Pasco planning body denies Little Road mixed-use MPUD after residents cite flooding, traffic and privacy concerns

The Pasco County Local Planning Agency on a voice vote denied a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and recommended denial of the companion rezoning for a 7.83-acre Little Road MPUD that would have allowed 23 townhomes and a commercial frontage.

The proposal would have rezoned a parcel fronting Little Road at Jasmine Boulevard for a mixed-use plan with two commercial buildings along Little Road and 23 townhome units behind them. Planning staff had recommended the local planning agency find the plan amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval with conditions; after public comment and commissioner questions, commissioners voted to deny the comprehensive plan amendment and the MPUD rezoning recommendation.

Neighbors and several commissioners pressed the developer and staff on stormwater and floodplain risks, traffic and school drop-off circulation, property values and compatibility with the adjacent Golden Acres neighborhood. “This is a petition to deny this rezoning,” resident Alan Rose said during public comment, presenting a petition with roughly 100 signatures. Resident Robert Jarrell told the commission, “My property floods now,” and other nearby homeowners described repeated flooding of yards and streets in the area.

Staff and the applicant responded that the site is in the West Market area and that the proposal includes a retention pond and other stormwater measures designed to meet county and water‑management standards. Applicant Michael Hoffman, representing Advanced Engineering, said the project was revised from three‑story to two‑story townhomes and that the binding concept plan places commercial buildings at the road with parking behind them and a landscape buffer around the perimeter. Hoffman and staff also said the project would provide a northbound right‑turn lane into the site (described in materials as a roughly 265‑foot northbound right‑turn lane) and interconnections to neighboring properties to the north and south, but acknowledged coordination with the adjacent Learning Logic Academy would be required to address potential pickup/drop‑off circulation impacts.

Commissioners and staff flagged several unresolved technical issues: county staff pointed to a Timber Oaks Basin of Special Concern and to differences between FEMA Flood Zone X and the Southwest Florida Water Management District ("Swiftmud") flood mapping covering parts of the site. Commissioners asked whether the binding concept plan’s proposed pond and stormwater areas would be adequate to meet the county’s more stringent basin standards; staff said site engineering and possible use of additional underground retention chambers could address the standards but that a larger pond could force removal of one or two townhome buildings and that such a change might or might not constitute a “substantial modification” requiring review by the planning commission.

Neighbors also raised concerns about private deed restrictions (Golden Acres covenants) that some said prohibit commercial development adjacent to the subdivision. County staff and the commission noted private deed restrictions are a civil matter and enforceable only through private legal action; staff said such legal questions did not, by themselves, prevent the planning commission from acting on the land‑use request.

After public comment and further questioning of the applicant and staff, one commissioner moved to deny the comprehensive plan amendment (item PC 5). The motion carried on a voice vote; the commission then moved and voted to recommend denial of the companion rezoning (item PC 6) as inconsistent with the commission’s decision on the plan amendment. The motions were made and carried by voice vote; the record does not contain a roll‑call tally.

The applicant may take the proposal to the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners; staff told the public commission that denial by the local planning agency does not prevent the applicant from seeking approval at the board level. Staff also noted a procedural gap: the developer held a neighborhood meeting but did not submit a meeting summary to staff before the LPA hearing; the commission asked staff to consider requiring meeting summaries in the future so staff can identify neighborhood opposition before deciding whether an item should be on the consent agenda or be a regular item.

The planning commission’s denial leaves the site under its current future‑land‑use designation and zoning. Staff said they would clarify technical conditions (including whether prior forestry conditions attached to a nearby communications‑tower approval affect developable area) and continue to work with the applicant if the owner chooses to revise the plan and return for review.

Ending: With public opposition concentrated and specific stormwater and circulation risks underscored by commissioners and neighbors, the Local Planning Agency denied the Little Road comprehensive plan amendment and recommended the county deny the companion rezoning; the applicant may appeal the matter to the Board of County Commissioners or revise and resubmit.