PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

 

TO:        Honorable Chairman and                               DATE:    7/12/02         FILE:    Administrative Appeal

Members of the Board of                                                                                No. AA02-02

County Commissioners

 

 

THRU:    Samuel P. Steffey II                                        SUBJECT:     Appeal of Zoning

Growth Management Administrator                                       Administrator's Determination

    Applicant:  Route 52 Corporation

    BCC Meeting:  7/23/02

 

FROM:   Debra M. Zampetti                                          REFERENCES:    Comm. Dist. 2

Zoning/Code Compliance                                                              TAZ #152

Administrator

 

                                                                                                                                                                       

 

 

It is recommended that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:

 

The applicant, Route 52 Corporation, through its representative, Joel R. Tew, Esquire, is appealing the Zoning Administrator's determination of May 22, 2002, that the manufacture of one- and two-sided, textured, precast-concrete panels used for noise, wall barriers; screen walls; fencing; and residential and industrial, wall panels for building construction is a permitted use in an I-1 Light Industrial Park District, provided that there is no mixing or manufacturing of cement, concrete, gypsum, lime, plaster of Paris, or other similar products on the site.

 

The subject property is located approximately 500 feet south of S.R. 52, approximately 350 feet west of Rice Road, approximately 2,400 feet east of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard (Parcel ID No. 07-25-20-0000-00100-0020 [portion of]), and contains ten acres, m.o.l.

 

The surrounding zoning districts and land uses are as follows:

 

 

Zoning District

 

Land Use

 

North:  I-1 Light Industrial Park

 

Private Ingress and Egress

Easement; Undeveloped

 

East:  I-1 Light Industrial Park

 

Small Industrial Building

 

South:  A-C Agricultural

 

Undeveloped

 

West:  I-1 Light Industrial Park

 

Undeveloped

 

FINDINGS OF FACT:

 

1.                  Presently, the subject site is zoned I-1 Light Industrial Park and is undeveloped.  S.R. 52 Bellamy Land Trust #83100, Safety Harbor Capital Corporation, Trustee, the property owner, proposes to develop the property with the manufacture of one- and two-sided, textured, precast-concrete panels used for noise, wall barriers; screen walls; fencing; and residential and industrial, wall panels.

 

2.                  Access to the property is from a 60-foot-wide, private ingress and egress easement which intersects with S.R. 52.

 

3.                  The surrounding area is characterized by rural-residential and agricultural uses, a yard-waste facility, and undeveloped land.

 

4.                  The subject area has been designated IL (Industrial - Light) under the Pasco County Comprehen­sive Plan.

 

5.                  On April 17, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners approved a rezoning (Petition No. 5759) from A-C Agricultural to I-1 Light Industrial Park with conditions for a tract comprised of 71.10 acres.  The subject parcel is a portion of that tract.

 

6.                  On August 1, 2001, the subject property owner applied for a Small-scale Development Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from the existing IL (Industrial - Light) classification to the IH (Industrial - Heavy) classification.  On the same date, he also submitted a rezoning application from I-1 Light Industrial Park District to I-2 General Industrial Park District as he proposed to develop the site with a concrete batch plant.

 

7.                  Subsequently, on February 27, 2002, the subject property owner withdrew the Small-scale Development Amendment request and the rezoning request.

 

8.                  On May 22, 2002, the Zoning Administrator determined that the manufacture of one- and two-sided, textured, precast-concrete panels used for noise, wall barriers; screen walls; fencing; and residential and industrial, wall panels for building construction is a permitted use in an I-1 Light Industrial Park District, provided that there is no mixing or manufacturing of cement, concrete, gypsum, lime, plaster of Paris, or other similar products on the site.

 

9.                  On June 20, 2002, the applicant, Route 52 Corporation, through its representative, Joel R. Tew, Esquire, filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Section 317 of the Pasco County Land Development Code contending that the Zoning Administrator's determination was made in error.  The applicant's reasons and the County's response are as follows:

 

1.         Cement, lime, gypsum, mixing or manufacturing of plaster of Paris, or other similar products is only permitted in the I-2 Zoning Category and not in the I-1 Zoning Category.

 

2.         The property owner, S.R. 52 Bellamy Land Trust #83100, Safety Harbor Capital Corporation, Trustee, intends to manufacture concrete products - the manufactur­ing of one and two-sided textured precast concrete panels.  This activity is prohibited in the I-1 Zoning District.  Therefore, the property owner's proposed use must be denied in the existing I-1 Zoning District.

 

3.         The property owner's proposed use facially violates the type of use permitted in the I-1 Zoning District.  See correspondence from Larry G. Guilford dated March 21, 2002, and attached hereto, where the applicant explains the process of manufacturing he intends to introduce into the area:  "once the forms have been prepared, rebar and reinforcement are placed and secured, concrete is then poured and screeded over a form liner attached to the tables creating the underside texture".  The pouring of concrete into concrete forms is clearly the manufacturing of a concrete product.  It is patently clear that the manufacturing of concrete forms, including the pouring of concrete into forms, is prohibited in the I-1 Zoning District.

 

1-3 Response:  Mixing or manufacturing of cement, lime, gypsum, plaster of Paris, or other similar products is permitted in an I-2 General Industrial Park Zoning District pursuant to Section 529.3(C) of the Land Development Code.  The intent of this provision in the Code was to only allow batch plant operations in heavy industrial zoning districts.  Concrete is not listed in Section 529.3(C), however, it would fall in the category of other similar products because it is manufactured at a batching facility and consists of similar ingredients to that of cement and plaster of Paris.

 

The property owner intends to manufacture building supplies that are from previously prepared materials such as concrete.  There is no prohibition in the Land Development Code that prohibits the manufacture of building supplies that are made of concrete.  Section 528.3(A)(2) of the Land Development Code specifically authorizes the manufacturing and storage of building supplies.  In addition, Section 528.3(A)(19) provides another permitted use in the I-1 Light Industrial Park Zoning District which includes the "manufacture, compounding, assembling, or treatment of merchandise from previously prepared materials such as plastic, metal, stone, shell, . . ."  The same accurately describes and is consistent with the property owner's proposed use of pouring premixed site delivered concrete into forms in the manufacture of precast walls and panels.

 

Accordingly, the pouring of previously prepared concrete into a form for the purpose of manufacturing walls is not within the intent, or intensity of use as contemplated in an I-2 General Industrial Park zoning district.

4.         Also, please see our attached memorandum to Debra Zampetti dated February 15, 2002, and attached hereto further supporting the fact that the property owner's proposed use is only appropriate in the I-2 Zoning District.

 

Response:  All arguments presented in the February 15, 2002, memorandum by Joel R. Tew, Esquire, addressed the issue of permitting a cement plant in an I-1 Light Industrial Park Zoning District.  The property owner no longer proposes to utilize the site for a concrete batch plant.

 

5.         The property owner previously initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and I-2 rezoning request to accommodate its proposed use, which was ultimately withdrawn.  Clearly, the property owner believed the manufacturing of concrete panels was not permitted in I-1 zoning or it would not have previously applied for an I-H Comprehensive Plan Amendment and I-2 rezoning.

 

Response:  The property owner is no longer proposing a concrete batch plant facility on the subject property.  The proposed use is for the manufacture of walls and textured concrete panels for building construction.  The same is permissible in an I-1 Light Industrial Park Zoning District pursuant to Section 528.3(A)(2).

 

6.         Allowing the property owner to manufacture concrete panels on this site also would be inconsistent with many of the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and objectives, regardless of the zoning district, including but not limited to:

 

a.         4.1.2 - concentration of heavy industrial uses;

 

b.         2.2.5 - restrictions near residential neighborhoods;

 

c.         2.2.2 - protection of existing and future residential neighborhoods;

 

d.         2.7.2 - no industry near wetlands; and

 

e.         2.7.3 - restricted conservation areas;

 

Furthermore, the intended use by the property owner will have detrimental effects on the county's habitat, soils, water, and wetlands, 100 year flood plains, water fields and well fields as illustrated on the Pasco County land use maps concerning these issues.  Therefore, any interpretation of the zoning code to allow such use on this site would violate the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore will be subject to a consistency challenge pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S.  The County and the property owner are hereby placed on notice that the applicant will enforce the Comprehensive Plan, and that removal of such use will be required by Pinecrest Lakes v. Shidel.

 

Response:  Manufacturing concrete panels on the subject property is consistent with the underlying land use for the subject property which is light industrial.  Policy 4.1.2 refers to heavy industrial development.  In addition thereto, adequate power can be provided by Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative.

 

Compatibility Policy 2.2.5 and 2.2.2 can be satisfied through buffering sufficient to mitigate incompatibility between adjacent land uses, if any, and increasing or varying setbacks based upon the need to compensate for differences in adjacent land uses, if necessary.  In addition, mitigation requirements, such as walls, berms, fences, or landscaped or open-space buffers can satisfy these objectives.

 

Policy 2.7.2 and 2.7.3 address the protection of existing wetlands and wildlife habitat.  The proposed use is not adjacent to any Class I wetlands, nor are there any endangered or threatened species on the proposed site.

 

According to Tampa Bay Water, in their letter of December 20, 2001, the proposed site is at least one mile away from the identified ten-year travel zone to the Cypress wellfield.  Furthermore, the subject site is not within the 100-year flood plain.

 

7.         Allowing the proposed use at this location would threaten significant environmental resources of regional concern as set forth in the Tampa Bay Water correspon­dence to Pasco County dated December 20, 2001, attached hereto.  Additionally, correspondence attached hereto dated October 1, 2001, from the Southwest Florida Water Management District clearly indicates concerns from Southwest Florida Water Management District on the effect of the property owner's proposed use would have on the county's water supply due to the amount of water generally used in the proposed use.  Southwest Florida Water Management District is also concerned with the fact that the property owner's site was located up gradient from a major county well field.

 

Response:  All previous correspondence from outside agencies address the proposed rezoning to an I-2 General Industrial Park Zoning District and the proposed use of a concrete batching facility.  The rezoning was withdrawn, and the proposed use has changed to a permitted I-1 Light Industrial Park use.

 

8.         The property owner has failed in all attempts to get approval for its intended use and has failed to provide support and/or evidence of how its project would meet concurrence requirements and safety concerns on S.R. 52.  The only connection for the site to I-75 is State Road 52, which as of today is a two lane roadway under a significant amount of traffic congestion.  The property owner's intended use would require large trucks with heavy loads to ingress and egress from and to its property via State Road 52.  This additional traffic will significantly increase the risk of harm and perhaps death to other motorists traveling on State Road 52.

 

Response:  Transportation issues are addressed at the time of preliminary site plan approval.

 

9.         A brief review of the permitted uses under the I-1 Light Industrial Park District (which is the applicable zoning district of I-L (Industrial Light) plan areas), as compared to the permitted uses for the I-2 General Industrial District (which is the applicable zoning district for the I-H (Industrial-Heavy) plan area), demonstrates a large disparity between these two plan categories.  For example, the I-1 Light Industrial Category authorizes only those uses which do not represent a health or safety hazard to the community, and which do not produce or emit dust, smoke, refuse matter, toxic or noxious odors, etc.  In addition, the light industrial category specifically contemplates such friendly neighborhood uses as banks, data processing services, hospitals, postal and public facilities, professional offices, radio and television facilities and operations, restaurants, technical and trade schools, hotels and motels, etc.  Therefore, there are a number of existing, permitted uses in the light industrial district which would be compatible with the predominant surrounding residential community, and which would not threaten or harm the significant regional resources of concern.

 

By contrast, the very definition of the permitted uses in the I-2 General Industrial District contemplates uses which are potentially noxious.  In addition, the I-2 District expressly provides that such uses cannot be allowed if they are not compatible with, and do not protect, the overall area in which they are located.  Significantly, the permitted uses in the I-2 General Industrial District are a parade of horrors:  there simply is no way that these permitted uses can be made compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, nor can they be constrained within the site so as to be in harmony with the sensitive well field, wetland systems, habitat conservation areas, and other regional resources of concern.

 

Response:  The I-1 Light Industrial Park permitted uses that the applicant lists are also permitted in other zoning districts.  Professional offices are permitted in PO-1 Professional Office, PO-2 Professional Office, C-1 Neighborhood Commer­cial, C-2 General Commercial, and C-3 Commercial/Light Manufacturing.  Banks are permitted in PO-2 Professional Office, C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 General Commercial, and C-3 Commercial/Light Manufacturing.  Restaurants, data processing, postal and public facilities are also permitted in commercial districts.  These uses do not need a Comprehensive Land Use designation of IL (Industrial - Light).

 

Since the underlying land use is IL (Industrial - Light), the property owner is entitled to utilize the property for uses that are listed exclusively in the I-1 Light Industrial Park category such as dairy product manufacturing, boat manufacturing, manufacturing of glass products, the manufacture of ceramic products, sign manufacturing, manufacturing of building supplies and crematoriums.

 

10.       The applicant, Route 52 Corporation, has a substantial interest in this matter and is an affected party because:

 

i)          it is an adjacent landowner;

ii)         approval of the proposed use will inordinately burden the use of its property and interfere with attainment of reasonable, investment backed expectations for future use of property;

 

iii)         it will suffer adverse effects to interests protected by the comprehensive plan exceeding in degree the general interests in community good shared by all persons;

 

Response:  The owner of the subject parcel has the right to place any permitted I-1 Light Industrial Park use on the parcel subject to any requirement placed upon development pursuant to preliminary site plan review.  The subject parcel was rezoned I-1 Light Industrial Park.  Any arguments with respect to specific uses in an I-1 Light Industrial Park have been waived by the failure to appeal the rezoning.

 

 

ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:

 

The Board of County Commissioners has the authority to uphold or reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator.

 

1.                  The Board of County Commissioners may find that the Zoning Administrator's determination was correct; and therefore, upholds the Zoning Administrator's determination that the manufacture of one- and two-sided, textured, precast-concrete panels used for noise, wall barriers; screen walls; fencing; and residential and industrial, wall panels for building construction is a permitted use in an I-1 Light Industrial Park District, provided that there is no mixing or manufacturing of cement, concrete, gypsum, lime, plaster of Paris, or other similar products on the site.

 

2.                  The Board of County Commissioners may find that the Zoning Administrator's determination was incorrect and, therefore, reverses the Zoning Administrator's determination finding that the manufacture of one- and two-sided, textured, precast concrete panels used for noise, wall barriers; screen walls; fencing; and residential and industrial, wall panels for building construction is not a permitted use in an I-1 Light Industrial Park District.

 

3.                  The Board of County Commissioners may take other appropriate action.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

1.                  Appeal Application and Attached Memorandum

2.                  Letter Dated October 1, 2001, from Southwest Florida Water Management District

3.                  Letter Dated December 20, 2001, from Tampa Bay Water

4.                  Letter Dated February 15, 2002, from Joel R. Tew, Esquire

5.                  Letter Dated March 21, 2002, from Larry G. Guilford

6.                  Letter Dated May 22, 2002, from Debra M. Zampetti, Zoning/Code Compliance Administrator

7.                  Copy of Visual

 

 

DMZ/EPR/zn/aa0202ai

 

 

 

APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR

 

DATE                                             

 

BY