Vince Nowicki Asks Why Pinellas Left ‘Mosque’ Out of Zoning Documents

Commissioner Vince Nowicki voted no on CW 26-12 over traffic, North County growth and consistent standards. Separately, he asked why county documents did not plainly describe the use, as they have in other cases.

From the official website of Vince Nowicki · · 6 min read

On 10/13/26, the Pinellas County Commission approved Case CW 26-12, a change to the Countywide Plan Map for 2.69 acres at 2577 Keystone Road in North County. The vote was 4-3. Commissioners Chris Latvala, Vince Nowicki and Chris Scherer voted no.

Commissioner Nowicki did two separate things that day. He voted no, for reasons of traffic, North County growth and consistent standards. And he asked a transparency question: why the county's hearing documents did not plainly say what the property is used for, when county and Forward Pinellas documents in other cases have. This page covers both.

Key facts

  • The case. CW 26-12 (File 26-1546A) moves 2577 Keystone Road from Residential Rural to Public/Semi-Public on the Countywide Plan Map.
  • What it allows. The owner, Al Rahman, Inc., can replace the existing building with one about 1,000 square feet larger, add parking and stormwater, and move access from Keystone Road to East Lake Street.
  • The vote. Approved 4-3 on 10/13/26. Commissioner Nowicki voted no.
  • His reasons. Traffic, the pace of North County development and holding every parcel to the same standard.
  • His follow-up. On 10/14/26 he asked the County Administrator in writing why the county's description differed from past cases and whether a written policy governs it.

The case

The property is owned by Al Rahman, Inc. The applicant's own application describes the existing and proposed buildings as a "Place of Worship," and its concept plans are titled "Masjid Al Rahman." The site has been used for worship for decades; it was a church before Al Rahman, Inc. bought it in 2012, according to the Property Appraiser.

According to county staff and Forward Pinellas, the plan replaces the existing building with one about 1,000 square feet larger, adds parking and a stormwater system, and closes the driveway onto Keystone Road that crosses the trail. A conditional overlay limits the use and caps building size and height. Forward Pinellas recommended approval 13-0, and its Planners Advisory Committee recommended approval 17-0.

Why he voted no

When Commissioner Nowicki asked what the change would mean, county staff said that "in truth, it would be a little bit more activity." He then explained his vote at the meeting:

"I know another parcel, just a few parcels down was denied, you know, access on the Keystone and other stuff like that, and to build activity. So, I mean, I wouldn't be in favor of this today because I don't think we're applying a uniform standard on parcels just right down the road for increased activity and things like that."

"I don't necessarily see the value of increasing more activity in North County. I think a lot of our residents think the county's overdeveloped and don't want to see a increased footprint of traffic and activity."

His vote comes down to three principles that he applies to every land use case:

  • Traffic. Keystone Road is a scenic corridor, and residents do not want a bigger footprint of traffic on it.
  • North County growth. Many residents feel the area is already overdeveloped.
  • One standard. If a nearby parcel on the same road was held back from added access and activity, the same standard should apply here.

One plain description for every case

The second issue is separate from the vote. It is about how the county describes cases to the public.

The facility is a mosque, and the record says so. The applicant's concept plans are titled "Masjid Al Rahman," and its application describes the existing and proposed buildings as a "Place of Worship." Florida Politics described the project as a "proposed mosque expansion." When asked at the meeting whether the facility is a mosque, county planning staff answered, "I believe so."

The county's staff report, legal ad and presentation for CW 26-12 described the site only as a "community assembly facility." The Forward Pinellas analysis for the same case restricts the property "to a place of worship/community assembly use." The applicant's own plans say "Masjid Al Rahman."

At the meeting, Commissioner Nowicki asked whether the facility is a mosque. County planning official Scott Swearengen answered, "I believe so." He then explained how the county's zoning code treats the use:

"… We go by the terminology for land use based on our zoning ordinance, and our zoning ordinance, … which when we updated it, I believe back in 2019 or 2018, … we tried to get our definitions more in line with the definitions that, one, the state likes to use and what are general practices. So, … we don't define church. We don't define mosque. We don't define a number of other things; they're more collectively defined. And in this case, it's a community assembly facility, is that definition that would … encompass that use. …"

That is how the code works, as Florida Politics also reported on 10/15/26 (meeting video at about 1:32:02). The code's category is broad by design, and it does not stop the public description from saying plainly what is proposed. Earlier county and Forward Pinellas documents said "church" when the use was a church. These documents should have said "mosque" in the same way:

  • Q Z-17-10-19 (Palm Harbor), 11/12/19. County staff report: "The applicant is proposing a religious facility."
  • FLU-25-02 (St. Philopateer Mercurius Coptic Orthodox Church, Palm Harbor), 6/17/25. County staff report: the site is "developed with a small religious institution (church)."
  • CW 20-16 (St. Petersburg), 6/8/21. Forward Pinellas: the site "is currently used as a church."
  • CW 22-23 (First Baptist Church of Clearwater), 12/13/22. Forward Pinellas: the property "is occupied in the north by a church and educational facility."
  • CW 24-01 (First Baptist Church of Clearwater), 2/20/24. Forward Pinellas: the area abuts "the main Calvary Baptist Church parcel and campus."
  • CW 24-18 (St. Petersburg), 10/15/24. Forward Pinellas: property use "Institutional / Church," a site that "previously housed the Pasadena Community Church."
  • CW 24-17 (St. Paul's Lutheran Church, Clearwater), 11/19/24. Forward Pinellas: property use "Place of worship."
  • CW 25-06 (Coptic Orthodox church, Palm Harbor), 10/7/25. Forward Pinellas: the change supports "the continued use and planned expansion of an existing religious institution."

Commissioner Nowicki explained why he raised the question in a 10/14/26 Facebook post:

"I asked staff about it on the record so residents have the full picture. When a change could bring more activity and traffic to a neighborhood, people deserve plain, clear information about what's being proposed. I'll keep asking those questions on every item that comes before us."

On 10/14/26 he put the question to County Administrator Barry Burton in writing, asking why the descriptions differed, whether a written policy governs them and how staff will keep them consistent. As he wrote, reported by Florida Politics:

"Residents read these materials to understand what is being proposed near them, and they should get the same plain description in every case, no matter the applicant."

Religious freedom for every faith

Commissioner Nowicki supports religious freedom for every faith and the right of every congregation in Pinellas County to worship. Equal treatment runs both ways: every applicant should be held to the same land use standard, and every case should be described to the public in the same plain terms, whether the building is a church, a mosque, a synagogue or a business.

The outcome

CW 26-12 passed 4-3 on 10/13/26, and the project moves to site plan review. Commissioner Nowicki is waiting on the county's answer to his 10/14/26 questions about how cases are described.

Watch the discussion in the county's 10/13/26 meeting video, starting at about 1:31:27.

Frequently asked questions

How did Vince Nowicki vote on CW 26-12?

He voted no on 10/13/26. The commission approved it 4-3. Commissioners Latvala, Nowicki and Scherer voted no.

Why did he vote no?

Traffic on Keystone Road, the pace of development in North County and holding every parcel on the same road to the same standard.

Was his vote about religion?

No. He supports religious freedom for every faith and applies the same land use standard to every applicant. His question about the county's documents is a separate transparency issue: every case should be described the same plain way.

Sources

Every fact and quote above comes from the published reporting and public records listed here.

  1. Vince Nowicki, Facebook post, 10/14/26. www.facebook.com
  2. Jesse Mendoza, "Vince Nowicki questions why Pinellas County left mosque designation out of zoning materials," Florida Politics, 10/15/26. floridapolitics.com
  3. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, regular meeting video, 10/13/26 (item 6; exchange from about 1:31:27). www.youtube.com
  4. Pinellas County Legistar, File 26-1546A, Case No. CW 26-12, 10/13/26. pinellas.legistar.com
  5. Forward Pinellas staff analysis, Case CW 26-12. pinellas.legistar1.com
  6. Pinellas County, CW 26-12 staff presentation. pinellas.legistar1.com
  7. Forward Pinellas Planners Advisory Committee, draft meeting summary, 8/31/26. pinellas.legistar1.com
  8. Pinellas County Legistar, File 26-0860A, Case No. FLU-26-01 (Al Rahman, Inc.). pinellas.legistar.com
  9. Al Rahman, Inc., application documents and concept plans, FLU-26-01. pinellas.legistar1.com
  10. Pinellas County Legistar, File 26-0835A, Case No. ZON-26-03 (Al Rahman, Inc.). pinellas.legistar.com
  11. Pinellas County, ZON-26-03 staff report. pinellas.legistar1.com
  12. Pinellas County Property Appraiser, parcel 09-27-16-00000-230-0600. www.pcpao.gov
  13. Pinellas County Legistar, 19-1899A, Case No. Q Z-17-10-19. pinellas.legistar.com
  14. Pinellas County Legistar, 25-0798A, Case No. FLU-25-02. pinellas.legistar.com
  15. Pinellas County Legistar, 21-970A, Case No. CW 20-16. pinellas.legistar.com
  16. Pinellas County Legistar, 22-2067A, Case No. CW 22-23. pinellas.legistar.com
  17. Pinellas County Legistar, 23-2021A, Case No. CW 24-01. pinellas.legistar.com
  18. Pinellas County Legistar, 24-1654A, Case No. CW 24-18. pinellas.legistar.com
  19. Pinellas County Legistar, 24-1889A, Case No. CW 24-17. pinellas.legistar.com
  20. Pinellas County Legistar, 25-1355A, Case No. CW 25-06. pinellas.legistar.com

← All articles