Consent agenda zoning and comp plan items
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.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 11, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jan 11, 2022
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 10m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 97% of 61 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, so now we are going on to those that are on the consent agenda. I have P seventy eight. Seventy seven. P seventy-seven, sorry. No problem. I had crossed that out.
Item P seventy seven was published in the Tampa Times on October 20th, 2021 and December 29, 2021.
Uh seven
easy.
Sorry about that. P77 is PDD 220022. Today, this item is the transmittal hearing. So we're asking that you authorize transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies. It's a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAL 2114, Smith 80. It's a transmittal of proposed large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps, map 2-15 and sheet 15, and villages of Pasadena. Hells figure. PH five and figure PH six from res one residential one dwelling unit per gross acre to res three
residential three dwelling units per gross acre on approximately eighty acres of real property located at to the north of Island Boulevard and east of Hancart Road, providing for additional text amendments as necessary for internal consistency, providing for a repeal or severability and an effective date. I do want to mention that this was presented to the Pasadena Hills Planning and Policy Committee on 1117 of 21 and the local planning agency on 129 of 21. And this is the adoption is scheduled for 38 of 22 at 130 in Dade City. So this is a transmodal hearing. Yeah.
Uh did we have anyone that wanted to speak to this one signed up? We have no one signed up on WebEx and no one had signed up in person. And does anyone here wish to speak to P78?
Seventy seven.
I'm sorry, P seventy seven? Seeing no one will leave it on consent, P seventy eight. Item P seventy eight was published in the Tampe Times on November twenty-fourth, twenty twenty one.
P78, PDD 220087. This is also the transmittal. So we're asking that you authorize transmittal for the to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies. This is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, CPAL 2105, Fair Cloth at Bellamy. It's a transmittal of a proposed large-scale comprehensive plan amendment to the future land use maps. 2-15 and sheet 13, changing from res one residential one dwelling unit per gross acre to PD plan development on approximately 188 acres of real property located north of State
Route 52 and west of Bellamy Brothers Boulevard, a text amendment creating sub-area policy. Flu 7.1.64 Faircloth at Bellamy, a map amendment to the future land use map two-nine, adding sub-area pol sub-area map two-nine sixty-four, fair cloth at Bellamy. This was presented to the local planning agency who found it consistent with a comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners on 12-921. And the adoption is scheduled for three eight of twenty-two at one thirty in Dade City. This is again the transmitter for this. item.
Do we have anyone signed up for P seventy eight? No one is signed up on WebEx and no one is signed up in person. Is anyone here forced
to speak in opposition?
I apologize. So please forgive me that I wrote read P79, not P78. So please forgive me. Thank you so much.
All right. So go
we'll go back. We'll ask
is anyone signed up to speak to P79? 'Cause I said P seventy eight. We skip P7D, we'll come back to it.
So Item P79, no one has signed up on WebEx and no one signed up in person. I would like to put the publication for P79 on the record. Item P seventy nine was published in the Tampe Times on November twenty-fourth, twenty twenty one. Thank you.
And does anyone want to speak in opposition here? Seeing no one, we'll leave P79 on consent,
and we'll go back to P78. Please forgive commissioners. I apologize. PDD 220067 is P78. This is a comprehensive plan amendment C PAL 2122 solar facility. It's a transmittal, also. So we're asking that you authorize transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies. Transmittal will proposed comprehensive plan. Plan text amendments to the future land use element, Appendix A, and providing to text amendments to the glossary. So this was presented
to the local planning agency who found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners on December 9th, 2021. And the adoption is scheduled for 3.8 of 22 at 130 in Dade City. This again is an off we're asking that you authorize transmittable to the DEO. And other reviewing agencies on this matter.
All right, I've already asked if anyone signed up for P78. Does anyone here want to speak in opposition to P78? Seeing no one, we'll leave
it on consent. Eighty. Item P eighty was published in the Tape Bay Times on September first, twenty twenty one.
P80 is PDD 227517. This is a zoning amendment. McConey Pashley, MPUD Master Plan Unit Development. McConey Pashley LLC, this is a rezoning request from AC Agricultural District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District to allow a maximum of 216 residential units on approximately 47.7 acres. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda package. From the Planning Pasadena Hills Planning and Policy Committee and the Planning and Development Department. Do
we have anyone signed up for P eighty?
No one signed up on WebEx and no one signed up in person. Would anyone like to speak in opposition of PAD here? Signo one, we'll leave it on
consent.
P
eighty one. Item P eighty one was published in the Tampa Bay Times on November twenty-fourth, twenty twenty one.
PDD 227543, Outlaw Reserve MPUD Master Plan Unit Development, Outlaw Ridge LLC. This is a rezoning request from AC Agricultural District to an MPD Master Plan Unit Development and a PUD Plan Unit Development District to an MPUD Master Plan Unit Development to allow a development of a maximum of 38 single-family detached lots on approximately 58.5%. 69 acres. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval with conditions as included in your agenda packet from both the
Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission.
I just have a quick comment on this one myself. Yes. Um and I've met with the applicant. There is a major trail in the county coming up behind this development. It's the um Orange Belt Trail. And it would be very advantageous and I think a very good idea if there's some access that the community, this community would have to that trail that's gonna go up right behind it. So And I hope I
hope when these come in with our planning staff they they look at the where the trails are going and they make those notes because Um That's That's important to have access to that too.
Madam Chair? Yeah. You wanna like pull that item and then we'll discuss that and Well
for that. Okay. Just so y'all can see what I'm talking about. We'll pull P P eighty one for just a moment. Does anyone else oh well we'll bring that back. Okay, P eighty two.
Item P eighty two was published in the Tampa Times on November twenty-fourth, twenty twenty one.
MP eighty two is PDD 217571. It's a zoning amendment, Rebecca H and Alan R. Jones. It's for a change in zoning from an R1 rural density residential district to an R1MH single family mobile home district. This comes to you with a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission.
Hi,
does
anyone
signed up for P eighty two? No one has signed up in WebEx or in person. For P eighty eighty two.
Is there anyone here who'd like to speak in opposition of P eighty two? Seeing no one, we'll leave it on consent. P eighty three.
Item P eighty three was published in Tampe Times on November twenty fourth, twenty twenty one.
P83 is PDD 227578 zoning amendment James N M and Lori A. Storch. This is a change in zoning from an AC agricultural district to an MF1, multiple family medium density district, with a voluntarily agreed upon deed restriction being recorded that provides limitations on the uses and the number of dwellings and also talks about the trees on the property. And uh there is a correction that I'd like to read into the record. Finding of fact number seven should read
December 12th, 2017, not January 21st, 1992. That correction has been presented to the clerk's office, so they do have that information. Comes to you with a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission. Is there anyone signed up for P eighty three?
No one is signed up for item P eighty three either on WebEx or in person. Does anyone
here who'd like to speak in opposition of P eighty three? Seeing no one, we'll leave it on consent.
84.
Item P eighty four was published in the Tampay Times on November twenty-fourth, twenty twenty one.
PDD 227580 zoning amendment in the name of James David Russell. It's for a change in zoning from a C3 commercial light manufacturing district with specific use and an R4 high density residential district to an AR agricultural residential district. Comes to you with a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Development Department and the Planning Commission. Madam
Clerk
I'd like to
pull it.
Okay, we will pull P eighty four. Thank you. And Madam Chair, just so you know one person did sign up for that item. Okay.
So um we will entertain a motion on
second
So I don't need to name them?
Do we need to name the ones that we're voting on?
We have pulled eighty-one and we have pulled eighty-four.
And so the motion's on the rest of consent.
All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, we'll take up P eighty one.