Residents urge county to stop planned townhome traffic routed through Abbey Brook Circle

At the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners meeting on May 6, residents from the Epperson community urged commissioners to block plans that would make Abbey Brook Circle the primary entrance and exit for a nearby 186-unit townhome development.

Residents said the narrow, residential street is used as a de facto play area for children and cannot safely absorb the additional daily traffic developers expect. "Turn the planned emergency exit on Elm Road into the sole entrance and exit into this development," said Alexandra Lewis, a resident of Abbey Brook Circle, urging officials to preserve a golf-cart-path connection rather than routing vehicle traffic through her street.

The dispute centers on a townhome project in the Epperson North area that, residents said, would direct traffic through Abbey Brook Circle even though the neighborhood lacks two of the three parks originally planned and has no park access on that street. "This street is special. It echoes the street from the past before screens and TikTok," resident Candace Alfieri told the board, adding that many families in the neighborhood have young children who play in front yards and use the street for recreation.

Neighbors and speakers presented petitions and a neighborhood resolution objecting to the roadway configuration, and repeatedly proposed a straightforward alternative: use the existing Elam Road access that already fronts the subdivision as the development’s main entrance, and connect Abbey Brook to the new subdivision only by golf-cart path as other Epperson connections are designed.

Planning staff told the board the project’s site plan and related approvals were issued administratively last year, limiting what the county can change at this point. "A final subdivision plat based on the case law in the state of Florida is a ministerial act," said David Engel, Pasco County planning and economic development director, summarizing county counsel and planning guidance. He warned residents that, unless the developer requests a revision, the plat must be approved if it complies with Chapter 177 and the county’s subdivision regulations. Engel added that if Senate Bill 784 is signed by the governor it could further reduce instances where plats come before the board.

Still, Engel and other county officials offered a next step. After residents pressed for help identifying whether a procedural error had occurred, Engel said he had already contacted the master developer and Metro Development and that the county planned to convene its transportation engineering team with the developer to explore alternatives. "They're willing to sit down with us and try to find a solution," Engel said, and he asked residents who want to continue the discussion to meet with county staff downstairs after the hearing.

Residents identified several specific concerns they asked staff to check: whether the townhome parcel had been sold and construction already begun, whether the proposed access crosses CDD (community development district) boundaries, whether the legal right to use Abbey Brook Circle for through traffic had been properly processed, and whether the construction access currently being used by builders would become permanent. Mark Alfieri, another neighbor, summarized the traffic worry in numerical terms: "Each housing unit generates between 8 to 10 vehicle trips per day for [the] 186-unit development. That's approximately 1,500 to 1,800 additional vehicle movements daily on a street that was never designed for such volume." Danielle Polovich cited national pedestrian-safety data and local incidents to press for preemptive fixes.

Board members and the county attorney told residents the county’s options are limited if all prior approvals were correctly issued, but several commissioners urged staff to look for any procedural errors and to see whether changes could still be negotiated with the developer. Chair Starkey directed staff to meet with residents and the developer and to return to the board with findings. Planning staff said they would engage the developer’s transportation engineers and report back to the board.

The board did not take formal action to alter the plat or stop construction at the meeting. Instead, staff and the developer agreed to meet with residents immediately after the hearing to explore re-routing options and to determine whether any corrective administrative steps are possible. Residents were told that if the developer requests a change to the approved plan, that revision would be a discretionary item and could come back to the board; otherwise, the final plat step is ministerial under current law.

For now, residents left with staff commitments to investigate, and county officials asked residents to provide any documentation they have about CDD boundaries, prior promises about park locations, and other paperwork that might support a revision request.