Pasco commissioners decline to reconsider Blackwell multifamily PUD; motion fails in 2-2 tie
February 02, 2026 | Pasco County, Florida
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Steve Booth, representing 54 15 Inc., asked the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 3 to allow reconsideration of a previously denied comprehensive plan amendment and companion rezoning for a roughly 15-acre site east of Starkey Boulevard.
"I am requesting that a board member step forward and make a motion for reconsideration of this so that we can present some additional information," Booth said during the public-comment period, referring to CPA 23-16 and the companion rezoning. He said the applicant would re-advertise and return if the board granted reconsideration.
At the meeting’s committee reports, Commissioner Waitemann moved to reconsider item P39 (the comprehensive plan amendment for the Blackwell multifamily and office PUD) and item P44 (the companion zoning), saying "some information may or may not have been accurate and some factual records" at the prior hearing warranted a second look. The chair called for voice votes twice; the motion ultimately failed on a tie vote described by the clerk as "2 2 fails again." The board did not record individual roll-call votes during the voice tally.
The motion text, as offered by Commissioner Waitemann, asked the board to reopen consideration of P39 and P44 to allow the applicant to present additional information. The record shows the prior hearing resulted in an effective loss for the applicant when a recusal and subsequent tie left the petition without the required majority.
Because the motion failed, the county will not re-advertise or rehear the Blackwell items based on this motion; no follow-up assignment or staff direction to return the items to the board was recorded during the morning session.
Background: Booth said the project had been discussed at the previous meeting and listed the comprehensive plan amendment identifier CPA 23-16 and a companion rezoning; he described the property as roughly 15 acres north of 54 and east of Starkey Boulevard. The transcript does not record additional specific project conditions or a new staff report during this session.
Next steps: The board adjourned the morning session and did not take further action on P39/P44 during the Feb. 3 morning meeting.
"I am requesting that a board member step forward and make a motion for reconsideration of this so that we can present some additional information," Booth said during the public-comment period, referring to CPA 23-16 and the companion rezoning. He said the applicant would re-advertise and return if the board granted reconsideration.
At the meeting’s committee reports, Commissioner Waitemann moved to reconsider item P39 (the comprehensive plan amendment for the Blackwell multifamily and office PUD) and item P44 (the companion zoning), saying "some information may or may not have been accurate and some factual records" at the prior hearing warranted a second look. The chair called for voice votes twice; the motion ultimately failed on a tie vote described by the clerk as "2 2 fails again." The board did not record individual roll-call votes during the voice tally.
The motion text, as offered by Commissioner Waitemann, asked the board to reopen consideration of P39 and P44 to allow the applicant to present additional information. The record shows the prior hearing resulted in an effective loss for the applicant when a recusal and subsequent tie left the petition without the required majority.
Because the motion failed, the county will not re-advertise or rehear the Blackwell items based on this motion; no follow-up assignment or staff direction to return the items to the board was recorded during the morning session.
Background: Booth said the project had been discussed at the previous meeting and listed the comprehensive plan amendment identifier CPA 23-16 and a companion rezoning; he described the property as roughly 15 acres north of 54 and east of Starkey Boulevard. The transcript does not record additional specific project conditions or a new staff report during this session.
Next steps: The board adjourned the morning session and did not take further action on P39/P44 during the Feb. 3 morning meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
