1 ' 
OBJECTIONS, RECOMI\,1ENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS REPORT 
PASCO COUNTY 06-ERl 
i PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 
!: Consistency with Rule 9J-5. F.A.C.. and Chapter 163. Part II. F.S. 
Future Land Use Map Amendments 

A. The Department has identified the following objections to potential impacts of proposed 
FLUM 2025. 
1. Objection: The proposed Future Land Use Map (PLUM) amendments are not supported by 
an adequate cumulative transportation analysis of the proposed amendments on the regional 
roadway network and Strategic IntenIlodal System (815) facilities addressing the following (1) 
the impact of the vehicle trips on the projected operating level of service roadways; (2) the need 
for road improvements (scope, timing, and costs of improvements) to maintain the adopted level 
of service standards for roadways: (3) coordination of the road improvements with the 
Transportation and Capital Improvements Elements, including implementation through the Five-
Year Schedule of Capital, Improvements and (4) coordination of the road improvements with the 
plans of the Florida Department of Transportation. Therefore, the amendments are inconsistent 
with FLUE Policy 1.2.13 and Transportation Element Objective 3.1 regarding coordination of 
public facilities with land use. 
Rules 9J~5.005(2), 9J "5.005(5) 9J-5.0055, 9J-5.016(1), (2) and (4), 9J-5.016(3)(b)5., 9J5.016(
3)(c)6, 9J-5.019(3)(a),(b),(g),(h),and (i), 9J-5.019(4)(a) and (b) 2.,3., and 4.,915.019(
4)(c)1., 7., 11., 12., and 13., 9J~5.019(5), F.A.C. Sections 163.3177(6) (b) and (j), 
163.3177(2) and (8),163.3177 (10) (e), and 163.3180, F.S. 
Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include the required analysis necessary to support 
the amendment and demonstrate coordination of land use with the provision of transportation 
facilities and the Capital Improvements Element. The County should indicate what roadway 
improvements are being anticipated to address any potential roadway deficiencies. Revise the 
Transportation Element and Capital Improvements Element, including the Five-Year Schedule of 
Capital hnprovements, as necessary, to be consistent with and supported by the data and analysis 
and to achieve internal consistency with the FLUM. 
2. Objection: The proposed amendments are not supported by adequate public facility analyses 
for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and recreation based on the maximum 
development potential of the amendment parcels addressing: (1) the amoWlt of potable water, 
sanitary sewer, solid waste, and recreation demand generated by the maximum development 
potential allowed by the FLUM amendments: (2) the available uncommitted capacity of these 
facilities: (3) the impact offue demand for facilities on the projected operating level of service; 
(4) the need for potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and recreation facilities improvements 
(scope, timing and cost) to maintain the adopted level of service standards for these facilities; 
and (5) coordination of any needed facilities improvements with the Infrastructure and Capital 
, 
" 
:'~j 
1s' 
. 
.. 

Improvements Elements, including implementation through the Five- Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements.
Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.0055, 9J-5.006(2) (a) and (3)(b), 9J-5.006 (4), 9J-5.01l(1)(a)-(f),
9J-5.011(2)(b)2, 9J-5.011(2)(c)1, 9J-5.016(2)(b), (c), and (f), 9J-5.016(3)(b)1,3, and 5, 9J-
i 5.016(3)(c)1.d.,1.e., l.f., and l.g., and 9J-5.016(4)(a), F.A.C. Sections 163.3177(2) and (3) and
! 163.3177(6)(a) and (c), F.S.


,
I Recommendation: Revise the amendments to include the required analyses necessary to
support the FLUM aJJ:lendments and demonstrate coordination of land use with the provision of
public facilities and Capital Improvements Element, including the Five-Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements, and demonstrate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
policies. It is also recommended that the County include a letter from the utility which indicates
that the infrastructure is available and that the cumulative amount of water to serve the proposed
land uses is available under the utility's consumptive use pennit (CUP) from the District after
consideration of previously committed allocations for existing users and approved development.


3. Objection: The proposed amendments increase the residential density on the subject parcels 
and have the potential to increase the student population for schools. The proposed amendments 
are not supported by data and analysis demonstrating coordination of the amendments with 
Pasco County School Board regarding the potential student population and the availability of 
school facilities to accommodate the student population consistent with the school planning and 
intergovernmental coordination requirements of Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, 
the proposed amendment is not consistent with futergovemmental Coordination Element Policy 
1.3.1 of the County's Plan. 
Rules9J-5-005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006(3) (c), 9J-5.006(4), 9J-5.015(3) (b) 1, 9J-5.015(3) (c) 1, and 
12., F.A.C. Sections 163.3177(6)(a); and 163.3177(6)(h)1, and 2., and 163.3177(8), F.S. 
Recommendation: Provide data and analyses demonstrating that there is adequate school 
capacity to serve the sites and coordination with the School Board on identifying the additional 
projected student population that could result from the amendments, the availability of school 
facilities to serve the projected population, and demonstrating consistency willi the provisions of 
the County's Comprehensive Plan. 
B. The Department has identified the following objections to Amendments BCPA 06-1(5), 
(13) and (38): 
4. Objection: The proposed amendments increase the number of units that could be constructed 
on tile site without demonstrating site suitability for the increased density- The amendments are 
~ot supported by best available, relevant and appr9priate data and analysis addressing the 
environmental suitability of the sites for protection of multi jurisdictional natural resources such 
as riverine systems, coastal marshes, potablc watcr supply, w11demess areas, floodpJains and 
listed species and their habitat. The sites have not been demonstrated to be suitable for the 
., proposed land use designations and their associated density and intensity standards. Therefore, 
'! 
; . 
. 
.. 
the amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.013(2)(b)(3)-(4), F.A.C. and internally 

inconsistent with Conservation Element Objective(s)2.8 and 2.10 of Pasco County
Comprehensive Plan.
Rules 9J-5.006(2)(b), 9J~5.006(3)(b)I, and 4., 9J-5.012(3)(b), 9J-5.013(2)(c), and 9J-5.013(3),


F.A.C. Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(4) 163.3177(6)(a)., c., and d., 163.3177(8), and .
163.3177(10)e., F.S.
Recommendation: Do not adopt the proposed amendments. Altematively, provide an
enviromnental suitability analysis for the amendment sites, which address the potential for
impacts to riverine systems, coastal marshes, potable water supply, wilderness areas floodpla!ns,
soil suitability, wetlands, and listed species habitat. Revise the proposed land use as appropnate
based on the data and analysis to ensure protection of the above listed natural resources.
Text Amendments
C. The Department has identified the following objection to Policy ADM 1.2.5, Policy TRA
.1.6.1, Policy TRA 2.4.1, Policy TRA 2.4.2,
5. Objection: The Policies allow for the use ofa Road Congestion Index (RCI) as a
professional method used to determine; 1) financial feasibility of a comprehensive plan element
and; 2) whether the adopted Level Of Service (LOS) for transportation facilities has been met on
a systemwide basis. T~CI procedure is not~rofessional1y accepteQ ~thodolo~ u~d tg
s.
,
ill u e -.c,... ~nererore. tIle l2ro~osea amenamems are InCOnSlSl:em Wll:n
Ch.163.3177(2), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.0055(c), F.A.C.
Rule 9J-5.005(3); 9J-5.0055(c); 9J-5.006(2)(a) and (3)(b)(1); 9J-5.016(3)(c)(4) and (6); 9J-
5.019(4)(c)(1) F.A.C. Sections 163.3177(6)(b)(j), and 163.3177(2), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the proposed text policies that require or allow the use of the RCI as
a measure to determine fmancial feasibility and adequate LOS to delete the RCI use-
D. The Department has identified the following objection to Policy 1.2.4(3)(c)5:
6. Objection: Policy ADM 1.2.4(3)(c)5, under the Concurrency Management System section of
the comprehensive plan, describes an option to satisfy concurrency for roads if the facility is
identified as 'Constrained' in the Transportation Element. This option does not ensure the
adopted LOS for the facility is maintained. Therefore, the proposed amendment is inconsistent
with Rule 9J-/55(1)(a), FA.C.
Rule 9J-5.005(3); 9J-5.006(2)(a) and (3)(b)(1); 9J-5.016(3)(c)(4) and (6); 9J-5.019(4)(c) F.A.C.
Sections 163.3177(6)(b)(j), F.S.
.
.
Recommendation: Revise the Policy to include language requiring alternative mitigation
strategies to reduce the impact to constrained facilities while achieving and maintaining the
adopted LOS for the facilities identified as constrained in the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
E. The Department has identified the following objection to Policy FLU A-4(l) and (2)
6. Objection: Section FLU A-4, Policies 1 and 2, propose a density calculation methodology
which uses the 'applicable zoning designation' (Policy 1) and the 'Developable Residential
Acre' as parameters to calculate maximum density and intensity impacts. The proposed
methodology allows for 1lllplanned impacts on public facilities and other sources. Therefore, the
proposed amendment is iDia11anym~S1stency with FLUE Objective 1.4 and Rule 9J~5.0055

F.A.C.
Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.0055, 9J-5.006(2) (a) and (3)(b), 9J-5.006 (4), 9J-5.011(1)(a)-(f),
9J-5.011(2)(b)2, 9J-5.011(2)(c)1, 9J-5.016(2)(b), (c), and (1), 9J-5.016(3)(b)1,3, and 5, 9J-
5.016(3)(c)1.d.,1.e., 1.£, and 1.g., and 9J-S.016(4)(a), F.A.C. Sections 163.3161(3), 163.3177(2)
and (3) and 163.3177(6)(a),(d),(g), 163.3188, 163.3178(1)(2)(a), 163.3178(2)(b), 163.3178(2)(c)
and (2)0), and 163.3178(8), F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the Policy language to describe public facility analysis based on the
maximum intensity and/or density allowed under the proposed land use category to ensure the
data and analysis is adequate to support the proposed land use change.
F. The Department has identified the following objection to Policy FLU A-6:
7. Objection: Proposed Future Land Use Categories Planned Develo~men1 and Commercial do
not include minimum and maximum percentages of allowable uses and/or intensity standards.
The Department encourages mixed use land categories. However, the category language does
not include text required for the implementation ofmixed uses, such as the percentage of
distribution among the uses and other objective measurements as called for in Rule 9J-
5. 006(4)(b )6, F .A. C. Moreover, the proposed amendment does not provide set maximums for
the percentage of residential that would be allowed in the Commercial category as set forth in
Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)(7), F.A.C. Thus, the proposed amendments are internal inconsistency with
FLUE Policy 1.1.4 and inc:onsistent with Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b)(6) and Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)(7),
F.A.C.
Rule 9J-5.005(2) and (5); 91-5.006(2) and (5); 9J-5.006(3)(b)1; 9J-5.006(3)(c)3 and 7; 9J-
5.006(4); 9J-5.011(1)(a through f); 9J-5.011(2)(b)2; 9J-5.0l1(2)(c)1; 9J-5.013(3)(a)and(b); 9J-
5.016(2)(b, c and f); 9J-5.013(3)(b)1,3 and 5; 9J-5.016(3)(c)1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and l.g; 9J-5.016(4)(a);
9J-5.019(3)(f, g, h, and i); 9J-5.019(4)(b)I,2 and 3); 9J-5.019(4)(c)l; 9J-5.019(5)(a and b),
F.A.C. and Sectio~3.3177(2 and 3); and 163.3 1 77(6)(a, c, andj)) F.S.
Recommendation: Along with density and intensity standards for all residential and non-
residential uses, the Department recommends that the County include percentages within tlle
proposed policy that would apply to the mix of uses within the Planned Development and
-
..
Commercial categories. Also, the County should set ma.-ximums and minimums for the amount
I of residential and non-residential uses that would be allowed in the categories.
G. The Department has identified the following objection to Policy W AT 1.1.7:
8. Objection: PolicyWAT 1.1.7 includes language describing water rights for developers and
identifying the County as the sole agency required for review of requests to modify or transfer
waterpennits. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with Ch. 373.016(4)(a), F.S.? and
internally inconsistent with Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 1.2.5.
I Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)(4), (3)(b)(6) and (4)(b); 9J-5 .01 1 (2)(b)(4) and (5),9J-5.11(2)(c)(3) and
(4);
9J-5.012(2)(d); 9J-S.O12(3)(b)(1); 9J-5.012(3)(c)(2) and (15), 9J-S.13 (l)(a)(l) and (5) 9J-
5.13(2)(b)(3) and (4); 9J-5.13(2)(c)(3),(5),(6),(8)and (9); 9J-5.013(3); 9J-5.005(5), 9J-
5.012(3)(c)(14) and (15); 9J-S.O13(2)(c)(8); 9J-5.015 F.A.C. Sections 163.3177(2),
163.3177(9)(b), 163.3161(4),163.3177(4), 163.3177(6)(h)? F.S.
Recommendation: Revise the text amendment to reflect the delegated review authority of
requests to modify or transfer w,ater permits to the South Florida Water Management District

(SWF!\I1D) and delete language attributing water rights to developers. 

H. Comments:
The Department raises the following comment to text amendment (FLUE Policy 2.1.6(c)):
The County should revise the Policy to clarify whether the criteria for restoration is spelled out in
the Open Space Management Plan or include the criteria in the Policy.
The Department raises the following comment to text amendment (FLUE poUcy 2.1.6(1)):
The County should revise the Policy to include measures for satisfactory maintenance of the
dedicated Conservation Subdivision Open Space in the Policy or reference the appropriate
section of Land Development Regulations (LDRs') that contains the measures.
, .
!!~-~.2~!~!~~g.:!!l!h..!!!~_§1!!!:~Qm]!!~!~~.l!!
The proposed amendments do not adequately address ~d further the State
Comprehensive Plan including the following goals and policies (Chapter 163.3177(9), F.S.):
Goal (16)(a), Land Use, policies (b)l, and 6;
Goal (17) (a), Public Facilities, Policy (b) 1;
Goal (19) (a), Transportation, Policy (b) 9; and
Goal (20) (a), Governmental Efficiency, Policy (b) 1.
Recommendation: Revise the ammendments as indicated earlier so as to be consistent with the
above cited policies of the State Comprehensive Plan.