P-71 Gagney MPUD multifamily and commercial continuation
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
What was said
Machine transcription of 2m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 91% of 11 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
P71. We have proved publication, Tampa Bay Times, June 24th, 2026, supplemented by an affidavit of certified mailings and site questions.
Item P71 is PDE 267832. This is a zoning amendment in the name of Gagney Robert H. Trust, Gagney MPD Master Plan Unit Development. The rezoning request from an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to an MPD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow for the development of 300 multifamily apartment units and 30,000 square feet of commercial uses and associated infrastructure south in Southeast Pasco County. Located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Chansey Road and Gull Boulevard, containing approximately 18.63 acres.
And like similar to the comprehensive plan amendment since the publication, this item was requested by the applicant to be continued to the 9, September 9, Dade City meeting at 1.30 p.m.
Okay.
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to P seventy one and to the item today? I mean excuse me. Yeah, P seventy one today. But keep in mind if you do speak today, you may not be able to speak at the next hearing.
We do have one person signed up uh in advance online for this item.
Okay. Is that person still there?
We're checking now. No. Okay.
No? Okay. Okay. So no one from the public coming forward? No one online? To the board? Move approval.
Second. Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And item P72, do we have proof?