COMMUNITY RESEARCH NOTES - HISTORICAL WORKING COPY
Published September 29, 2026. This is community analysis, not an agency finding. Later updates supersede earlier pending/download notes: the county ZIPs have been reviewed; 13 new requests were sent September 29; Talavera written records have been received and published. See documents.html for the current tracker. Internal local filenames referenced below are research references, not additional public download links.

# Kent Grove / Mitras: traffic and flooding evidence update

September 28, 2026. Research for RZ-7901 / REZONE-2025-00016 / PDE26-7901, parcel 05-25-18-0000-00100-0000. No records requests or comments have been sent.

The strongest current approach is to identify unanswered engineering questions tied to the county's review criteria. The material below supports scrutiny of access, road mitigation and drainage; it does not establish that denial is required. The June 2026 staff memorandum recommends approval, so an objection should address its findings with specific evidence.

## 1. The posted traffic attachment is a review form, not an intersection study

[Original county attachment: Timing & Phasing Analysis](https://pascocofl.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1895/files/attachment/99359), three PDF pages, reviewed directly in the county viewer.

- The form identifies T&P-2025-00032, Lincks & Associates, an accepted application dated June 11, 2025, and **85 single-family homes**. The later staff memorandum proposes **77**. Obtain the revision history and current analysis; a reduction alone does not demonstrate a traffic defect.
- PDF page 2 calculates 41 versus 135 peak-hour trips for a zoning screening comparison, producing a difference of 94. **This is not a forecast of 94 additional peak-hour trips from the current 77-home proposal.**
- PDF page 3 estimates approximately **802 average daily vehicle trips for 85 homes**, using 9.43 trips per dwelling. Trips are movements, not unique vehicles or households. Applying the same rate to 77 homes would give about 726 daily trips, but that is arithmetic for scale only, not an approved revised forecast or an intersection assignment.
- It finds the request **not exempt** from timing/phasing analysis and says access-management analysis is to occur with the preliminary site/development plan.
- It describes both Kent Grove Drive and Hamlin Road as substandard; Kent Grove is county residential, Hamlin private residential. It expressly identifies poor pavement on Kent Grove and nonexemption under SSRRA-2025-00084.
- All three pages were read. They contain no turning-movement count tables, AM/PM intersection capacity calculations, turn-lane storage measurements, queue estimates or signal-warrant results. This finding concerns this attachment only; the complete application may contain additional studies.

**Question for staff:** Where is the full May 20, 2025 Lincks analysis referenced by the staff memorandum, its revisions for 77 homes, and the county's technical review? Does it evaluate Kent Grove Drive at SR 52, or only screen whether further analysis is required?

## 2. Resident observations to test at Kent Grove Drive / SR 52

The user reports on September 28, 2026 that the intersection has no traffic signal; Kent Grove's outbound approach has no separate left/right turn lanes; left-turning vehicles can hold up right-turning traffic; some morning queues already occur; and a single vehicle can delay the queue by roughly ten minutes. The user also questions afternoon capacity of the eastbound SR 52 left-turn lane and predicts longer morning queues with development traffic. These are resident observations and predictions, not measured engineering results.

Keep the two movements separate:

| Movement | Question to test |
|---|---|
| Southbound Kent Grove traffic turning left onto eastbound SR 52 | Does shared-lane operation allow one left-turner to block right-turners? What are actual and predicted delay, maximum queue and 95th-percentile queue during the morning peak? |
| Eastbound SR 52 traffic turning left into Kent Grove | How much usable storage exists, excluding the taper? Would afternoon queues exceed it or obstruct through traffic? |

The user's phrase “before Giddens” is retained as a queue-location lead. The exact endpoint and direction need to be marked on a current map before assigning a distance; it has not been treated as a verified intersection location on Kent Grove.

Ask for weekday AM and PM counts with observation dates, school calendar and seasonal adjustments; existing and buildout traffic by turning movement; approved nearby development included in background growth; actual lane geometry; heavy vehicles; available gaps; and treatment of nearby railroad interruptions, if relevant. Compare observed queues with modeled results. These are proposed technical questions, not findings that each item is legally mandatory.

Useful resident evidence: dated observations from a safe stationary location showing arrival time, time entering SR 52, turn direction, vehicle count in queue, farthest queue landmark and whether right-turners were blocked. Several representative mornings and afternoons would test whether the reported ten-minute delay is occasional or recurring. Do not label estimates as measured results.

## 3. County criteria connect these concerns to review

[County-published Ordinance 24-21 / LDC material](https://www.pascocountyfl.net/Documents/Services/Planning%20And%20Development/Land%20Development%20Code%20Amendments/Ordinance%20No.%2024-21%20LDC%20Amendment%2068.pdf), PDF pp. 32–34, Section 402.1.E, includes consideration of adequate road access, congestion and safety, neighborhood living conditions, flooding and necessary site alteration. The June 2026 Mitras memorandum itself cites Section 402.1.E. Confirm the controlling version with planning staff before a formal submission.

[County code, Chapter 900](https://library.municode.com/fl/pasco_county/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=CH900DEST_S902ST): Section 901.4's flooding provisions call for historical flooding data and the Observed Flooding GIS layer, state a standard of no surface ponding, and require assessment of affected roads, constraints, alternatives and improvements/costs. Section 902 addresses watershed drainage and preventing increased flood damage.

**Research implication:** request the flooding portion of SSRRA-2025-00084 and identify which road segments it evaluated. Pair each resident photograph with its location and date. Ask how ALTSTD-2026-00044 addresses any documented drainage deficiency, rather than assuming pavement rehabilitation resolves it.

## 4. FDOT recorded these intersection concerns years ago

[FDOT SR 52 Reevaluation Comments and Coordination Report, June 5, 2007](https://www.fdotd7studies.com/projects/sr52-suncoast-to-i75/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/pdf/Final-SR52-Reevaluation-Comments-%26-Coordination.pdf), printed pp. 9–10 / PDF pp. 14–15, records 2006 hearing concerns about the missing Kent Grove/SR 52 signal, development traffic and Ryles Branch drainage. FDOT responded that signals and drainage would be evaluated during final design. These are agency-recorded public concerns, not an FDOT finding of failure or a promise to install a signal. The historical development estimates are unrelated to Mitras and must not be presented as its traffic forecast.

[FDOT project 256323-1-52-01](https://www.fdottampabay.com/project/266/256323-1-52-01) states that the SR 52 six-lane widening from the Suncoast Parkway to east of US 41 was accepted January 29, 2025. The old hearing record therefore cannot establish today's geometry or operating conditions.

**Records to obtain from FDOT District Seven:** final and as-built intersection plans; signal-warrant and turn-lane studies; access-management decisions; intersection-specific crash summaries; counts after widening; and drainage/culvert design reports for the Kent Grove–CSX–Giddens/Pierce Lake corridor. Include the current project number and the historical report in the request so staff can trace design decisions.

## 5. Broader county flood reports provide context, not parcel proof

[Pasco County 2024 Local Mitigation Strategy](https://cms1files.revize.com/pasco/Documents/Services/Emergency%20Management/Local%20Mitigation%20Strategy/Pasco%20County%20LMS%202024%20Formatted-%20Final%20Updated.pdf), pp. 42–44, describes river, lake and low-basin flood risks and drainage backups during prolonged rain on saturated soils. It references repetitive-loss mapping in Appendix D. A text search found no Kent Grove reference. These countywide findings do not establish that coastal surge reaches this site or that a listed event flooded Kent Grove.

[SWFWMD floodplain viewer](https://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/floodplain_viewer) includes Pithlachascotee River/Bear Creek watershed information. Its study maps are separate from official FEMA insurance mapping. Obtain the latest applicable model and confirm the site's basin and model nodes before selecting boundary conditions.

The [Mitras staff memorandum](https://pascocofl.portal.civicclerk.com/event/1895/files/report/27836), pp. 4–6, already identifies northern-site Flood Zone A, requires a wetland delineation survey, directs contact with SWFWMD for current floodplain information, and calls for passthrough drainage easements. The county's maintenance right is not a maintenance obligation.

**Engineering questions still unanswered here:** existing/proposed discharge rates and volumes; loss and replacement of flood storage; upstream inflow, downstream water levels and backwater; culvert constraints; long-duration rainfall; flood effects at neighboring parcels and road crossings; and who must inspect and maintain each drainage feature. No site-specific hydraulic model was obtained in this pass. Do not assert that westward discharge either proves or disproves upstream impacts without that analysis.

## Priority records list ;  ready to use, not sent

For the user's five-year accident-record question, see the separate [crash-records request draft](kent-grove-crash-records-request.md), including official contacts, a proposed geographic search boundary, and wording to distinguish intersection-related crashes from nearby incidents.

1. **Pasco Planning/Transportation:** complete T&P-2025-00032 and SSRRA-2025-00084, original Lincks submission and all revisions, count files/model outputs, reviewer comments and responses, access-management studies, and final decisions for ALTSTD-2026-00044.
2. **Pasco Public Works:** executed June 9, 2026 contribution agreement; design, cost and schedule for SR 52–Lussier rehabilitation; scope identifying drainage, widening and intersection work; any requirement to complete improvements before occupancy; Kent Grove and nearby drainage complaints, closures, inspections and work orders from 2015 onward, including 2024 storms.
3. **Pasco Stormwater/Natural Resources and SWFWMD:** project drainage studies, applicable watershed models and updates, observed high-water data, storm-event reports, flood-storage calculations, wetland delineation, permit/review correspondence and drainage maintenance documents.
4. **FDOT District Seven:** the intersection and corridor records listed above, plus any coordination on Mitras and cumulative nearby development.

## Suggested position supported by this pass

Ask the county to identify the evidence supporting adequate access, traffic safety and flood protection before acting, and to explain how the current 77-home proposal and the intersection are covered by that evidence. If the record cannot answer those questions, request additional analysis and a continuance; use documented failures against applicable criteria to support a denial argument. A contribution amount, general assurance or existing flood photograph alone does not resolve project impacts. Conversely, a missing attachment on the public agenda does not prove the analysis does not exist.