The most notable issue of the meeting was the proposed amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan, which would allow for increased density in specific areas. The City Planner, Tammy Verana, introduced the amendments, explaining that they would permit up to 60 units per acre, capped at 900 units across the area. The amendments included changes to floor area ratios to accommodate commercial uses.

During the public comment period, Todd McClary from Betty Street criticized the last-minute switch to a non-voting format and questioned the city’s professionalism. He highlighted discrepancies in the proposal, noting an 80% land coverage that contradicts the city’s open space promotion. McClary expressed skepticism about the proposed 60 units per acre density, far exceeding the city’s existing maximum of 30 units per acre. He warned the board about the broader impacts on the Waterfront Overlay District, projecting an influx of over 5,000 new residents, a figure much higher than the applicant’s estimate.

Johnny Brown echoed McClary’s dissatisfaction with the format change, urging the board to consider the planning changes made since the previous year. Ross Coil raised concerns about two proposed 12-story condominiums and a five-story parking garage near his home, questioning the suitability of such tall structures in the area.

Sean Abts inquired about the scheduling confusion between the public hearing and a council meeting, receiving confirmation that signs had been reposted to reflect the change. Other speakers stressed the importance of transparency and public participation in the planning process.

The city planner’s presentation detailed the proposed amendments, which aimed to introduce a new land use category for mixed-use, walkable developments. The changes could increase the number of allowable units from 56 to 218 on a 3.64-acre parcel and from 88 to 295 on another parcel, expanding non-residential space as well.

Resident Cynthia criticized the city for rushing the development process without thorough due diligence, emphasizing the potential traffic increase on Old Post Road. She also pointed out procedural concerns, including the lack of notifications to affected landowners and necessary engineering reviews.

A local developer, Ryan Work, defended the density changes, highlighting the financial viability and potential benefits for local businesses. He emphasized the need for flexible density allocation within the project area to support public access and mixed-use developments. Work warned that without the proposed project, outside developers might acquire the parcels, leading to less community-aligned outcomes.

Residents voiced strong concerns about the impact of the proposed density on the community’s character and infrastructure. Mr. Johnson questioned the planning process’s transparency and called for better communication. Mr. Brown raised a issue regarding a $115,000 city survey, criticizing the city’s disregard for its findings, which showed that 70% of residents opposed the plan.

Phil Apps argued for focusing on beautifying the waterfront rather than increasing residential density, emphasizing the need to support local businesses without a significant residential impact. Judy Spra questioned the feasibility of adding a thousand new condos in a limited area, expressing concerns about parking and infrastructure.

Ross Cole expressed a desire to maintain Port Richey’s character as a “sleepy fishing village,” critiquing the ambiguity of the presented plans and the potential for high-rise developments. Several residents stressed the importance of listening to the community, urging the board to consider the implications of the proposed changes.

The board members discussed the readability issues of the planner’s presentation and sought comparisons with density regulations in nearby communities. The planner explained that the requested amendments aimed to provide flexibility for up to 60 units per acre, with a cap of 900 units across the area. The conversation also addressed concerns about affordable housing, with the planner clarifying that the goal was to provide accessible housing options rather than a specific affordable housing program.

One board member emphasized the need for thoughtful planning and community engagement, acknowledging the complexities of the planning process. They called for more time to gather data and ensure comprehensive assessments before making any decisions.

The planner’s attempts to clarify technical aspects were met with skepticism, as community members sought assurance that their voices were being heard.

As the meeting concluded, the board discussed the next steps, including addressing concerns raised during the session. A forthcoming meeting on the 13th was mentioned, where staff would provide reports on the impacts on city services such as police and fire departments, and utilities. The board expressed a commitment to continue the discussion in future meetings, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that community interests were adequately represented in the planning process.