Pasco Planning Commission continues Evans County Line rezoning after hours of testimony; staff cites utilities and rural-compatibility concerns

The Pasco County Planning Commission on Tuesday agreed to continue consideration of a rezoning application for the Evans County Line master planned unit development (MPUD) to the commission's March 6 meeting in Dade City, after more than three hours of public testimony and debate among staff, the applicant and commissioners.

The application, listed in the packet as APC-3 (PDE25-7738), would rezoned roughly an 80-acre site from agricultural (AC) to an MPUD carrying an Employment Center (EC) future-land-use mix that the applicant says allows up to 300 multifamily dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of neighborhood support commercial and as much as 1,500,000 square feet of light industrial/distribution uses. William Vermillion, Planning, Development and Economic Growth Department, told the commission staff's recommendation is denial because the site lacks adequate public utilities and transportation infrastructure to support the proposed intensity.

Why it matters: commissioners and scores of nearby residents said the interchange at I-75 and Blanton/Lake Iola Road and the local rural road network are not prepared for the traffic and service demands the MPUD could generate, and that the site sits inside the county's Northeast Pasco Rural Protection area, whose policies prioritize rural character and restrict higher-density development unless utilities and other infrastructure are available.

Vermillion said the proposal raises multiple comprehensive-plan and land-development-code inconsistencies, noting the absence of water and sewer within a reasonable distance (staff cited about 10 miles to the nearest connection) and the site's designation adjacent to rural scenic and rural-residential roads. "There are no public water or sewer utilities to service the density or intensity of the proposed development," Vermillion said. "The timing of the project is inappropriate given the lack of facilities, especially water and sewer." He also identified requirements in the comp plan and Land Development Code specific to the Northeast rural overlay that staff found unmet.

The applicant, represented by land-use consultant Joel Tu and legal counsel Scott McLaren, disputed the denial recommendation and said the property's EC future-land-use designation and a 2006 settlement agreement give the owner rights to pursue employment-type uses and centralized utilities paid for by the developer where public utilities are not yet available. "This family has owned this land for 50, 60 years," Joel Tu said. "The comp plan was in place when we applied. We have negotiated 54 conditions, 15 pages of protections. We're willing to do buffering, right-of-way, and other mitigation identified by staff." Tu said the applicant also voluntarily limited proposed multifamily to platted, fee-simple for-sale townhomes rather than rental apartments.

Public comment: more than two dozen nearby residents, many saying they had moved to the area because of its rural character, addressed the commission. Speakers repeatedly cited concerns about flooding, well-water quality, noise and light, truck traffic on two-lane rural roads, and the precedent of approving high-intensity uses inside the rural overlay. "This rezoning request violates nearly every requirement of Pasco County Land Development Code Section 6.04 to protect the character of the rural landscape," said Ryan Flynn, a property owner directly north of the site.

Technical testimony: the applicant presented a transportation analysis that staff and the applicant said met the county's access-management standards for the traffic assumptions in the study; transportation consultant Michael Raser said the analysis examined an earlier build-out scenario and that, because the EC category can be exempt from a separate timing-and-phasing requirement, the study had not been updated for later, larger entitlement numbers. Staff and the applicant agreed that any plan that generates greater traffic than assumed in the approved analysis would trigger an updated access study as part of subsequent site-plan review.

Action taken: after discussion, the commission voted to close the public hearing, direct the applicant to work with staff on a set of revised conditions and return to the commission on March 6 with an amended MPUD/site plan for consideration. The continuance was intended to let the parties present more detailed buffering, right-of-way and access commitments for the commission to review. If the applicant and staff do not reach agreement, the commission noted the matter could still proceed to the Board of County Commissioners with the commission's recommendation.

What remains unresolved: staff told commissioners that even if the applicant builds a private centralized water/wastewater system for the EC area, county policy requires eventual connection to a public system if and when the county provides utilities. Pasco County utilities staff emphasized the county is reluctant to accept private systems that create long, isolated extensions that pass costs to the county's ratepayers; utilities staff said extension of central service would require careful capacity, funding and phasing analysis.

Next step: the Planning Commission's March 6 meeting in Dade City, during which the commission asked to see the applicant's amended MPUD conditions and any technical updates staff requests. If the commission makes a recommendation (approval or denial), the matter would proceed to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision.

Votes at a glance

- PC-1 (PDE25-7845, DBI Properties US LLC, Wells Road special exception): continued to the February planning meeting (motion carried). (Details: request to continue noted in the staff report; applicants absent.)

- PC-2 (PDE25-7848, 52 Property LLC, Tropical Boat & RV Storage SR 52): continued to the February planning meeting (motion carried). (Details: request to continue noted in the staff report; applicants absent.)

- APC-3 (PDE25-7738, Evans County Line MPUD): public hearing closed; item continued to March 6, Dade City, at 1:30 p.m., with direction that applicant and staff return with revised conditions and any required technical updates. (Outcome: continued.)

Ending note: the commission's continuance preserves an open procedural path for the applicant to submit stricter buffering, right-of-way dedication and traffic mitigation measures; it also preserves staff's ability to press infrastructure and consistency concerns. If parties cannot reach terms, the dispute will move to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.