PDE-26-7882

Every appearance2 of 2 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. 78% of 158 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

1. 1Oct 16, 2025
   Planning CommissionPC3Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Zoning Amendment (Consent) - … 20,000 Square Feet of Select I-1 Light Industrial Park … on Approximately 1.80 Acres

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:18:31
   ▶ 1:18:3124m

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:18:31Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. Kurt Syrerson of Planning Development and Academy Pro.

   GreyChair

   1:18:37We have to have some silence back there if you don't mind w prime present.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:18:44Thank you, sir. Go ahead. Good afternoon, Planning Commission Members. I'm Kurt Siverson of Planning Development and Economic Growth, presenting the Rowan Industrial MPD item PDE

   Barbara

   1:18:54267882. Located in West Pasco County, the site's location is illustrated by the Red Star. We're in Commissioner Yeager's district.

   1:19:06Petition today is a rezoning request from a PO two professional office district to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development. For the maximum development of a 20,000 square foot building following the I-1 light industrial uses of LDC Section 528.

   1:19:23In red, we see the MPD boundary, located immediately east of Rowan Road, approximately 400 feet north of the Rowan Road and Plath Road intersection. This site is abuting immediately south of Alderman Lane, a private residential roadway. The development does not propose a connection nor utilization of Alderman.

   1:19:44The site maintains a PO two professional office zoning classification, the boundary illustrated in in pink. The current future land use is res six, residential six dwelling units per gross acre, illustrated in pink. a change to the future of land use by small scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAS twenty four Parentheses eleven, petitions to amend the site's future land use classification from Res six to I L Industrial Lite supporting the MPUD user. The comprehensive plan amendment has been given

   1:20:15in a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission and it heads to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption slated for the twelve nine public hearing. The Ron Industrial MPD has been conditioned that the MPD requires adoption of such comprehensive plan amendment by condition of approval number 35, reading this MPD shall not be effective until the corresponding industrial future land use classification change is effective.

   1:20:43Here's our context map. The surrounding built environment of prospective Rowan industrial MPD is characterized by both residential communities and a non-residential development pattern. The residential users are primarily single-family detached homes and multifamily residential complexes. The non residential pattern here is mostly comprised of commercial users. A butting immediately south is a business user. At the intersection of Ron and Plath is a gas station. East of the site we observed the Cody River Elementary School. A quarter

   1:21:13mile south is a Marine Corps facility and a quarter mile north are multiple commercial users.

   1:21:20Here's our MPD master plan. The master plan illustrates the site as one parcel, boundary in red. which is inclusive of the total 1.8 acres. Requested is a maximum entitlement of 20,000 square feet, and the SONT uses are the I-1 light industrial uses LDC section 528. access of the subject development as illustrated by the arrows on Rowan Road.

   1:21:46A variation has been requested by the applicant. From LDC section eight oh five, specifically eight o five point six, restrictions on post-development wetlands and upland buffers within residential lots and non-residential parcels. The request is to ensure parcel owner maintains and is responsible for the open space, drainage areas, common areas, landscape areas, wetland areas, buffer areas, preservation, conservation areas, and other special purpose areas without plating or conveyance to a CDD. PDE is

   1:22:16amenable to this request as it accomplishes the intent of Veto 5.6, being that maintenance of this area takes place even without a CDD. Yeah. In conclusion, PDE recommends approval of rezoning petition item PDE twenty-six seventy-eight eighty-two. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm here if you have any questions. You want to

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:22:34address this petition that was handed out?

   Barbara

   1:22:37Yes, sir.

   1:22:41applicant has voluntarily agreed to remove uses of the I One zoning district. By approval of this M Penny for Pasco. I intended For the applicant to

   1:22:58But The applicant has agreed voluntarily to forego the following uses of the I-1 Sony District. Boat manufacturing, laundry or clothes cleaning or dyeing establishments, crematory, recycling operations, shooting ranges, medical waste disposal facilities, auction houses, construction and demolition debris disposal facilities. yard trash disposal facilities, and wholesale storage

   1:23:28of chemicals, gasoline or liquefied petroleum gas.

   GreyChair

   1:23:35Any questions? Applicant present. Is anyone here to object? Okay.

   1:23:44Yeah.

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:23:46Good afternoon again. Barbara Wilhite, sixty-three, twenty-seven Grand Boulevard. The change to condition 25 came as a result of our neighbor, Mr. Kohler, Mr. Dan Kohler, contacted the county, the county contacted me. Mr. Girardi actually talked to Mr. Kohler, who's one of our neighbors, and he actually they discussed these particular uses that are in the code as being concerns. So we took every one of those uses that were discussed between Mr. Girardi and Mr. Kohler and put them into this. Yeah. Um so that's

   1:24:17how this came to be. Um and I did hand out to Mr. Kohler d to him this this list and he's gonna speak. Um I know he has a few things he wants to ask still um but I think this is agreeable to him. But let's let him speak if if we could and then uh we'll do any follow-up uh after that.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:24:33Just For clarity, can you explain why this came in as an M P D instead of a just Euclidean I One district?

   Barbara Wilhite

   1:24:40Sure. So the Iowan district has um a hundred and fifty foot setback which kills a lot of industri it's an industrial killing um uh open yard requirement. I the staff is had it on their list and I to update that requirement. But we had to bring it forward as an M PUD. We actually our COM plan came to you a long time ago, the Complan to Industrial and it's been sitting while we had to come for an MPUD. I know staff is working on amending that section of the code because By

   1:25:11definition, light industrial doesn't have adverse impacts. That's what's the difference between by code, light industrial and heavy industrial. Light industrial doesn't have. adverse impacts where it wouldn't be allowed. it would have to be a heavied industrial. So you have this difference between saying that light industrial can't have advert adverse impacts, but then requiring very, very large open yard setbacks. which don't in my opinion have much of a purpose. So we had what we did in this case is we built Here's where this property is, here's how big it is, here's what's

   1:25:41around it, and we built The setbacks and the buffering to the property and to this particular project. And that took a while to bring forward and was quite expensive for the client. Hopefully you'll get where you'll be updating your code with staff so that we don't have these issues with industrial and we have a more appropriate setback for light industrial, but that's the reason why you see this as an MPUD. And

   1:26:12I'll have a variance Well I I did a variance not too long ago regarding this issue, um and I have another one coming up. So Um I'm hopeful to work with staff to bring forward a fixed the code so we don't have to do some of these things that are take time and cost property owners quite a bit of money.

   GreyChair

   1:26:31Okay, any questions?

   School District Representative

   1:26:34I have a question for David. Let's look at conditioned five. Can you look at that and then I'm not sure why we're involved in it and the counties involved in it.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:26:47Hold on.

   1:27:03So I think that's just saying that whatever association they create. First of all, they're having a they have an exception at the very end of this that says they're not gonna do this for Um If it's all under one ownership, which but they're probably going to do. Okay. But the reference to the school board just says that any common association or C D D not include school board property.

   School District Representative

   1:27:31Right.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:27:32That's just standard language. Yeah,

   1:27:34okay. Just

   1:27:34want to make sure in all zoning conditions to make sure that you're not subject to any C D or HOA assessments. Okay. That's for your benefit.

   School District Representative

   1:27:44Yeah.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:27:45Unless you want to start paying those.

   GreyChair

   1:27:47No. Mm-hmm. Well you're gonna start paving a road and just trying to get on it trying to get my favorite.

   School District Representative

   1:27:55Stop asking questions.

   GreyChair

   1:27:58Chris doesn't ask those questions.

   1:28:01Okay, I think we have one person that wanted to speak. If you want to come forward, please. State your name and address.

   Linda Farmer

   1:28:12Mm.

   Dan Kohler

   1:28:14Good afternoon. My name is Dan Kohler, [address removed]. If it's possible, if they can bring up to Google a map picture of the pro said property, this will give you guys a little bit of insight.

   GreyChair

   1:28:23Sure.

   Dan Kohler

   1:28:30Okay, can you zoom in a little bit? Okay, so if you z see what a yellow dot is, you're gonna see that house right there. That's my house. Five years ago, six years ago, I don't know the exact date. Deep construction was involved. They went ahead and got preliminary plans involved with a said retention pond. That is my biggest concern, which I know it has nothing to do with you guys at this point. It's in reference to the rezoning. I did talk with them, they worked with me. Extremely happy. They met my requirements. I'm extremely happy. My biggest thing goes out to Mr. Moody. I understand he's in stormwater. I'm only concerned is when I built my property. That

   1:29:00wasn't there yet. They had a a preliminary plan and set to put their retention pond at Alderman and Rowan. Problem with that is my Leechfield is seventy five feet from that said location. So I understand that's not your problem. I'm just concerned about the setbacks that they're asking for. If I understand correctly, I had wetlands on my property, I was not allowed no setbacks. I just want to make sure it meets the building codes. The and then I want to make sure the land development code is going to be enforced and

   1:29:31not given extra room to commercialize this because this is an investment, guys. This isn't their home. That wiped out my savings to build my home for me, my wife, and my grandchildren. if they go with that said property and they're not held to setbacks for wetlands, for drainage What does that do to me? Does it take out my leech field? I have nowhere to put my leech field. My leash failed could not go into backyard per the health department for the reason of setbacks due to wetlands. So I just don't oppose it as long as they're not given more room than

   1:30:01what I wasn't allowed to have when I built and when I asked for room. Because mine was a nightmare to get my house built on said land. And I had to jump to a ton of hoops. So I don't want them to be given extra room to maximize their profit and maximize their portfolio. at a work and man's loss. I don't have twenty grand to relocate. That's my only concern. But otherwise I don't appeal it. I'm for the growth, I'm for Development in our community, that's how we make money and that's how our economy grows. But we also can't maximize that lot. if

   1:30:32it's gonna affect my lot. because we also have another big development that's coming directly behind it that just got funded. and that's gonna be the commons at Spirit's Village. So we also gotta take that into effect. So I'm not opposed it. I just don't like the wetland setback to maximize what they're building a lot is.

   Connected City

   1:30:49So Which property's yours again?

   Dan Kohler

   1:30:51I'm the corner lot.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:30:53So right there with the arrows, right? Yes sir. So we're gonna be careful here because I think the preliminary plan that you're talking to before I was built.

   1:31:03So I'm gonna speak in generalities.

   1:31:08Two things. 626, which is the section of the Florida Administrative Code that controls septic systems, doesn't allow a retention pond within 15 feet. The high water mark. of the retention pond and that septic system.

   Dan Kohler

   1:31:24Yes. Yes. And we're benchmarked, I think, at like twenty-something inches already. So that's my that was my only concern.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:31:31Very common. And I'll you'll have to ask Mr. Girardi, because I think he was the engineer for that system. But it's not uncommon. When you go to the water management district and get a permit for a retention pond, if there are nearby septic systems that they ask you to provide. A groundwater mounding analysis that demonstrates that the groundwater mound created by the retention pond does not intercept or inters interfere with the operation of the septic system.

   1:32:01That's also common with wells too. Yeah,

   Dan Kohler

   1:32:03because my wells also, I think, a hundred and

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:32:05fifty. Other than that, I can't speak to the specifics, but I

   Dan Kohler

   1:32:07think

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:32:08Jamie did design that.

   Dan Kohler

   1:32:09Yeah, so that's like I said, I'm pro it. I'm not against it. Like I said, my only thing I am gonna object to is the variance of them, so they're maxing out the lot. Because I was held back because I'm wetlands my back half my yard and my neighbor's wetlands half backyard. He had thirty seven feet of water in his backyard, I had twenty three feet of my water in my backyard in the last storm we had last year. So I think we need to make sure it's gonna fit that property before we okay and say, hey, they can maximize a lot. And then what does it do to the water coming down Alderman Lane and where does that water get directed

   1:32:40to?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:32:41One, we're in the zoning portion here. We're not looking at the site specific design. We're looking at whether the zoning is appropriate and compatible with the area and this is an uh the right place to put this type of zoning. But I can assure you Good. They have a lot of hoops to jump through to get approvals to build. We have a fifteen hundred plus page land development code. And then they have all of Chapter sixty two three thirty

   1:33:11of the Florida Administrative Code dealing with stormwater to deal with. They've got transportation issues they're gonna have to deal with, utility issues they're gonna have to deal with They're not going to get a license to pave the site from one end to the other and start building that tomorrow. There's going to be a lot of eyes that look at this before this is

   Dan Kohler

   1:33:33all approved. Which which I understand and going back to what you said, I understand it's not a site approval, but the approval they're asking for is also a zone verif uh variance, if I understand correctly.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:33:44Well they're asking for some variations from the code, one of those being that they don't have to put any wetlands on the site under the control of a homeowners association or C D D because this is intended to be a one owner site, so there won't be a homeowners association or a C D D. They're not proposing I haven't heard any proposal in here to fill any wetlands or Anything like that. So

   Dan Kohler

   1:34:11even though to clarify 'cause I'm a glass guy, I'm not. Building. Even rezoning is not gonna change, they'll still be held to said land development codes, correct?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:34:23Okay, can I I just want to clarify one thing? Okay. So part of this process, the one arguable deviation they're doing i in terms of setbacks is the hundred and fifty foot setback, but I believe that's only to the east. Is that right, staff? I don't think they're changing s somebody tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they're changing any Is it going back or required setbacks to the north. 'Cause his property is to the north, correct? Yes.

   1:34:52Are are is d are the setbacks they're requesting for the north side of their property any different than what The code would normally

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:35:00require. No, sir. The variation would be to their eastern M F two neighbor, which ordinarily applied by five twenty eight would require a hundred and fifty feet of open space for

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:35:11industrial.

   1:35:14Let

   Dan Kohler

   1:35:14me

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:35:14pull up my agenda memory.

   Dan Kohler

   1:35:17Because I like that's my biggest car, is my leech field. Otherwise they've been great to deal with. I just don't want to have an issue gets built six months down the road after they build.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:35:27I hear you. I do. I hear ya. But I'm gonna tell you this. I have one hundred percent confidence in that gentleman over there who's the engineer for the site. And that's why you guys are on the board.

   1:35:41Who takes his job and his responsibilities lightly. Um He's not somebody that I've known has ever flooded anybody or

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:35:50Well but I'm not even sure that's the right-of-way. You're voting on something that's what he's thinks maybe it m is happening. He's saying he doesn't want us to grant some deviations from the code.

   1:36:08deviation that you're arguably granting is is the setback to the east.

   Dan Kohler

   1:36:14Yeah, the two eject the only the only two things I had to conditional that there's actually three total was the one which we talked, we agreed to that so that's the addendum. That was our discussion yesterday, which is amazing. And then my other two was the variance, just get clarification on the variance to make sure that they can't max out that lot, and then it ends up 65 feet from my leech field. And then I just wanted to make sure they're still gonna be held to the

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:36:36clear, they are requesting.

   1:36:42And

   Dan Kohler

   1:36:42not west side. I'm

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:36:43not

   Dan Kohler

   1:36:43sure

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:36:43how that

   Dan Kohler

   1:36:44affects you though. We weren't given that information. I didn't see that. That's why I'm asking clarification on it.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:36:53a clarification? Yeah. And maybe it's better asked for staff. The zoning map shows that the property to the east is M F two, which is a Residential type zoning. Yes. Okay. And the property to the north that this gentleman lives on, according to the map that's in our agenda memo, is Agricultural residential.

   1:37:18It's my understanding that the hundred and fifty foot clear yard setback applies to those areas adjacent to residential. So is staff considering that agricultural and or is it being considered residential?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:37:34I believe they consider it residential. Agricultural because they only identify but I'll let staff answer because they only alerted to me that there was an issue to the east.

   1:37:45But I this is not this is a staff question, 'cause the the write up only says that that the hundred and fifty foot yard would normally only be required to the east.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:37:59Warrior in Vermillion Planning Development Economic Growth. The the code defines agricultural district to include AR agricultural residential. So it it's considered by the code to be an agricultural district.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:38:14free clear yard set back to the agricultural zoning.

   Planning and Development staff

   1:38:19Correct. And so what Kurt and Ms. Wilhite did was a type B buffer consistent with the nine oh five two matrix. the buffering in between industrial and residential. Okay. And that buffer's fifteen feet. Fifteen feet and then a twenty five foot setback.

   Unidentified speaker

   1:38:35Is

   Connected City

   1:38:36that from the property line? line?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:38:37Yes,

   Connected City

   1:38:37sir. So it'd be a total of forty. Okay.

   GreyChair

   1:38:40Excuse me, but uh Jamie, you're the engineer for the project. Can you come up and clarify? Yeah. Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:38:48Uh Jamie Girardi, Regency Design and Engineering, nine four zero zero. River Crossing Boulevard, suite one oh two, New Port Richey. Um Just to clarify a couple things just for the record. The yes we did do the design The original design was done in two thousand and ten, and clearly the conditions out there today are much different than they were then. that prior approval is no longer good. We're gonna have to go back in and repermit the project through the County's land development code and with Swift Mud in

   1:39:18the Water Management District and the state rules that John mentioned earlier. So This site is gonna be looked at again. There's a lot of things out there that are different that we're gonna have to take into account. And trust me, the the agencies will give me plenty hard time.

   GreyChair

   1:39:33Okay, but you're you're agreeing that the the setback requirement is not affecting the northern boundary.

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   1:39:40Mm-hmm. Well I mean again the the setback I mean they they said the setback was from the property line and we're gonna be far enough away from his leech field that the building setback is not gonna affect his leech field.

   GreyChair

   1:39:51That's the only thing he seems to be concerned about. Well

   Connected City

   1:39:54or stormwater.

   Dan Kohler

   1:40:02Then as long as Which they did. They agreed to the addendum which we did today for the conditions. I don't oppose because he explained to me and Mr. Moody said there's still gonna be held to the land development code. Then I don't oppose it now.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:40:13I still don't think staff answered my question. The setback on the north side Is it the same setback that they would have had to comply with if this had just been a normal Euclidean district?

   1:40:30I I can't tell. So I'm

   GreyChair

   1:40:32asking

   1:40:32you.

   1:40:36property.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:40:37I I'm I've accepted staff's answer that it doesn't require a hundred and fifty-foot Mm. requ but I but I'm asking w the whatever setback is you are imposing, what is it consistent with what we would normally require in the code?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:40:56This would be I one, David. Yes. Chris Hyerson

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   1:41:01is

   1:41:01a good question.

   1:41:01Yes, it is consistent. The 25 feet is consistent with the 528 front setback, in addition to a type B buffer, which is also consistent of 905. Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:41:15To answer the gentleman's question, you're he you're the applicant's not requesting any Deviation from what would be the normally required setback on the North Share. Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:41:25Thank you. And just to point something out too. The reason that it's twenty five feet on the north side is this is a corner lot which has two front yards and two side yards. had Alderman Lane not been there, then it would have been a side yard setback of only fifteen feet. But because that street's there, it's twenty five, plus he still has the width of the street. Which functions as a setback 'cause Alderman Lane is unimproved and impassable. Right.

   GreyChair

   1:41:56Okay.

   1:42:01All right. Was there anybody else that needed to speak? If not, I hear a motion. Move approval. Second. Second. We have a motion of second further discussion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.

   Connected City

   1:42:13Aye.

   GreyChair

   1:42:13Opposed, like,

   Connected City

   1:42:14sign. Motion carries. Thank you. With the note that Mr. Girardi has abstained, of course.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:42:20Well, and can the motion make a clarify that's with the revised condition. Oh yes.

   Connected City

   1:42:24Yeah. So I'll amend that motion to include the revised condition twenty-five.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:42:29Still second. We still vote aye. Aye. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

   GreyChair

   1:42:41Okay.

2. 2Dec 9, 2025
   Board of County CommissionersP87Public hearingApproved

   Approved minutes

   Approved the Public Hearing Consent Agenda which included Agenda Items P87 and P88.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 1:12:45
   ▶ 1:12:453m

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:12:45P eighty seven.

   Madam Clerk

   1:12:47P87, proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, October 1st, 2025, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

   Oakley

   1:12:57Niktarios Pitos Playing Development Economic Growth. P eighty seven is PDE 267882. This is a zoning amendment in the name of Rowan Industrial MPUD Master Plan Unit Development by Rowan Road LLC. It's a rezoning request from a PO2 professional office district to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development to allow for the development of 20,000 square feet of Select I-1 Light Industrial Park District Unit. Uses and associated infrastructure of approximately one point eight acres. This comes to you with the recommendation to approve the

   1:13:27proposed zoning amendment subject to attached conditions of approval. This is the companion to the earlier comprehensive plan amendment that you uh that you heard. There's a presentation if if so desired. Commission Waven?

   1:13:42You wanna ask about the local?

   WeightmanSecond Vice Chair

   1:13:44Oh.

   1:13:46Yeah.

   Oakley

   1:13:47Now we're guessing.

   WeightmanSecond Vice Chair

   1:13:50It was on there from the last it no this is a companion. So this was on here from um

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:13:56That's where it should be in the M P D. Right. Not not in the Completes.

   WeightmanSecond Vice Chair

   1:14:02So we're we're loaded, locked and loaded on Live Local here?

   Oakley

   1:14:08Number four.

   WeightmanSecond Vice Chair

   1:14:09Thank you, Chairman

   Oakley

   1:14:10Mariano. Yes. Oh condition number thirty one, yes. Thank you. Okay.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:14:16Anyone like a presentation? Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:14:22This is on consent, so

   1:14:25Um If you just

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:14:28agenda, you guys have threw me your way off.

   1:14:31All right, so consent agenda. Is there any opposition? Anyone in the audience? Anyone line?

   Madam Clerk

   1:14:39No one online.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:14:40Okay, we'll leave it on consent. And P eighty eight.

   Madam Clerk

   1:14:4588 proof of publication Tampa Bay Times October 22nd, 2025, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

   Oakley

   1:14:54P eighty eight is PDE 260023. This is a comprehensive plan amendment in the name of CPA 2504 Herod Sandy Lakes. This is providing for transmittal to of a comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps 2-15 and Sheet 19, changing from RES 9, residential 9 dwelling units per gross acre, and I L Industrial Light to IL Industrial Light on approximately 75. five point zero one seven acres of real property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Interlocken

   1:15:24Road and Gunn Highway. Uh this comes to you with a recommendation to authorize the transmittal of the proposed company supply amendment to the Department of Commerce and other reviewing agencies. There is a presentation if so desired.

   WeightmanSecond Vice Chair

   1:15:37Anyone on a presentation? No, Chair, just normal question, I know the answer, but Live Locals. Time

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:15:43on this one. Thank you, Terry. And any opposition from the audience? Anyone online?

   Madam Clerk

   1:15:50No one online.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:15:51All right, leave that on consent agenda. Maybe a motion for the consent agenda. So move. Second.

   Madam Clerk

   1:15:56Second.

   MarianoVice Chair

   1:15:57All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? P eighty nine.