Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record

PDE-26-7922

Published agenda

Heard once, at the Planning Commission on Aug 6, 2026.

No final outcomeThe minutes show no disposition for any appearance of this case. That is a gap in the record, not a decision.

Official title

Zoning Amendment (Consent) – Emmaus Commons/11637 Emmaus Cemetery Road – Change in Zoning from an A-R Agricultural-Residential District to a C-2 General Commercial District – East Pasco County – North of County Road 52, Approximately 280 feet Northwest of the Intersection of Mc Cabe Road and State Road 52 – Containing Approximately 1.52 Acres.

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. 36% of 114 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

  1. 1
    Planning CommissionAPC9Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes
    Open this item →
    17m
    Moody

    Item APC 9 is PDE 267922, a zoning amendment in the name of Emmanuel Commons, 11637 Emmanuel Cemetery Road. For a change in zoning from an AR, Agricultural Residential District, to a C2 General Commercial District, located in East Pasco County, on the north side of County Road 52, approximately 280 feet northwest of the intersection of McKinney. Road and State Road 52 containing approximately 1.52 acres and this will be presented by staff.

    GreyChair

    Okay.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Good afternoon. This is Jenny DeCromba with Planning, Development and Economic Growth.

    GreyChair

    I'm sorry, y can you speak right in there and I can't quite understand what you're doing.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    You do not understand me? There? Is there okay?

    GreyChair

    Let's just start over. Should

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    I say that again?

    GreyChair

    Yes.

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    Okay.

    GreyChair

    So

    Unidentified speakerVoice A

    um

    This is

    Item PC9, R zone 7922, as already mentioned, emails comments. The applicant is requesting uh for his owning amendment for s uh Allowing for C to general commercial district uses.

    This is an Euclidean rezon from AR to C2.

    Future land use is R O R. And the purpose is to uh uh allow for C two general commercial district uses. As already mentioned, this is north of County Road 52, approximately 280 feet northwest of Mackay Road and State Road 52 intersection. And the fair share for these substantial road improvements will be determined prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is the

    location within the South Market area, service area.

    Surrounding the context map.

    This is the proposed uh resort from AR to C T.

    A future writers, R or R.

    Resoning.

    Defining to a fact, the site contains a single-family residential home on approximately 152 acres. And the applicant proposes to develop the property in conformance with the Land Development Code, Section 526, C2, General Commercial District Standards. Access to the properties from Email Cemetery Road, a county residential road with approximately 40 feet of right-of-way. Uh

    there are two multi-use paths on the north and the other on the south. From Email Cemetery Road, west and south to Sr fifty two. The applicant has volunteered to record a deed restriction prohibiting residential development of the property and limits the use of this parcel to an eight thousand square feet retail building, pursuing to Land Development Code LDC Section 526.2 permitted uses. And we recommend

    approval to the Board of County Commissioners of this proposed zoning amendment if you have any questions.

    GreyChair

    Okay. Thank you. Any questions or advice?

    Anything? No? All right.

    Yeah, I'm here.

    We'll need your name and address.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Good afternoon, everything's Margaret Rose and Lands Out S partners saying I was already attending Martha's Sweet 100 Florida Night and Sword.

    Here is the city map of the subject property with this approximately one point five acres, so we can just use a section of Code Road fifty two and cemetery road on the west corner. The post-bury zoning is compatible with existing use and use trends. Properties to the west have property to the east has PO2 zoning. The properties to the north have agricultural zoning, and the properties to the south have MPOD and AR zonings. Existing commercial uses along County Road 52 include Eddie's Roller Rink, Marathon Coach, and Extra Space Storage. Along County Road 52,

    there is a site zone for our future Advent Health, a property with commercial entitlements in the Murata CC MPUD. Four acres of commercial entitlements in the Lio at San Antonio MPUD and approximating nine acres of commercial entitlements in the Mavi village MPUD. Just west of the property along State Road 52, there is a Target Fulfillment Center, one Pasco Center, and the Double Branch Mixed Use Development and Abbey Crossings commercial development are under construction.

    Our request is consistent with the future land use classification of Retail Office Residential ROR. All surrounding properties of the flue classification of ROR R of ROR. The ROR future land use area totals approximately 490 acres, of which approximately 120 acres has been utilized for office and commercial uses. Rezoning this property with a C to district will contribute to the mixture of retail, office, and residential uses within this ROR feature

    land use classification.

    Our request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the property is in the South Market area, the Expansion Urban Service Area, and fronts County Road 52, a collector roadway. There is emphasis given to greater intensity and higher densities in these areas as there is existing proposed infrastructure and transit opportunities to support the intensification of these areas per policies flu eight point one point two. and flu 1.1.2.

    Consistent with these field policies, the request for commercial zoning change is appropriate for this property.

    To summarize some of the key findings, staff has found this request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code.

    Staff has found the request to be approvable with conditions, and we have agreed to the Lib Local deed restriction and specific deed restriction to only allow a maximum 8,000 square feet of commercial uses on the property. With that, I'll conclude the presentation and respectfully request your uh your approval. We are available to answer any questions that you may have.

    GreyChair

    Okay. Are there any questions?

    Connected City

    So the eight square feet of retail of um commercial use commercial use of instructions as retail bill. Can you give us a little colour on that?

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Yes. So the detriction is derived from the Italian phasing of transportation analysis.

    So the retail script center is the most ends use permitted AC2 zone in the district. Really reason that we have the eight thousand square foot detriction is due to that much more, um, considering potential offside transportation impact respected the use.

    Connected City

    But otherwise it could be another C Two use, so it could be gas station for example or

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    So that would be determined at say, um applicant would have to complete another timing and phase uh

    Connected City

    retail uses.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Currently.

    Connected City

    Any other questions?

    GreyChair

    Commissioner Oakley.

    Moody

    The only individual I have signal upon on this item is Ms. Mikael Cross.

    GreyChair

    So your name just

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Mikaelo Krause, refined [address removed]. Could have commissioners, I'm a resident here today, and item in KC9. I urge this commission to deny this application by property justice because it represents inappropriate intensification of land use that I find this was a law of land code in a comprehensive plan.

    On page one of this applicant's narrative, it quickly dismisses the significant native habitat that exists on this site today. Intensify the wellness poll violates Pasco County comprehensive plan. Two policy flew to point one point six, which explicitly Irastic county to reach appropriate and usant agents that destroy surrounding rural care, open space, and critical natural resources. Residents in this area like the Muratum moved here as it specifically has the surrounding farm and woods. You know, I'm a common soldiers from based in the neighborhood, but there's a statital disappearance. Again, unpermitted, but sample impact and state law violation. This site contains a flora. The submittal lack required permit from the Department of Agriculture and reserves is under Florida Method Rule 5B-4001.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    What protected floor do you know it's on the site that is being destroyed where you claim it's new as applications?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Um there's this Pine Pine Hill is a little bit more. And it's uh brown. There's also Nive Mandarin oranges and webinar. Um

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    white sugar text though.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Yes. It is gonna be Florida statute title three five or five eighty one section five eighty one point one eight five section one subsection two. Please pay attention to factor B.

    Yes sir.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Okay.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Um

    Chapter five eighty one. Section five eight one one eight five and please get subsection one subsection factor B

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Okay, yeah.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Um also as far as tree preservation and wetland flooding go, the Purple Fails Pasco County Land Development Code Chapter 800, sections eight oh two point one and eight oh two point four for mandatory tree protection. Furthermore, to cite sand and clay soils, it prevents natural percolation for the surface water to pool on the clayer and adding density over the sensitive terrain conflicts with comprehensive Chapter 3 policy CON 1.6

    I'm

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    sorry, are you a registered professional engineer?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I am not sir.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Hydrologist?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    No, I just

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    soil scientist?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I understand. So

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    stating these things are fact and you really don't have direct knowledge of you?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    It it is clay. Like

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    you did soil borings on the site

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I used to you tell

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    engineer?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I'm not I just know it's clay. I plumb the dirt a lot. Um and then uh under Florida statute section 163.3194 development orders must confirm strict strictly to adopted comprehensive plan. Um please enforce policy flu 2.1.6 and deny agenda item APC9. Thank you.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    So oh excuse me. Hold on. So in the statute That you cited. Yes. Just exactly what is the violation you are claiming?

    That the statute offers is protection against evil harvesting. So what constitutes illegal harvesting?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    You're re uh in regards to um thirty five Uh

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    Um

    What do you think harvesting is going on by this project?

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Yes, I exact where you're in the I can picture my brain. That's why I referenced subsection two B. The di it should be the

    Definition It's it's the um It's like malicious destruction of native flora. And I know they're probably not doing it intentionally, but that's what's happening. If

    Connected City

    The statute addresses harvesting. Wanton harvesting.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    There is another part of that sentence.

    Connected City

    Well, I mean we read the first paragraph, legislative declaration, the legislature finds and declares that it shall be the public policy of the state to provide recognition for those plant species native to the state that are endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited, protect the native flora from all unlawful harvesting in both public and privately owned lands. Provide an orderly and controlled procedure for restricted harvesting of native flora from the wild, thus preventing want and exploitation or destruction of native plant populations, encourage the propagation of native

    species of florida flora. and provide the people of the state with the information necessary to legally harvest native plants so that as to ultimately transplant those plants with the greatest possible chance of survival. So this deals with har harvesting and Basically the The poaching of plant species off of the

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    take that one step further. What the statute says. It says that I can't go onto your property and harvest a plant. It doesn't say that I can't harvest the plant on my own property. So is this their their property? And why can't they harvest the plant on their property? Because the statute says they can't. It says I just c the only thing this statute prohibits is me going on your property and harvesting a plant.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    The I was referring to the legal uh I have can I grab it? I have a paper.

    GreyChair

    Are we keeping time on this?

    I don't see any lights. I know we're asking questions.

    GirardiVice Chair

    Legislative declaration commission members asking their questions, it's not account against your time anyway, so

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    I'm trying to figure out if they're removing a plant that you claim is protected from their own property, where are they in violation of this statute? Because this statute does not prevent them, at least not by by my reading. Does not prevent them from harvesting plants on their own property. It prevents them from harvesting such protected plants on other people's property.

    Connected City

    Or in the wild. Which is a little bit of a problem.

    GreyChair

    If that were true, nobody could farm their own property.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I was a I was under the impression that that's where the permit came in. Or they would've got a little bit of a little bit more.

    GreyChair

    Well first of all, we're not giving permits from this board. We're we're only deciding whether there's an appropriate use. They they have other boards and issues they have to overcome besides this board.

    Connected City

    And at site permit they have to make sure that endangered species are protected and we don't really deal with that section of that. But that's not part of our purview.

    Christopher Poole

    They're gonna have to provide a wildlife report at at site plan. Yeah, as

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    I

    Christopher Poole

    not a readress at that time.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    I I get permits for a living and I can assure you you don't do work here without a permit or if you do You'll get a Lovely visit from somebody from Code Enforcement and then someone from Mr. Goldstein's office over here will haul you into court and you'll be fined five hundred dollars per day for every day that violation exists until you correct it. And if you refuse to correct it, you'll be jailed for contempt of court.

    Unidentified speakerVoice C

    Yeah.

    prevent it 'cause it's just

    Christopher Poole

    But you you understand what surrounds it, right? Have you looked at the future land use map for what surrounds that area? Okay, so uh you're you're not really preventing It's it it's there. I mean there's industrial right next to it, it's ROR, it's it there's commercial, it's This is a a little sliver within m hundreds of acres that's adjacent to it.

    Unidentified speakerVoice D

    It's already designated in the comprehensive plan as retail, office, and residential, which is what is being proposed.

    Connected City

    It has been for a number of years.

    Christopher Poole

    We appreciate your pass and we do. But

    Connected City

    He actually looks like you won't brought statutes this time. No, I mean we we appreciate you speaking up and bringing that data, but again you have to prevent present competent evidence. It's just like a court hearing. You have to present competent evidence for us to hear.

    GreyChair

    Was there anyone else to speak on this one?

    Connected City

    You

    GirardiVice Chair

    need to get the output and get rebuttal.

    GreyChair

    Yeah, I just wanted to find out if uh if there's anybody else in the crowd. So um if the applicant would like to come up and answer any of those questions, please or maybe we've answered a lot of them for you, I don't know.

    Unidentified speakerVoice B

    Um thank you, Margaret Prize, for the record. I just want to finish off with the applicant will have to comply with all state and local requirements at the site construction permitting phase.

    GreyChair

    Right. Okay. Thank you. So any other questions from up here? If

    Connected City

    not, uh might be your motion. I'm approval of uh eighty nine. Second.

    GreyChair

    Motion and a second for the ch All in favor? Aye. Aye. Like sign. Okay.