Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record
PC4No disposition in the minutesPublic hearingPublished agenda

Alternative Standard (Consent) – Lowes – Gunn Highway – Alternative Standard from the Requirements of the Land Development Code, Section 406.1.10.C.1.– Signs, Additional Standards for Permanent Signs in Nonresidential Districts, Wall Signs, to Allow Combining All Wall Signage on the North Building Elevation in a

What the county recorded

No disposition in the minutes

The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.

The source document

Published agenda

The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Nov 20, 2025

The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.

What was said

Transcript

Machine transcription of 1m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 100% of 4 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.

Read it in the meeting →
Jon Moody

All right, uh, we're gonna try and get a little bit back on schedule here. Item PC4 is the first item on the consent agenda. It's PDE 262108. It's an alternative standard in the name of Lowe's Gun Highway. An alternative standard from the requirements of the Land Development Code, section 406.1.10.c.1 signs and additional standards for permanent. Signs in non-residential districts, wall signs, and to allow combining all wall signage on

the north building elevation in a C2 General Commercial District located in south-central Pasco County, approximately 467 feet from the southwest corner of the intersection of Gun Highway and State Road 54, containing approximately 7.95 acres. This is coming with a recommendation of approval with conditions.

Charles GreyChair

All right. Is uh an applicant present? All right, is anybody here to speak against it?

If not, uh we'll leave it on consent. Okay.