PDE-26-0185

Every appearance2 of 4 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and removed. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 96% of 191 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 2 of the 4 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1Nov 20, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC2Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Continuance) - CPAS23(26) Blackwell Mixed- Use PD - An Ordinance Amending The the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2- 15 2-15 And Sheet 19) From from COM (Commercial) To to PD (Planned Development) On on Approximately 15.36 Acres Of of Real Property Located On The on the North Side Of of SR 54 Approximately .3 Miles Southeast Of The of the Intersection Of SR 54 And and Starkey Blvd; And A Text Amendment Creating … FLU 7.1.80 – Blackwell Mixed-Use Mixed- Use PD; And A a Map Amendment To The to the Future Land Use Map … Map 2-9(80) Blackwell Mixed-Use PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 18:02
   ▶ 18:021m

   Moody

   18:02Item PC2, you will be sitting as a local planning agency. PDE 260185, a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS 2326, in the name of Blackwell Mixed Use PD, an ordinance amending the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan, providing for a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use map 2-15 on sheet 19 from COM commercial to PDE Plan. development on approximately fifteen point three six acres of real property located on the north side

   18:32of State Road fifty four, approximately point three miles southeast of the intersection of State Road fifty four and Starkey Boulevard. A text amendment creating a sub-area policy flu 7.1.80, Blackwell Mixed Use PD, and a map amendment to the future use map 2-9, adding sub-area map two-980, Blackwell Mixed Use PD. And this is coming with a requesting attending the item to the December 8th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting at 1.30 PM in Dade City.

   GreyChair

   19:02Okay, the applicant present.

   19:06Anyone here to object?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   19:08Shouldn't that be heard in Newport, Ritchie?

   GreyChair

   19:11No, we're had a special situation, so I authorized it to be urgent dates. Okay. Mm-hmm. So um

   19:21Okay, next one.

2. 2Dec 11, 2025
   Planning CommissionP4Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Plan Amendment (Regular) - CPAS23(26) Blackwell Mixed-Use PD - Providing For A for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The to the Future Land Use Map (Map 2- 15 2-15 And Sheet 19) From from COM (Commercial) To to PD (Planned Development) On on Approximately 15.36 Acres Of of Real Property Located On The on the North Side Of of SR 54 Approximately .3 Miles Southeast Of The of the Intersection Of SR State Road 54 And and Starkey Blvd; And Blvd.; A Text Amendment Creating … Blackwell Mixed-Use PD; And A a Map Amendment To The to the Future Land Use Map … Map 2-9(80) Blackwell Mixed-Use PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD.

   Open this item →No recording
3. 3Jan 20, 2026
   Board of County CommissionersP39Public hearingApproved

   Approved minutes

   Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:02:03
   ▶ 1:02:0337m

   MarianoChair

   1:02:03What is number P thirty

   Starkey

   1:02:05nine? P thirty nine.

   1:02:10We approve publication of the hearing of this m of the hearing of this matter.

   1:02:16Um in the November ninth edition of the Tampa Bay Times uh 2025 supplemented by an affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

   Amy Heiler

   1:02:30Good afternoon. Amy Toll, Planning Development and Economic Growth. Item P39 is the adoption hearing for 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 19, from Calm Commercial to PD plan development on approximately 15.36 acres of real property located on the north side of State Road 54. Point three miles southweat

   1:03:00southeast of the intersection of State Road 54 and Starkey Boulevard, and a text amendment creating sub-area policy flu 7.1.80 Blackwell Mixed Use PD, and a map amendment to the future land use map 2-9, adding sub-area map 2-980, Blackwell Mixed Use PD, and providing for additional text. amendments as necessary for internal consistency providing for uh severability repealer severability and an effective date

   1:03:30this comes with you comes to you excuse me with a recommendation to accept public comment and adopt the ordinance by roll call vote uh there is a presentation available if necessary this is also the companion comprehensive plan amendment to item p44 which Which is the uh MPUD rezoning.

   MarianoChair

   1:03:49I want to hear a presentation please.

   Amy Heiler

   1:03:50Sure. Would you like to hear them both together?

   MarianoChair

   1:03:53Uh yes.

   Amy Heiler

   1:04:00All right. So the item before you right now is the comprehensive plan amendment. As stated, it is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment from Calm Commercial to PD plan development. The intent is to allow for a mixed-use development consisting of 290 multifamily dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of commercial medical office and retail uses on approximately 15.36 acres. The subsect site is located nort on the north side of State Road 54, approximately 0.3 miles southeast

   1:04:30of the intersection of State Road 54 and Starkey Boulevard. This is also creating Sub-area Policy Flu 7.1.80 with the companion sub-area policy map, as well as there's a companion or an accompanying MPUD rezoning.

   1:04:47Here's a county location map. The subject site is located in the South Market area and the urban service area.

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:04:54Doing a pedestrian.

   Amy Heiler

   1:04:56Here's a visual of the context map. As you can see, it is located on the east side of Starkey Boulevard just north of State Road 54. The projects or current MPDs that are in proximity is the Longleaf MPUD, Starkey Ranch MPUD to the north, Mitchell SJP MPUD to the south, and Mitchell Ranch East MPUD to the west. Here are the entitlements that were previously approved in all of those MPUDs. There is also an eight-foot sidewalk on the north

   1:05:26side of State Road 54. Here's just an aerial view zoomed in so you can see the subject site.

   1:05:35The existing future land use of Calm Commercial.

   1:05:40The proposed future land use of P D

   1:05:45It this is a screenshot or uh visual of the sub-air proposed sub-area policy. Uh there is two hundred and ninety dwelling units, multifamily apartments that are proposed, uh non-residential uses of a hundred thousand square feet, with additional uh development standards in place that the MPUD will implement.

   1:06:08Here's a proposed conceptual plan that goes alongside the sub-area policy of the comprehensive plan amendment.

   1:06:18And the proposed amendment is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies: the intent of the PD plan development land use, policy flu 1.6.1, policy flu 8.1.2, policy flu 1.8.7, policy flu 1.8.10, as well as policy flu 9.1.7.

   1:06:40And with that, we recommend to accept public comment and adopt the proposed comprehensive plan amendment by roll call vote. Um and I can have the MPUD come up unless you have some questions on the comp plan.

   MarianoChair

   1:06:50I've I've just got a basic question. It talks about economic development being part of the Um looking at it, talking about trips, et cetera. But the biggest problem I got is I'm going from commercial And I'm going from having two million square feet of comb to five percent of that a hundred thousand.

   1:07:12As I look at the Um Mobile home parks are one side. I'm looking at the Um Storage unit to the side. To me it's a prime piece of commercial property. Uh not the best for residential, even though it's a it's a mix of what's being proposed, but Why would I want to take two million of commercial square feet. When I've got tons of apartments up and down fifty four that people are clamoring for too much, too much. Um and I'll grant I'll grant the commission over the past

   1:07:42several years we've improved the amount of people that are leaving this county to go to work. But I still think we still got a long way to go to getting to what be very, very successful to where I think our goals are. Um so I'm just wondering why are we gonna take Two million square feet of commercial and bring it with such a heavy residential component and consider that's a good economic plan.

   Amy Heiler

   1:08:04Sure. So with this proposal and the general location, I've I have the contacts map up to show you what the improved entitlements are surrounding. With the two million square feet of potential commercial, this is a free range of commercial. So you could still get a storage, there's no prohib prohibitions, or it's not prohibited in any way. You can still get your self-storage, your gas stations, your car washes in its current platform, in its current position. I believe the zoning is AC, so it's it would need to be

   1:08:34rezoned to a compatible zoning. district, but the full range of commercial opportunities can still occur here. What the per applicant is proposing is even though they are reducing the commercial the amount of non-residential uses that are proposed are actually employment generating land uses. So they're your office uses, your multifam or your medical facilities, medical offices, those types of uses. In the proposal, they're

   1:09:04not allowing for the car washes and the gas stations as we know proliferate this area. Additionally, this is also in the urban service area. The county has established the urban service area for purposes of focusing their density and intensity in that area. And so through the levels of negotiation that we've had with the applicant. In an opportunity to retain the employment generating land uses through the commercial opportunities. We've kind of downloaded that into the sub-area policy

   1:09:34in exchange for allowing the residential to occur. There's also site design that was negotiated through this. And so it almost acts as its little town center where the users can still activate and utilize. The proposed non-residential uses, medical facilities, office, and whatnot. There's also connections on the east to those non-residential. And then this also shows the Mitchell SJP with 100,000 square feet of non-residential that

   1:10:04was just recently approved, as well as 550,000 square foot business park. So this residential use is acting as a comparison. To the non-residential uses that are coming into play. And we're not just allowing for full-on residential conversion. This is a mixed-use development that prioritizes the already existing employment generating uses that could potentially occur through the calm flu, but also managing it with the residential that can support the surrounding uses.

   MarianoChair

   1:10:33Sure. But the bottom line is I'm getting five percent of the commercial edit I have now. And I'm giving up ninety-five percent of that to hold on to this for office space.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:10:42Correct.

   MarianoChair

   1:10:42Thank you.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:10:43Can I add something like that? Yeah. So but there is a demand the the problem I have with this rezoning is there is a demand for light industrial and for office space. And there is an influx of apartments already. Um the Sheriff's Office concern was that they're already stretched thin enough and we're adding more to that. And also the road's in failure. So we're we're gonna be adding more congestion to the road. And like Commissioner Mariano said, we have all of that. Land there. Why

   1:11:13would we give it up for apartments?

   Amy Heiler

   1:11:15Sure. So commercial actually allows for residential to occur. In the calm flu, it is required to be vertically integrated if it is to occur. The calm flu allows for 24 dwelling units per acre, so they can still get up to 24 dwelling units right now. The proposed amount of density reduces that to eighteen. So its overall impact on the network is actually reduced from what it can currently get now.

   Starkey

   1:11:44But

   Amy Heiler

   1:11:45but

   Starkey

   1:11:45you

   Amy Heiler

   1:11:45said it had to

   Starkey

   1:11:45be vertically.

   Amy Heiler

   1:11:46Correct. That would have had to have been vertically. This is not vertically. This is not There is opportunities for vertical integration, but it is not required.

   MarianoChair

   1:12:03Okay. Let's go to the zoning.

   Amy Heiler

   1:12:07Sounds good.

   Starkey

   1:12:17This would be P forty four. We have proof of publication in the November fifth, twenty twenty-five edition of the Tampa Bay Times, supplemented by an affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:12:33Good afternoon, William from Million Planning Development, Economic Growth. This is PDE 267778, the companion to the Blackwell CPA. This is the Blackwell Multifamily Office Complex MPD. And before I get started today, I would like to enter some expartes into the record associated with this project, as well as a letter from HCA Florida's CEO, Michael Irving. Uh who expressed support for the residential here in relation to

   1:13:03his hospital and the amount of employees they generate.

   MarianoChair

   1:13:06Motion receive and file?

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:13:07Second.

   MarianoChair

   1:13:09I'll move

   Planning and Development staff

   1:13:09to approval.

   MarianoChair

   1:13:09Move

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:13:10to approval.

   MarianoChair

   1:13:11Or second.

   1:13:14Aye. Take a pick, Clerk.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:13:26The location map of course. Oh, yeah. This is a rezoning request from AC Agricultural to MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District. This is for the maximum development of 290 multifamily units. and to fifty thousand square feet of commercial and medical professional office. On approximately fifteen point three six acres. This is on the north side of State Road fifty four. about point three miles east of the State Road fifty four and Starkey Boulevard intersection.

   1:13:58The current location map.

   1:14:03The current zoning map reflecting AC, the current future land use map of course reflecting COM. Here is a contextual map. to orient to to the south, like uh Miss Toll had had previously stated, is the Mitchell S. J. P. Business Park, uh which allows for Uh roughly 630,000 square feet of non-residential combined with 515,000 of that 630,000 proportion. being allotted to the business part for employment generating

   1:14:33land uses. The Starkey Trail runs along the Duke Easement that we can see there on the west of the screen up to 54 before it crosses.

   1:14:49This is the

   1:14:52MPD master plan and this is the most uh illustrative version here that can show the commissioners uh exactly what an integrated product this is while retaining that valuable commercial uh frontage of window with office and uh much more um neighborhood friendly commercial uses along the frontage. So I think an an important thing to note would be previously like like Amy mentioned, uh, commercial. It could have allowed for a a whole host

   1:15:22of uses that fell within general commercial C two. Of course they'd have to come in for a zoning, but In this M P Uh the applicant worked with staff to restrict those commercial uses to neighborhood scale commercial, which is C one. So we're not talking about uh you know, gas stations and self-storage. We're talking about neighborhood serving commercial that's gonna be there aligning the corridor, which is much more uh friendly to the walkability of the residential, as well as professional office uh to contemplate the residential component in the area. Here

   1:15:53we can see Uh the pedestrian facilities that are on the north side of 54, this project directly connects to those red-dotted lines. I know that. It's a little bit tough to see if we can see it. Can you guys zoom in on just the just the plan and cut all the words out?

   Starkey

   1:16:09Ooh, that hurt my eye.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:16:11I think I think is that is that a lot easier to see the detail there? I apologize for that. I should have zoomed in earlier. So those red dotted lines there illustrate the pedestrian connectivity that allows pedestrians to go from fifty-four to the non-residential professional office and C one neighborhood scale uses up the boulevard as you move into the project with with angled on street parking. access some of those park features that are both uh adjacent to both those first two buildings of multifamily. As

   1:16:42you move them north, the orientation of the buildings lends to uh the pedestrian scale as you move further north into the larger central park, and finally towards the trail that goes around that stormwater pond. And I would like to to point out that right now it's currently shown as Those two reds being five foot, but the applicant has voluntarily agreed to make that leg uh running north to south. eight feet to accommodate for the the amount of volume of pedestrian users that we could see

   1:17:12here as this project pedestrian um provides a pedestrian connection there up to the northeast to the existing Starkey Blueberry farm where a pedestrian connection is is currently being contemplated through their the residential subdivision. that residential subdivision and its internal pedestrian connectivity would allow residents both from this Development to circulate north to the multi-use path along Lake Blanche, as well as allow users from or residents from the Starkey Blueberry Farm to circulate south to

   1:17:42the signalized intersection that's being put in here at 54, of which this project is paying its proportional share with Mitchell SJP, to be able to safely cross into the employment generating area.

   MarianoChair

   1:18:01Can I move

   Planning and Development staff

   1:18:02while it's zoomed in or not? Sure.

   MarianoChair

   1:18:04So on that Part to this side where it'll it'll connect up to Starkey. Is that gonna be a vehicular axis or if not, why not?

   Planning and Development staff

   1:18:12Sure. That that's because the uh the Starkey Blueberry Farm its res subs were already approved with no vehicular access there. So the the best that staff could do was was work with the the engineer of record with that with that site plan because one wasn't contemplated there. Um previously. And what we were able to fit there was that eight foot pedestrian path connection to allow circulation up to Lake Blanche.

   MarianoChair

   1:18:34Do you think part of it might have been not contemplated 'cause it was going to be a commercial site instead of a residential site?

   Planning and Development staff

   1:18:39Uh I I wouldn't believe that. I wouldn't believe that's the case. I I would feel that, or actually looking at the documents, I wouldn't feel I know uh the contemplation uh wasn't contemplated as the MPD as a whole. They actually had a connectivity plan that was approved with the entire MPD, which showed their access. And at at such time when they provided connectivity plan at approval, that area of Starkey Ranch Blueberry Farm was always contemplated to be a stormwater pond.

   Starkey

   1:19:05Okay. Mr.

   MarianoChair

   1:19:06Starkey.

   Starkey

   1:19:07Not not exactly. Um originally there was a connection, but this property owner chose to take it out.

   1:19:17When we when we owned that, there was a connection to fifty four.

   1:19:23Good.

   1:19:27Um I don't know if now's the time to ask you. We you and I met about That's it. That that Connection. doesn't work with all those right turns if you're riding a bike or anything. So we talked about Bringing that eight foot straight down. Just then coming over. But you didn't change the map.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:19:50Well uh that's what I I was trying to explain on the record. The applicant is is amenable to that. We he just didn't have time to change his plan set with the engineer, however a as a part of the motion today if the board was to to seek approval Uh we would like to add that condition in. that uh I there is an illustration that I sent him Which uh is consistent with our our talks that we had about both widening the path and changing the alignment to to remove some of those ride angles for uh bicyclists.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:20:22Okay.

   1:20:24What it?

   Planning and Development staff

   1:20:27Here's the the one variation from the code. This is from 9016 D11 to not provide a vehicular connection to the north or to the west. Um so if we if we go back to the West there's the existing uh there's the existing community there. Um they currently exist and didn't contemplate a didn't contemplate any connection here. It's the uh

   1:20:50That is the country place community and then to the north, as as we just mentioned, the the location of the stormwater pond, the best that that we could do was provide a pedestrian connection to the north to the uh to Solida or the Blueberry Farm.

   1:21:05Uh with that this project comes with a recommendation of approval with conditions from both the Planning Commission and Planning Development Economic Growth. I'm available for further questions.

   MarianoChair

   1:21:15Any other questions for staff?

   Planning and Development staff

   1:21:18No, I'll hear it from

   MarianoChair

   1:21:19the applicant.

   Steve Booth

   1:21:27Afternoon. Steve Booth, 3030 Starkey Boulevard, representing the applicant. I wish that I had um had the opportunity to record everything that both Ms. Knowle and the other gentleman said because they've really laid out a a good understanding of the what this application is all about. And I think that uh I feel personally that it was addressed as far as the numbers were concerned of

   1:21:57commercial and the various uh uh locations in the immediate area, especially across the street. where there will be uh what I would believe would be adequate uh commercial. The As far as the access is concerned, to the north where they are suggesting an interconnect was not possible as far as the roadway was concerned because of the plan that um was

   1:22:27put in place related to the what he referred to as the Starkey uh blueberry farm. but my client has agreed to the expanded sidewalk. And and well Well. have to see how and where it's going to be oriented because with the significant wetlands and the ponds to the north uh and the right turns that they spoke of is gonna be somewhat of an

   1:22:57unknown that while we agree in concept, We think we have to have the opportunity to look at the actual suggested locations and working with staff. To finalize a location that that uh works for both parties and for uh the county. Uh with that being said, I'll try to answer any other questions that you might have, and we do have our engineer available to uh try and answer

   1:23:28any other questions that I can't answer.

   MarianoChair

   1:23:33Any questions?

   1:23:39Okay, okay. Time for public comment. Anyone here from the public to speak to this item?

   1:23:46Okay, it's to the board. We're gonna go to the land use first.

   1:23:52Move

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:23:52approval?

   1:23:55We're doing Thirty nine. P thirty nine. Second.

   MarianoChair

   1:24:00No, you'd have to. Any further discussion?

   Starkey

   1:24:03Yes. Um so Starkey. I I I didn't know whether I should or not recuse myself from this, um, but both the administrator and the applicant once and the county attorney said, Do you have a conflict? So maybe if three people are bringing us up, I'll just go ahead and recuse myself and the Basis of caution, and I do that because uh we have our own apartment complex that is approved, uh, just

   1:24:33needs site plan approval right behind this one. And my husband is working on uh a project with the Mitchells across the street that has three properties. the street apartment. So um I feel I should accuse myself just in just to be on the safe side.

   MarianoChair

   1:24:54All right. Um I'll make a comment as far as and and my basic fundamentals to losing this much commercial space with so many apartments out and around the area, all the traffic that's in there that I'm not comfortable moving the land use forward.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:25:10Yeah, I I agree with you. I we have over an abundance of apartments, so And the road's already in failure, so

   Oakley

   1:25:18You're on a six lane road right in front of this project.

   1:25:23True, but is six lines enough? We'll

   MarianoChair

   1:25:25go to the traffic that's out there.

   Oakley

   1:25:27How you gonna add the other apartments I just talked about?

   MarianoChair

   1:25:30And I got more coming down the street having built that. There's tons of them out there and it's it's just loaded with traffic. I get calls all the time about it and comments all the time about it. Yeah. So

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:25:41the tough part is is step sorry, Jim. The tough part is on this issue.

   1:25:50It diminishes the traffic count pretty significantly from what's currently approved on the site. Um always bearing in mind the challenges that you bring up on fifty four.

   1:26:06That way. There you go. Um wow.

   1:26:12I hear you said better than coffee.

   Starkey

   1:26:13Put it back where it was.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:26:14So the the the the tough part on this is is with staff saying that it Taking the traffic situation the traffic situation at hand and the staff is Said it's gonna bring down traffic volumes with this with this plan, which I do think it complements what's going in with mister Mitchell's process project across the street, especially with the red light. But the traffic the traffic argument alone I I don't know if we're gonna receive another another plan that comes in that's going to have

   1:26:46a lesser impact on the traffic situation. So I mean Kinda is what it is at this point. So It I don't know what what way to cut it, how many different ways to negotiate this This project for what it is.

   1:27:04Thing.

   1:27:07I don't know. Either way it's gonna impact traffic no matter what. And again It's difficult.

   1:27:17The board, I think, needs to be careful to hold properties hostage in these types of situations, which we're going to come up against. Because It's almost like if you're first you got in And whenever a property owner wants to sell or or or evolve their property then they're being punished, if you will, That no you can't do it because the road's already full. That's a tough it's a tough position to be in all the way around, but I just see more scenarios like this coming forward as

   1:27:47Pasco grows. So just something that I think about and I just figure I'd opine on on that. Commissioner Yeager.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:27:55One point is that it's been our board's position to protect our employment areas. And and that's what I would have to say to that, is that we do have a big parcel that something could go there, a big employment generator. Whereas We really don't need any more apartments.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:28:20So then in that's the case, so then traffic the traffic argument would be off the table then. Which is which is the argument that's before us right now. Is the big argument is oh fifty four is full. Well the use alternative of this Que Namie It's gonna potentially bring way more traffic than what this project could. So unless there's some other professional opinions out there that that say otherwise, if you're looking at The big part of the decision being based on the volume the new potential new volume of traffic on

   1:28:50this stretch of fifty-four.

   1:28:54Then that goes the other way.

   MarianoChair

   1:28:55So You know. L let me give you my stuff a little bit more, M Commissioner Wecause when you look at it's it's there's a few facets to it. And first of all we've been hearing for years all these traffic studies about how we're not in trouble with traffic and we look and we know there's traffic there and we get evidence from stitch constituents that say it's jam-packed with traffic but they say it's okay. What I look at is this is a commercial site. It's got I L to the side. c a park to the side a mobile home park to the side. On the land use

   1:29:25part. where we have all the flexibility to say we like it or we don't like it. This is one to say If we're gonna create jobs to take care of all the other residential you know was going all around there. And I've got plenty of apartments going up and down the road. And I got plenty of traffic now, never mind how it's gonna get worse and worse. If I can create jobs there I'm gonna say depending on what what goes on there as well, it'll help not only economically, but I think it goes actually the other way with it, even though data will show two different things. It's commercial piece of property. We're supposed

   1:29:55to be tr protecting our tax base, even with what this does for Taking away j it'll take away jobs, number one. Why do we want to take away jobs? We want people working here. We're still f at forty percent of our people leaving to go somewhere else. I want to see that number go down and to take away a prime set of property that's so accessible to so many people. that to go put apartments in it when I can create jobs. I want to see the jobs. Commissioner Oakley.

   Oakley

   1:30:23Just in what you said right then, uh you're telling me that We shouldn't improve this because it's gonna bring in more traffic. The road can't handle any more traffic. So Ms. Starkey's gonna come in a month from now or two months from now, wanting her apartments to come in. We're gonna say no also then and we're gonna say no to the next group with the Mitchells.

   1:30:48Oh it's already approved. Okay.

   1:30:56Already been approved. Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:30:58And

   Oakley

   1:30:59and just FYI for what's so they don't create any problem that causes everybody from this point on not to be able to build apartments.

   MarianoChair

   1:31:07I'm I'm gonna say that, Commissioner Oakley, I've I've heard out there that people have had enough apartments. They don't want to see any more. And if I'm gonna take good commercial property, and go turn it to more apartments. That's not what I'm hearing out there that the folks want to do. And in the land use plan, with what we have in front of us, we don't have to approve it. Based upon what we see in front of us. And I tell you, if I think you were at the economic development program with Commissioner Starkey too, and you you saw a slide in there saying there's actually an oversaturation now with apartments. There's starting to get to be too

   1:31:38many. And I'm gonna tell you. From what's even coming our way, I think we're gonna see more than we need anyway. So do I need more? No. Do I want to see more jobs? Yes. I want to find the same thing. So we're going to put a

   Oakley

   1:31:48moratorium on apartments from this day forward?

   MarianoChair

   1:31:51I'm telling you right now, we're dealing with a land use issue right now. This is do I want to take two million square feet of office commercial space and go down to five percent? I'm going to say no. I don't want to see it go.

   WeightmanVice Chair

   1:32:03Mr. Chairman Mariano. I just don't think that's right. So it's closed. Right now this this situation is not looking at this up. pro apartment or for you know, for or against apartments. This comes down to the state of traffic and the congestion with what's going on around it. And so either accept the fact that 54 is full, and we're gonna continue to be essentially, you know, up against making decisions on 54. And taking the traffic argument out that DOT

   1:32:34did not construct this road the right way, and we just have to live with it, this board and future boards. So the decision today at hand is you approve a project that creates less traffic on 54, which everybody is well aware of. Or it doesn't get approved. And then whatever project comes in creates more traffic on fifty-four, and then that's just

   1:32:58And so my my my viewpoint on this is the traffic situation. 'Cause we're going to continue to hear about the traffic situation, whether you're on east of forty one or or or west of forty one on fifty four, you're going to hear the similar story all along. So That's my position on this piece and on this decision today. And you know, I'd rather you hear people they wanna have lesser traffic, but For the record, it's not a good thing. Not

   1:33:28for or against the right-of-way. The product type. Fifty-four, I think our decision, my decisions and staffs out there is gonna be based upon the volume of traffic of projects that'll be added to fifty-four. So the context in my mind that's

   1:33:46That's really good. what I'm thinking about, but I don't think there's any way any way around it. So

   1:33:53I guess it's two two.

   MarianoChair

   1:33:55Um Mr. County Attorney. Just as a point of order, I guess. Um we did public comment. We ended public comment. I didn't give the applicant a chance to speak. Should I have? Or did I need to because there was no input from the public?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:34:08There was

   MarianoChair

   1:34:08no input from the public.

   1:34:11So there's so it's to the board. Yes. No. Sorry.

   Steve Booth

   1:34:15Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a comment if I could.

   MarianoChair

   1:34:19I don't think it's appropriate. Mr. County Attorney?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:34:23It's uh that's completely up to the board whether you whether you want to hear from

   MarianoChair

   1:34:26the applicant's lawyer. Uh because we didn't get a chance at null, I'll give you a chance to speak.

   Steve Booth

   1:34:31Thank you. Um as far as the traffic issue is concerned. I think your professional staff is saying that it's gonna m reduce the traffic. And it's not, in my opinion, pertinent to think to say, well people out there don't like the traffic the way it is and therefore I'm gonna ignore what the staff has to say. Additionally about the job situation I um had not previously seen the letter For

   1:35:01Mike Irvin. The um CEO of HCA Hospital, which is just up the street, by far by far the largest employer in the area and one of the largest uh in the county. And he specifically says he supports this project.

   1:35:23as it will provide additional housing options for our fifteen hundred plus employees. So you're talking about housing then That The CEO of the hospital just up the street would like to see. because it would provide additional options for his employees and I would submit that many, many, many of those jobs at the hospital are high paying jobs. And then

   1:35:53the staff also said that the office that the s that the applicant agreed to on the front portion of the the commercial in the office would likewise generate high paying jobs. So that I really believe that both of those issues have been adequately addressed and should be considered in this application. Thank you. Thank you.

   MarianoChair

   1:36:20And I'll and I'll go back to uh I have considered all of that. Um When I consider again, two million square feet of Commercial that can go there could create a lot of jobs. even all sorts of doctors office, et cetera, to go in there. Now we're shorting ourselves to five percent of that total. For that reason. Forget your traffic even. Um I want to see the commercial jobs here and there's a great chance for a great office park. We we saw from Lane Mendelssohn over in Wesley Chapel There's

   1:36:50no office space where he's at trying to expand out. He can't expand out. I gotta think Trinity's the same type of thing and the same gentleman that's out there with that that could have built an office park there is willing to do something here. Um I think the potential for something much better than just more apartments in the area.

   Oakley

   1:37:07Mr. Chairman Mariano.

   MarianoChair

   1:37:08Commissioner Oakley.

   Oakley

   1:37:11Uh The word about the hospital down the street, fifteen hundred employees, they need extra apartments in the area to house their working force. and for those nurses and all that actually traveled into the area to work. And then they're close by, very close by to the facility they'll be working on.

   MarianoChair

   1:37:32And as we've heard there can be a lot of apartments close by already and there's even more right down the street that aren't far away either.

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:37:37And

   MarianoChair

   1:37:37I believe there's

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:37:38still a

   MarianoChair

   1:37:39building

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:37:39in those apartments as well that are not full. Didn't I have a motion to say?

   MarianoChair

   1:37:44We have a motion to second. Should we call the roll?

   Oakley

   1:37:47I moved to approve and he's seconded.

   MarianoChair

   1:37:49Aye, should we call the roll?

   Oakley

   1:37:50District one.

   Starkey

   1:37:51District one, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey abstains. District four, Commissioner Yeager. No. District five, Chairman Mariano.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:38:04Nay. Two two. You need a majority to approve a comp plan amendment, so it would die for In fact they're a majority you don't have a majority. So no need to get the other zoning either then. You need you Basically you can deny the zoning based on the fact that it it you would have to deny the zoning based on the fact that it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Do I have a motion for P forty four?

   YeagerSecond Vice Chair

   1:38:31I

   1:38:34Move to approve? No, you would

   1:38:35have to

   1:38:36move to move to deny to deny P forty four. Yes.

   MarianoChair

   1:38:40Okay, I will second the motion.

   1:38:45All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Nay.

   Starkey

   1:38:49I abstain.

   1:38:50No

   1:38:51record.

   MarianoChair

   1:38:57Mm-hmm. We'd have to I mean we just had a motion to deny as for land denied. We go back to the other way and get a motion to approve, we're gonna have the same denial. No, it's the same thing. It's not a it's

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:39:08you don't have a major we don't have a majority to deny it or approve it. So it just dies. So

   Starkey

   1:39:13it dies. Yeah. For the record with uh Commissioner Starkey abstaining again. Yes. All right.

4. 4Apr 7, 2026
   GeneralC18Consent agendaApproved

   An Ordinance Amending The Pasco County Comprehensive Plan; Providing For A Notice of Denial of Comprehensive Plan Amendment To The Future Land Use Map (Map 2- 15 And Sheet 19) From COM (Commercial) To PD (Planned Development) On Approximately 15.36 Acres Of Real Property Located On The North Side Of SR 54 Approximately .3 Miles Southeast Of The Intersection Of SR 54 And Starkey Blvd; And A Text Amendment Creating Subarea Policy FLU 7.1.80 – Blackwell Mixed-Use PD; And A Map Amendment To The Future Land Use Map 2-9 Adding Subarea Map 2-9(80) - CPAS23(26) Blackwell Mixed-Use PD; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; And Providing For Additional Text Amendments As Necessary For Internal Consistency; Providing For A Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. PD

   Approved minutes

   Approved Staff’s recommendation with Commissioner Starkey abstaining from the vote due to a conflict of interest.

   Open this item →No recording