Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pasco County planning commission approves Elite SR 52 plan development; neighbors raise flooding, noise and privacy concerns

Pasco County Planning Commission · January 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Pasco County Planning Commission voted to recommend a comprehensive plan amendment and companion rezoning for the Elite SR 52 plan development on roughly 156 acres, approving a mixed-use master plan that includes 108 single-family homes, 175,000 sq ft of commercial space and a 120-room hotel; residents urged stricter buffers, flood protections and clearer airport noise disclosures.

The Pasco County Planning Commission voted on Dec. 17, 2025, to recommend approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and a companion rezoning for the Elite SR 52 plan development, a proposed mixed-use master-planned district on approximately 156.2 acres east of the intersection of State Road 52 and U.S. Highway 41.

Planning staff outlined the proposal as a change from agricultural land uses to a plan-development (PD) designation that would allow up to 108 single-family detached homes, roughly 175,000 square feet of commercial space and a 120-room hotel. William Vermillion of Planning, Development and Economic Growth told the commission the property lies inside Pasco County’s airport influence area (AIA) and that the proposed uses are permissible under Land Development Code section 605 and table 605‑1; staff recommended approval with conditions.

Neighbors who live adjacent to the site urged the commission to press for stronger protections before the item goes to the Board of County Commissioners. A nearby property owner who identified himself as Greg (also recorded as Craig) Kanati said the parcel has flooded repeatedly (1997, 2008 and during the 2024 hurricanes) and warned development could “drive [water] more in my direction.” Dennis Hertenstein, a general contractor, urged lower-density development, larger setbacks, a continuous engineered concrete wall on the western boundary, a 15-foot planted screen buffer and a financial assurance “maybe $5,000,000 for a minimum of 10 years” to address potential flooding impacts.

Pilot Country neighbors raised airport-compatibility and privacy concerns. Caitlin Buell, whose backyard borders the proposed site, said two-story homes on narrow lots would “decrease the privacy and thus the property value of my home” and asked the commission to require single-story homes along the shared border. Christopher Buell asked whether an FAA noise study had been done so prospective buyers would understand exposure to low-flying general aviation traffic.

The applicant’s attorney, Barbara Wilhite, said the proposal had been substantially revised after neighborhood meetings, reducing residential density from a prior 300-townhome concept to 108 single-family lots (noting a change from about 5.5 dwelling units per net acre to roughly 2 units per net acre). Wilhite and project designer Christy Pereira described an enhanced buffer: an 8-foot wall instead of the typical 6-foot minimum, twice the number of trees on the Pilot Country side of the fence and additional shrubs. Wilhite pointed to conditions in the binding concept plan (conditions 54–56) that require noise and airport-disclosure language for prospective buyers and said the team would “sharpen our pencil” and specify species and spacing prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.

On wetlands and tree-clearing, staff and commissioners noted that areas cleared under an agricultural exemption may trigger mitigation or waiting-period requirements under the county’s tree ordinance. Staff said applicants must obtain permits from the regional water management district and demonstrate that post-development runoff does not exceed pre-development runoff for design storm events; floodplain compensation areas are shown on the concept plan and will be scrutinized during permitting.

After public testimony and discussion, commissioners moved and seconded motions to approve the comprehensive plan amendment (P8) and the companion rezoning/master plan development (P9) with the modifications discussed on the record, including the enhanced buffer commitments. Votes were taken by voice and both motions carried; the items will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.

The commission closed the hearing and adjourned. The Board of County Commissioners will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendations and the project will proceed through site-plan, permitting and any required water-management reviews before construction may begin.