Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County approves Joe’s Creek master plan, a road vacation and Pinellas Park interlocal agreement
Summary
At a public hearing the board unanimously adopted the Joe’s Creek Industrial Park master plan, granted a petition to vacate a portion of County Road 265 tied to an apartment property, and approved an interlocal agreement allowing Pinellas Park to include unincorporated enclaves in its comprehensive plan efforts.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners approved three land-use and planning items during its Aug. 19 public hearing.
1) Joe’s Creek Industrial Park master plan: The board adopted the proposed master plan for Joe’s Creek Industrial Park after a public hearing. The motion passed unanimously on a motion by Commissioner Flowers and a second from Commissioner Eggers.
2) Road vacation for a Gateway apartment property: The board approved a petition filed by Apartments at Gateway 2 LLC to vacate a 100-foot-wide portion of County Road 265 (sometimes referenced as 30 Fourth Street North Extension) that lies within properties recorded in Official Records. The clerk confirmed proper advertisement and that no correspondence opposing the petition had been received. A motion was made by Commissioner Eggers; the vote was unanimous.
3) Interlocal agreement with Pinellas Park: The board adopted an interlocal agreement allowing the City of Pinellas Park to include unincorporated enclaves and bordering properties in its comprehensive-plan efforts and ensuring that county property owners are notified and can participate in the city's amendment proceedings. The item was presented with no public opposition recorded and was passed unanimously on a motion by Commissioner Eggers and seconded by Commissioner Flowers.
All three items were presented as properly advertised public hearings with affidavits on file. No substantive public opposition or correspondence was reported to the clerk for these matters during the hearing.
(Reporting note: these actions were recorded during the meeting’s public hearing portion; the clerk confirmed advertisement and lack of correspondence.)

