Planning commission approves small industrial MPD with revised use restrictions after neighbor concerns

The Pasco County Planning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning to a master planned development (MPD) to permit a light‑industrial building of up to 20,000 square feet on a 1.8‑acre site near Rowan Road, concluding with a revised zoning condition that eliminates several uses of concern.

Kurt Severson, Planning Development and Growth staff, presented the petition and explained that the applicant seeks rezoning from PO‑2 (Professional Office) to an MPD with I‑1 (light industrial) uses and a companion small‑scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use from RES‑6 to I‑O (industrial). “Requested is a maximum entitlement of 20,000 square feet,” Severson said, and staff recommended approval with conditions, including a condition that the MPD not become effective until the corresponding future‑land‑use amendment takes effect.

During the staff presentation and follow‑up, the applicant voluntarily agreed to a revised condition that removes a list of specific industrial uses from the allowed uses in the MPD. The list—compiled after conversations with a nearby property owner—omits boat manufacturing, laundry and clothes‑cleaning or dyeing establishments, certain recycling and disposal facilities, shooting ranges, medical waste disposal facilities, certain auction and large‑scale wholesale chemical or fuel storage uses and similar activities the applicant agreed would be inconsistent with neighborhood expectations. The applicant’s representative said those uses were removed in response to neighbor concerns and that the applicant would accept the revised condition.

A neighbor who lives on Alderman Lane raised concerns about stormwater retention, wetlands and setbacks, and asked for assurance that the MPD and subsequent site plans would not degrade his septic system or private well. The project engineer, Jamie Girardi, explained that older preliminary plans would require updating and that future permitting will require compliance with the county land development code, state water‑management and septic rules and that a groundwater mounding analysis or similar study could be required if retention ponds are near private septic systems. “We’re going to have to go back in, re‑permit the project through the county’s land development code and with the water management district,” Girardi said, and committed to agency review during permitting.

Commissioners and staff clarified setbacks and buffering. Staff explained the MPD conditions incorporate a type‑B buffer and setbacks consistent with code treatment for the adjacent agricultural/residential properties; the record shows the applicant is not requesting a deviation from the setback that would apply to the property directly north of the site.

The commission approved the rezoning motion. A revised Condition 25 (the list of eliminated uses) was adopted as part of the motion; the transcript records the motion and a subsequent voice vote in favor. The MPD also carries the condition that the MPD not be effective until the companion comprehensive plan amendment is adopted.

Why it matters: the MPD converts office‑zoned acreage to a constrained light‑industrial use with explicit limits requested and accepted by the applicant to address neighbor concerns about heavier industrial activities. The approval keeps permitting and environmental review steps in place; a site plan and regulatory clearances remain required before construction.

What’s next: the companion comprehensive plan amendment must be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners before the MPD becomes effective; subsequent site design, stormwater and permitting reviews must be completed before building permits can be issued.