Mr. Alberts did. That shows that there's no sounds above the 65 decibels. And in fact, background noise, traffic noise is approaching the decibel sound the same as or similar to, very similar to the takeoff. Hope that explains a little better.
Uh but Cindy, the question goes back to with what even was cited there and what's what's been read, there's nothing about helicopters which seem to be louder. Any reason those helicopters weren't
sighted? The reason the reason is, uh Mr. Mariano, is that the day the two days that they took the sound level measurements, there weren't any helicopters taking off or landing at the airport. So they could only measure what happened and that's what they did. You know, it's you're not aware of all the operations of the airport and when helicopters do and don't come. They did measure on two days and just happened on those two days that helicopters didn't occur. But again, yes. Will a helicopter generate noise? Yes, it will. But it also gets off the runway a whole lot quicker
than an airplane does. At least when I hear them, they seem to get away pretty quickly.
But again if it's if it's peak noise and that's the data we're gonna use it should be to me it should be part of the study. Um
And I guess uh I'll you know, I will I will say that, you know, sometimes it's tough when you have compatibility issues that can affect. I have heard that with the Tampa Executive Airport that there were parts of reasons where people were complaining about the noise why that was going away. Um you know, sometimes people have can't control what goes on right next to them. I can see where they're trying to protect what they've got. Um No no, I've I have trouble with this one.
Well, and I can see your point of being one that's why I was, you know, me personally asked those was asking those questions earlier just to, you know. And they stated they got the FAA approval. How does But Commissioner Starkey you had some
Yeah, um first of all I want to tell you that because I know the story very, very well about the airport or the West Pasco airport. Um, so I was sad to see it go, but when they widened fifty-four, they got a big chunk of the runway. And it made it too short for pl for most planes to land. So it left only the littlest, tiniest ones, uh, the ability for them to take off. So that's that's why that airport went away. Um Um as commission
as uh the chairman said, we heard the objections of water drawdown, but this is uh county water and sewer already. Um I look. I look at the compatibility issues and all around it are communities um that are being developed with smaller lots than water and pilot country. I look I'm looking at Pilot Country. I don't think I've ever driven in there, but it looks like they do look like beautiful homes. And I think it's great that
we have a community like Pilot Country. And I certainly want it to continue and prosper. But when I look at the runway. It's north-south, not east-west. So I don't See how they'd be landing on going over these houses unless they totally miss the runway. Hopefully they're not doing that. Um so I'm I'm inclined to vote yes. Um but I do want a stipulate I do want a few things. Um when I
read what the applicant is saying that they will put in in the deed restrictions, it says You um that they acknowledge there is an airport, but they don't say, I think if it's legal, it should say. You can't complain about it. Um because that just takes it a little step further because No no one should be allowed to complain to buy a home near an airport and then complain about the airport. I mean that's just common sense. I agree. And so I'm not sure if
the restrictions are going quite um Deep enough. And um And so I I appreciate the people living in Pilot Country want to continue to have the lifestyle that they have and I think they should be allowed to. But I don't think that that their lifestyle at pilot country tells all the landowners around them what they can do with their land. So um so those are my thoughts.
So um Commissioner Weight is on the line. And he's had some questions, I think. Mr. Wells, can you hear me?
Thank you, Chairman. Um I don't really have any questions. I mean there's been a lot of back and forth and I appreciate everyone's time from from our county staff to everybody at Pilot Country and and otherwise, but I um tend to agree with staff on this and uh So I will vote in favor of it. Thank you.
Any questions? Yeah. Okay, that pilot country is a great community and you know I drive by it quite often. And uh beautiful homes, like you said, Commissioner Starkey. And again, that's why I think we wanted to Some of us asked those questions. We wanted to ask those questions to make sure they would not have a truly detrimental effect like the FAA approval and and um in the deed res the deed type of restrictions that um the applicant was stating that would would would would go along with that and the disc I guess you could say the disclaimer actually, which is probably the most important thing um of the knowing that there is
an airport next to him. But again, I just go back to personally again, you know, I I I'm in line with an airport in a very similar s um circumstance where they literally have to fly. We are in their flight pattern to land and I just don't hear any complaints from the residents of my neighborhood. Commissioner Mary, I had something else?
Yeah, Mr. Chairman M we were you there when they had the helicopters? From the Sheriff's Office there?
What was I where?
Did th I think they didn't they used to have helicopters out the airpark?
They might I mean I they might. I mean I hear helicopters constantly 'cause we're right by seventy five too, so I can't tell you what's or just the normal helicopters that go up and down seventy five on a regular basis. Um, 'cause we there's helicopters that we see them every day. I just don't I cannot answer if they're landing or not landing at at Air Park. But no, actually no, wait, wait, wait. They are helicopters there, 'cause I remember when we were at yes, there are. It was a few months ago We were at um quite a few months ago before COVID, we
were at the um Were you there too? I think somebody else was there. One of the commissioners I think was there. The um pharmaceutical company was doing their um was doing their ribbon cutting that day. And they're in Compark, which is next to the runway on the other side of the air of that park. And we watched a helicopter come in. So yes, I can't tell you if that's permanently there, but there was a helicopter there that day because we were watching it take off.
So if I could just make one point. I I want to say that, you know, in looking at this at first, I hadn't hadn't heard from the residents out there. Uh and I I talked with staff about it when I first started was going from commercial to residential. I wasn't comfortable with it. I got a little more comfortable when I saw that it was going to be less trips for traffic in the area. Right. Um and then looking at the small lots, I didn't think 'cause it was tied next to it, it was gonna be a factor. The only trouble I have right now is us not passing our ordinance that we started three years ago to now and
not knowing whether they did actually the readings, whether they're uh accurate with what I've heard from the residents there, including the owner who spent quite a bit of money uh in developing the property. And and I've always thought that that could be a very, very valuable airport. It is a very valuable airport. It could be even better if they were even able to expand whatever. And I just would hate to impede on what they're doing out there to improve that area. And if you live right in the runway, you've got a plane, guess what? You're gonna be used to it. If you're living it right next door The people that come in
there, kinda like when people are a building next to areas where have cypress trees in their backyard, think that maybe we put shown that they weren't gonna flood out. Well if we don't do the right studies and make sure we're using the right data and we let people move in there and the noise is louder than what we thought it was, then you know that's gonna that's gonna fall back on us later on. So that's why I would have I have my discomfort to pass it the way it is right now.
Commissioner Oakley. Yes. Um I feel they've given us uh good records on the decimal point. I think they've taken it from the property that we're talking about rezoning and I I think it's accurate. When it came up with the one that was so on takeoffs, the picture they showed and all seemed like they were on the runway. I don't know if they were or not, but The rezoning property is to the west of that property. And I think you got a true reading of of the decimal point. I feel comfortable with that that reading
from that distance.
We have a read.
And uh at the same time it has to cross over laying through buildings. And some trees and all to get to this commercial I mean residential property. So um I feel good about um the information they've given us on this. And again the north-south uh route, there I feel there's no planes landing or taking off over this residential area, and I feel very comfortable with that. Um Uh I'm also mindful of the fact that pilot
country's been there and it that it's important that they will have their lifestyle along with others. And I'd want to protect that for them in the future so that nobody comes in, moves in, and and uh tells them no, they can't have an airport there anymore because we've just moved in. You see that so many times in a lot of different areas on residential people that just move in that don't want the neighbors to the side of them or another location close to them not to have what they have. And we see that
all the time. So the fact of it is is is I feel comfortable with that. I I think there's um the fact that the applicant is going to have to own put these restrictions on the deed that people are buying and have to actually quote it and tell them you're buying their airport, you're gonna hear the sound of airplanes and you can't do anything about it. I think stands the reason that I feel comfortable that everybody
that buys in there will understand the pilot countries there and their ability to have their right to have their planes at their homes. And with that I move to approve. Second.
So I got a motion second, just a quick discussion too. And just thinking about the noise thing. And again, I go back to the commercial side. Again, I uh again, have that fear. If you have a Home Depot or a Walmart or something like that, there. You know, uh That could actually I think cause them noise issues next door. Whereas a residential committee, I think it's a vice versa situation. And then what type what type of commercial if it's if it's office? There could be office there. And
I I think those people would be almost more apt in that setting in an office setting, a professional setting, to be upset when they're on conference calls and having meetings and things like that. That's a situation you can run into. So again, looking at all sides, great community and stuff. But I have a motion and second.
Mr. Chairman
Yes, sir.
I need to for purposes of record. Um Commissioner Weightman. Have you been on because we can't I can't tell from my screen. Have you been on to listen to all of the public comment for this for this hearing?
Yes, I have sir. I've been on for the entire P eight.
Yes. Okay, thank you. That's all I needed to know for the purposes of the record. Thanks.
Thanks. And I have a motion and a second by commission with discussion briefly.
Uh say that um again this is but diff difficult one as far as the the back backside back and forth. Um when it comes to the property and his rights to develop the property how he thinks is best. I think one thing it's clear and I want to make sure I state make the statement for the record as well for the people in Pilot Country that We don't think the devo I I don't think the development that's coming in is going to affect their property values. I don't think it's going to affect their quality of life. And as long as we know that we're not gonna shut down pilot country from any expansion or any other
improvements, because all these people are gonna buy, buyer beware, you know what you're going on, pilot country's gonna be able to keep going, keep thriving without a negative impact to them. And I'm I'll be comfortable to support the motion. So you're s you're swung me, Commissioner Oakley.
So a motion, I have a s I I do have to do a roll call because I have one commissioner online. So I have a motion by Commissioner Oakley, I have a second by Commissioner Starkey. Um Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
District One, Commissioner Oakley.
Aye.
District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Weightman.
Bye.
District five, Commissioner Mariano.
Aye.
District two Chairman Mariano
I motion passes five zero. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.