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.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionAdopted
Approved to adopt by a roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Dec 9, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Dec 9, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-26-0021 in full →Heard once. PDE-26-0021 appears on no other agenda in the archive.
- Dec 9, 2025BoardP81▶Adoptedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 4m of recording, 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.
Aye. Item P eighty one.
P eighty one, proof of publication, Tampa Bay Times, November 19, 2025, and by affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.
Item 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.
Okay. Would the board like a presentation? Oh, Mr.
Batman. 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
That's what I'm trying to do. I I I don't think it is, but we'll let the applicant speak to it.
Good 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.
My map are stuck, but what's the zoning to the property directly to the south? Hollywood it's called uh
C2?
The south is uh C one and C two.
What about the north?
The north is AR.
Yeah.
But
it's fun very
funky.
Due 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?
The South already has a building on it, Commissioner.
I'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
Well 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.
Okay. Okay, well that's on there. I'm okay. Okay.
Right. 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
trying to do. Spoil the plans. It would foil their plans. Great terminology. Thank you, Ms. Wellhatt and your Christmas red.
Um can
I 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?
To the south as a business, yes.
Yeah. To the south as a business.
Okay.
I'll
move 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.
District 1, Commissioner Oakley.
Aye.
District 2, Commissioner Weightman. District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Yeager. Aye. District 5, Chairman Mariano.