Skip to main content
Pasco Countymeeting record
Not on the published agendaPublic hearingInferred

P-72 Oliveros AR district rezoning and subdivision conditions

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

Transcript

Machine transcription of 7m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 84% of 57 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 →
Kathryn Starkey

Approve for publication, Tampa Bay Times, June 24th, 2026, supplemented by an affidavit of certified mailings and site postings.

Ron Oakley

Item P72 is PDE 267863. This is a zoning amendment in the name of Jorge and Rosa Oliveres. Jorge Oliveras. Oops. This is a change in zoning from an AR agricultural residential district with conditions to an AR agricultural residential district in east central Pasco County on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 98 and approximately 300 feet north of Townsend Road, containing about 3.32 acres. The

site is located within a RES III, res residential three dwelling and square gross acre future land use category. And the applicant has made this application with the intent to subdivide the parcel in conformance with the AR Agricultural Residence Residential District standards for development. Something to note about the location of the site. Oh, I should mention.

This is where it's located uh at the south end of Dade City in unincorporated Fasco County.

This is the subject site. The subject site was subject to an existing, I believe 2005, 2007, somewhere in that time frame, rezoning action that placed a series of conditions on the property regulating the density ultimately on the property. Since then, the property has been subdivided into multiple sites, and the subject site, in order to further subdivide, must be relieved

of the conditions from the 2000s. One thing to note about the site is that it is.

It is at the south, you might say, east corner of the future intersection of what is the uh the big roundabout.

Ron Oakley

You're talking about the new roundabout coming in is just south of

Ron Oakley

coming off of Clinton to the north.

Ron Oakley

There's a big roundabout just to the north of this property.

Right.

Kathryn Starkey

Is that is there gonna be a four lane intersection? Like a

Ron Oakley

Oh it's four lane, Yeah. Where's

Kathryn Starkey

the other four lane? It's

Ron Oakley

continuing ninety eight.

Kathryn Starkey

Ninety eight will be poor lane, but not

Ron Oakley

the roundabout is about at this location.

And the ninety-eight will come up this way and then uh connection from the west. And the intersection is generally this whole area, but the roundabout is here.

Kathryn Starkey

And what's gonna happen to the old part of ninety eight that becomes old US ninety eight or something?

Ron Oakley

It'll stay two lanes.

Kathryn Starkey

It'll stay two lanes. Okay. So this'll become more world.

Ron Oakley

This this is that new alignment when you come down Clinton Avenue and cross over three oh one. And then it goes takes a southern turn back to ninety eight and right before it gets to this area there's a big roundabout. The roundabout is already there. and it it fits in with the four lane of ninety-eight to Lakeland in Pope County. So uh it fits and it it'll work.

Ron Oakley

Uh this is generally the surrounding area. You can sort of see the alignments that Commissioner Oakley was describing.

Kathryn Starkey

Oh so the so the circle is in front of this property. Where's the circle

Ron Oakley

coming?

Oh

Kathryn Starkey

up there. Okay. Okay.

Ron Oakley

This is showing the subject property in Res 3, future land use, which indicates that it is possible to further subdivide the site. This is the AR zoning district, which has a minimum lot size of one acre.

And the subject says three pre as we noted. Uh this is the obvious trade as of 2006, illustrating different parcels that once upon a time were part of the original rezoning action in the 2000s. That subconditions ultimately do not naffly. Uh if we are to allow uh this site subdivide, it would uh remove the ability of other property owners to build involves uh for of their own subdivision. The subject site consists of a mobile home on approximately 3.3 acres. Its access is from US 98. The subject site is located 6,850

feet, quite a bit of distance from the nearest conceptual uh trail, which would be the With Lapucci Trail. Uh the applicant has volunteered to record a local lead restriction on the site, which aims to remove. And we we aim to remove the condition of approval number one in RZ661. There shall be a cap of four dwelling units on the easterly 10.02 acre parcel and a cap of six dwellings on the westerly 4.4 acres for a total of 14 dwelling units. The recommendation here is to approve

the zoning amendment and then direct the planning, development, economic growth department. To process a county-initiated rezoning from an AR agricultural residential district with conditions to an AR agricultural residential district to remove the conditions imposed on the remaining parcels party to rezoning petition number 6618. This was the Planning Commission recommendation that the Planning Development Department is being.

Unidentified speaker

Yeah. Record Jack.

Kathryn Starkey

I

was

listening to Plan Commission meeting. It was very, very lengthy on this discussion, but I think you've arrived at a a good um outcome for the family.

Ron Oakley

So they'll have to keep the right uh setbacks from the lines on these three houses?

Ron Oakley

That's correct. They'll still have to meet the AR zoning tax.

Ron Oakley

Yeah. Okay.

Unidentified speaker

Okay. Okay. Any other questions? No. Right. Um is the applicant here? The applicant wanted to present?

Kathryn Starkey

The only person signed up is the applicant.

Unidentified speaker

Okay. Uh

Kathryn Starkey

move to approve.

Unidentified speaker

Second.

Unidentified speakerVoice A

Yeah.

Kathryn Starkey

Well why why don't you say is anyone here opposed? Maybe he

Unidentified speaker

You want to run the meeting?

Kathryn Starkey

Sure. Is anyone here opposed? Excuse me. All

Jack Mariano

right. So th if the applicant doesn't want to speak, is there anyone here s to that want to speak to this item? Back to the board.

Kathryn Starkey

Move to approval. Second.

Jack Mariano

All in favors.

Unidentified speakerVoice A

I think you didn't want to move staff's recommendation because it's not to approve. Staff was a two-part recommendation. So

Kathryn Starkey

staff's recommendation. Okay. Well

Unidentified speakerVoice A

he made

Kathryn Starkey

the motion and I second.

Unidentified speakerVoice A

I'm good. So the motion is for staff's recommendation. Status recommendation for both

Kathryn Starkey

three posts of the initiative to

Jack Mariano

Yeah we good all in favor say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. That will take care of the public. That'll take care of the public hearing agenda. And now we'll move to the property tax reform item. Time certain for 1130.