PDE-26-0021
Published agendaHeard once, at the Board of County Commissioners on Dec 9, 2025.
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.
Official title
An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2- 15 And Sheet 18) From RES-6 (Residential 6- Du/Ga) To IL (Industrial-Light) On Approximately 1.80 Acres Of Real Property Located At The Southeast Corner Of The Intersection Of Alderman Lane And Rowan Road; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.
Every appearance1 of 1 are in a recording
TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 97% of 35 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
- 1
Approved minutes
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.
4mMarianoVice ChairAye. Item P eighty one.
Madam ClerkP eighty one, proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, November 19, 2025, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
OakleyItem P eighty one is PDE 260021. This is an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map, Map 2-15, and Sheet 18 from Res 6, residential 6 dwelling units per gross acre, to IL, Industrial Light, on approximately 1.8 acres of real property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Alderman Lane and Rhode. And providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for repealer serverability, and an effective
date. This comes to you with the recommendation to accept public comment and adopt the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and ordinance by roll call vote.
MarianoVice ChairOkay. Would the board like a presentation? Oh, Mr.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairBatman. No, thank you, Chair. Just a question. Terry, so is this property this one point eight acres, is this property associated with uh Uh the asphalt solutions company, because if it's tied into a larger piece of property Then when you look at adding the Live Local Act provision on the one point eight, if it's gonna expand to If we could have a little bit of a little bit of a the zoning on the property to the south, if it's all going to tie in together
OakleyThat's what I'm trying to do. I I I don't think it is, but we'll let the applicant speak to it.
Barbara WilhiteGood afternoon again. Barbara Wilhite, 8627 Grand Boulevard for the applicant. The applicant, when I first started on this journey, was the Deeb family and now it's the Kealty family. Um and this is only parcel that they own. They don't have any relationship with any of the parcels around them.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairMy map are stuck, but what's the zoning to the property directly to the south? Hollywood it's called uh
C2?
Barbara WilhiteThe south is uh C one and C two.
StarkeyChairWhat about the north?
Barbara WilhiteThe north is AR.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairYeah.
Barbara WilhiteBut
StarkeyChairit's fun very
Barbara Wilhitefunky.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairDue to the two bottom stuff. The zoning of the two bottom parcels, even though it's existing, would you have going to be okay with putting the Liploc provision on the one point eight acres? in case we have something that comes in in the future to this house and they try to marry The parcels?
Barbara WilhiteThe South already has a building on it, Commissioner.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairI'm aware of that. Okay. But if an investor comes in and purchases that property to the south and they prop purchase this vacant land to the north, Marry the two together and they put a li combine it to do a live local. I'm concerned that there's a potential that they could tie them together and put a live local B. I'm not saying they will, I'm just being cautious. Or it's up to the flavor of the board. If it's not worth it then we just
Barbara WilhiteWell this MPUD has the Lib Local condition on it. It's in the zoning. It's in the M P D zoning. Um so we have m made provision for this p parcel and that's really all we can control today is this parcel.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairOkay. Okay, well that's on there. I'm okay. Okay.
Barbara WilhiteRight. So if they did purchase this one, they this parcel would be subject to Lib Local, which would foil any plans that are That's what I'm
WeightmanSecond Vice Chairtrying to do. Spoil the plans. It would foil their plans. Great terminology. Thank you, Ms. Wellhatt and your Christmas red.
Um can
StarkeyChairI ask a question? Yeah, did you say that that parcel and I see the address here is that one two Three five six Moss Lake Loop is a business, not a house. To the south of this partial?
Barbara WilhiteTo the south as a business, yes.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairYeah. To the south as a business.
Unidentified speakerOkay.
WeightmanSecond Vice ChairI'll
MarianoVice Chairmove a or you need public comment. Yes, okay. Uh Applicant, do you want to say anymore? Okay. Anyone here from the public like to speak to this item?
Back to the board, view pro second. Call the roll, please.
Madam ClerkDistrict 1, Commissioner Oakley.
MarianoVice ChairAye.
Madam ClerkDistrict 2, Commissioner Weightman. District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Yeager. Aye. District 5, Chairman Mariano.