Neighbors oppose Mattamy Homes infill plan near Alafia River, citing flooding and character concerns

Mattamy Homes asked the zoning hearing master June 21 for a major modification to an existing planned development east of U.S. 301 near the Alafia River to replace a previously permitted assisted‑living facility and three riverfront lots with 27 single‑family homes on smaller lots.

Attorney Cammy Corbett, representing Mattamy, said the revised plan reduces earlier, higher densities, drops the assisted‑living entitlement and proposes 27 single‑family lots with minimum widths of 50 feet and minimum lot sizes of about 6,000 square feet. The developer told the hearing it had increased setbacks from the river and added native plantings, a 10‑foot Type‑B buffer plus a native planting strip to the north and a 10‑foot Type‑B buffer plus a drainage pond to the south to provide transitions to adjacent properties.

James Baker of Development Services summarized staff’s review and said the proposal internalizes the smaller lots along private streets to maintain neighborhood character and that staff found the proposal approvable subject to conditions. Planning Commission staff also found the modification consistent with the Residential‑4 future land‑use designation and surrounding development patterns, noting nearby infill projects with densities in the same general range.

Several nearby residents spoke in opposition, citing a long history of prior denials of higher‑density proposals for the parcel, concern that quarter‑acre (0.14‑acre) lots are inconsistent with prevailing lot sizes near the river (average nearby lot area reported by opponents about 0.9 acres; riverfront lots average about 1.8 acres), safety impacts from more cars on narrow, substandard roads without sidewalks, stormwater and flood risk following recent hurricanes and incidents of shotgun fire on adjacent properties. Neighbors asked the hearing master to recommend denial. Residents pointed to a previously denied 2007 PD application that planning staff had recommended be denied for incompatibility, and said the earlier record remains relevant.

Mattamy argued the proposal is compatible with the area’s evolving development pattern, noted prior approvals for infill developments nearby and said site‑specific mitigation (buffers, increased setbacks and landscaping) addressed compatibility concerns. The hearing master closed the public hearing; no decision was made. The hearing master will file a written recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners.