Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Subdivision plan gets mixed reviews

Some residents think it will preserve northeast Pasco's rural feel, but some landowners worry it will hinder them.

By BRIDGET HALL GRUMET
Published September 24, 2005

Amid the talk of scenic vistas, open spaces, dying farms and development rights, the tug-of-war over northeast Pasco's future has centered on a single idea: the conservation subdivision.

The proposal is simple enough: If a developer gets a zoning change to build houses on a northeast Pasco tract larger than 50 acres, the houses would be clustered together on half of the property, with the other half remaining open space.

Some residents say it will help keep the area's rural feel, even as new homes sprout on old farmlands. Owners of large properties say it will strip them of their right to develop their land as they like.

America's Founding Fathers "would roll over in their graves if anyone proposed the idea that if you owned 100 acres, you don't have the right to use 100 acres," developer attorney Joel Tew told members of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Thursday night. The meeting Thursday, which drew more than 100 people to the theater at River Ridge High School, proved just how polarizing the northeast Pasco plan had become.

"Why should the landowners of northeast Pasco pay for the sins of the rest of Pasco County?" asked Emmett Evans, whose family owns dying citrus groves south of State Road 52.

"We're not trying to hurt anybody," Blanton resident Carol Cruz said. "We just want to keep it beautiful and the way it is."

The conservation subdivision is part of a slate of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan, Pasco's blueprint for long-term growth. The Citizens Advisory Committee has spent nearly four years reviewing the plan and offering ideas to improve it.

But their work isn't done. A county-hired consultant is still tweaking the rules for conservation subdivisions to allow even more homes on the developed half, committee chairman Allen Altman told the crowd Thursday night.

Currently someone with an agricultural/rural tract can build one home per 5 acres. On a 100-acre tract, that comes out to 20 homes.

But if that person built a conservation subdivision, a "density credit" would kick in allowing one home per 2.5 acres. That would mean 40 homes, although they would be confined to half of the 100-acre tract.

The proposed density credits vary according to how much of the land would be preserved as open space, and whether the land is agricultural, agricultural/rural or residential. Altman said the county-hired consultant will look at increasing those density credits, allowing more homes on the developed side.

The idea will come back to the committee Oct. 4 and 20 before going to the County Commission for public hearings and a vote.

While much of the comments Thursday revolved around the northeast Pasco plan, some residents aired concerns about other parts of Pasco County's growth.

Several objected to the plans to put "employment centers" near their homes. One man said the county should require developers to perform archaeological surveys before doing any construction, to ensure artifacts are not destroyed or paved over.

Meridy Norfleet-Mendoza, a third-generation Aripeka resident, wept while urging the committee to keep hundreds of homes out of her rural community.

"If you let people come in," she said, "there's not going to be anything left to look at."

Bridget Hall Grumet can be reached in west Pasco at 869-6244 or toll-free at 1-800-333-7505, ext. 6244. Her e-mail address is bhall@sptimes.com

[Last modified September 24, 2005, 01:00:22]