Will The County Commission Follow Suit? Commissioner Weightman Says He’s Been Asking For Connected City Details Since Nov. 2023
I watched the Jan. 9 Pasco County Planning Commission meeting online and was surprised to find the Planning Commission Board agreeing with residents like Michael Pultorak and David Terino, who came to the meeting to oppose a rezoning request for the Tall Timbers Master Planned Unit Development (MPUD), the last 38-acre piece of the so-called “Connected City” (see map).
My surprise came when Planning Commission Board member Jon Moody, P.E., agreed with the residents’ claim that the Connected City has not lived up to what was expected when the state first approved the Connected City in 2015, as a partnership between Pasco County and Metro Development Group, which is developing both Epperson in Wesley Chapel and Mirada in San Antonio, both of which are located within the boundaries of the Connected City (see map).
“The residents were promised that the Connected City would not be the same as every other suburban subdivision in the county,” Moody said, noting that it was supposed to have cultural and recreational facilities, which were supposed to be more than just another playground at another apartment complex that, as Pultorak pointed out, would not be used by anyone except the residents of each apartment complex. To that end, the Planning Commission ultimately voted 4-3 for the moratorium at the Jan. 9 meeting.
Of course, the Planning Commission is only an advisory board that makes recommendations to the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners (BOC), which has the final say over all rezonings and plan amendments for the county.
District 2 Pasco County Commissioner Seth Weightman says that rather than a moratorium, what he would like to see — which he says he first started asking for back in Nov. 2023 — “is for the county staff to provide us (the BOC) with an overlay of what the Connected City was supposed to be when it was approved, with all of the changes to the plan that have now been approved. I wasn’t on the BOC when this was approved and I think it would be helpful for all of us — my fellow commissioners, residents and staff — to see where that project stands today.”
Weightman also says that a moratorium should only be considered as “a last resort” and that he is “disappointed” that the county staff still has not provided the commissioners with the overlay he requested, “more than a year ago. I’m a visual person. I need to see the differences between what the project was supposed to look like and what it looks like today.”
Speaking of visual learning, as we reported back in November, Pultorak has been a regular at Planning Commission and BOC meetings and he always brings a variety of photos, charts and other graphics with him when it’s his turn to speak at those meetings. He also has organized the Pasco Connected City Residents Group on Facebook, which today has more than 1,100 members.
“This community deserves the parks, open spaces and thoughtful planning they were promised,” Pultorak said on Jan. 9.
The Connected City moratorium recommendation is expected to be heard as an agenda item at a future BOC meeting, but at our press time, we hadn’t heard of such an agenda item being set. Comm. Weightman told me that he doesn’t believe that a Connected City moratorium agenda item will be set before February or even later.
How It All Came About
As mentioned above, the Planning Commission’s Connected City moratorium discussion came out of the agenda item about the Tall Timbers MPUD, which is a 38-acre parcel that sits in the so-called “Community Hub” Special Planning Area (or SPA) Zone, one of five such zones in the Connected City. (Note-The others are the Business Core, the North Innovation Zone, the South Innovation Zone and the Urban Core; see graphic, right).
As shown in the graphic above, the rezoning request for the Tall Timbers MPUD would allow the parcel, which currently is zoned as “AC Agricultural District” to a “CC-MPUD” (Connected City Master Planned Unit Development District) within the Community Hub Zone. If approved by the BOC, the rezoning would allow for 380 multi-family dwelling units (apartments) and 180,000 sq. ft. of non-residential uses.
Following the presentation by the county staff and attorney Shelly Johnson representing the developer, Xtreme Team 41, LLC, Moody and chief assistant county attorney David Goldstein both questioned how every MPUD approved for the Connected City bypassed all of the parks and cultural requirements outlined in the Connected City development plan.
In fact, the Community Hub Zone, of which the Tall Timbers MPUD is part, is supposed to have a “Large District Park,” but Goldstein noted that although the District Park and the funding for it have already been moved to the planned “Superpark” in the Villages of Pasadena Hills, which is located to the east of the Connected City, there is still a requirement for a large district park in the Connected City itself, and he asked Nectarios Pittos, the county’s director of planning services, to look into why that district park requirement was still included in the Connected City documents.
Meanwhile, Pultorak raised multiple questions about the neighborhood parks, which are required to be in each of the Connected City’s SPA zones.
“Every Connected City rezoning project so far has turned into another subdivision with a playset for the people that live in it and no amenities,” Pultorak said. “The two fancy swimming pools (meaning the Metro Lagoons in Epperson and Mirada) have turned into pay-to-play operations where the developer is making the money from them. They are not amenities. We (local residents) can’t use them. There is not a single park, not a single recreation area, not a single amenity that’s in the Connected City that’s accessible to the Community Hub.”
Pultorak also noted, “We have concluded that the county never etched out, in the Connected City, in the Community Hub, a location for the parks and recreation area. A neighborhood swing set at a townhouse community is not ‘parks.’ That is for individuals in those townhouses.”
The main reason the Community Hub was supposed to have the large district park, Pultorak said, is because it is where King Lake, a 213-acre lake, is located (it’s the large area in blue inside the orange area on the map above).
“But, what happens when we take slices of grass around retention ponds & call them parks?,” Pultorak asked. “What happens is the CDD has to, for liability reasons, put signs up that say ‘No Fishing’ and ‘No Swimming,’ so you don’t get eaten by alligators. The problem is when the boys try to get out in these neighborhoods and try to go put a line in the water and catch a bass, or do something away from technology, the HOA will go out there and say, ‘This is private property, you can’t fish here.’ You’ve gotta have some space in the community for the kids.”
Among Pultorak’s biggest concerns about the Tall Timbers rezoning request is, “this site plan itself. The access and egress to this is going to be based on the Aprile and Kenton MPUDs, with Kenton Rd. coming in from the south, and you have a two-lane dirt road from McKendree Rd., so everybody traveling west to the interstate, all of the service vehicles coming in or out to the distribution center or the ‘Eatertainment’ district will be traveling on a two-lane dirt road. And, everybody traveling to the east to come through San Antonio to Dade City will be traveling a two-lane dirt road. This road can not handle it, even though Kenton Rd. will be the access and egress to this project.”
He also talked about natural resources and conservation, two more cornerstones of the original Connected City development plan.
“Natural resources serve as a significant asset to a community,” he said. “Wetlands serve as a natural flood control resource and house a diverse ecosystem for animal and plant life. When I left on Monday morning to meet with staff, I drove past this property and there was a bald eagle in a tree. That told me we’re fighting the right fight. This site plan does not have any wetlands listed in it — no wetlands that are protected.”
Pultorak also mentioned flooding concerns, especially considering that most of the parcel remained flooded a month or more after Hurricane Milton came through in October.
“The bottom line is that the Community Hub is not designed for apartments. It is not designed for vertical integration (apartments that are situated above ground-floor retail businesses, as in Downtown Avalon Park). The Community Hub is the center point of the entire Connected City. It’s supposed to have parks, recreation and a place where people want to live.”
Moody said, “What I see is a special planning area (referring to Connected City) that got done on a piece-by-piece basis, rather than as a regional planning exercise, and in the overall scheme of things, I think the mark was missed.”
Despite that, and all of the evidence Pultorak presented, Moody said, “Even with all that being said, I don’t think you can punish the [current] applicant for the sins of the past…So, I don’t think that denying this project is going to solve the overall, large-scale problems of Connected City. And I don’t know how you fix those.”
He then moved to approve the Tall Timbers rezoning, which passed 4-3, with Planning Commission members John Girardi, Matthew Muniz and chairman Charles Grey voting “Nay.”
Moody them moved to recommend to the BOC to impose a moratorium on all development in Connected City for one year, “while we figure out how to implement land development regulations that better achieve the goals of the Connected City.”
When asked by Goldstein if he was only talking about a moratorium on rezonings, Moody said, “No. I want to change the land development code, so that would be a moratorium on land development, including all site plan approvals, building permits, everything.” That motion passed 6-1, with only Girardi voting nay.
“I think the public has legitimate concerns regarding this whole issue of cultural facilities, district parks and whether there are trails,” Moody said. “I just know it needs to be fixed.”
Goldstein said, “I don’t know how to best convey that to the BOC because I’m not sure it’s best to tie it to this particular application. It should be presented as a regular discussion item for the Board.”
To be continued.
