Developers seek dozens of new homes in Waimama urban‑area rezonings; residents ask for postponement and community benefits talks

Two related rezoning applications affecting the Waimama area east of U.S. 301 — presented June 21 as PD 20‑5‑371 (often called Council Growers) and PD 20‑5‑469 (JPL Rudrosa) — prompted multiple residents and the Waimama Community Plan Advisory Council to request postponement so community benefits, drainage and safety concerns can be negotiated.

Attorney Cammy Corbett, speaking for Eisenhower Property Group, said the two rezonings would convert land recently moved into the county’s urban service area and change the future‑land‑use designation to Residential‑4. Corbett said the plans include traditional suburban street grids, open space, and school sites and that the projects will pay impact fees including school, mobility and park fees. The applicant proposed phasing and conditions addressing transportation improvements and trail connections.

Planning Commission and Development Services staff found the rezonings consistent with the revised future‑land‑use designation and compatible with surrounding development patterns. Planning Commission staff noted the projects’ compatibility hinges on transportation and buffering conditions and that the exception to extend utilities into the rural area (where applicable) carries a high standard and limited application.

Residents and Waimama CPAC members said the rezonings break a previously negotiated package of community benefits that accompanied an earlier PD approval. John Regan and Augie Grace, both CPAC members, told the hearing the developer agreed to community benefits in the prior PD (PD‑23‑041) and that splitting the prior approval into separate rezonings eliminated many of those benefits — including a previously discussed 10% affordable‑housing set‑aside. Regan asked for a 90‑ to 120‑day postponement “allowing time for the Waimama CPAC to negotiate community benefits and brief the Waimama community, hopefully allowing the Waimama CPAC to testify in support of both applications in the future.” Augie Grace asked the hearing master to convene developer, county departments and the CPAC to review watershed models and propose site‑specific stormwater mitigation and a neighborhood safety buffer plan before construction.

Planning Commission staff, asked to interpret the county’s utility‑extension policy (1‑Water policy 4.3.5.a), said the policy requires a high showing of an overriding public interest for exceptions to extend water or sewer into the rural area and that the applicant had not provided sufficient agency‑level technical evidence demonstrating the exception met all criteria.

The applicants said they had engaged extensively with staff and community leaders and that transit and roadway improvements were part of the proposals; they also noted the rezonings had been subject to recent comprehensive plan amendments that the board approved. Both applicants asked the hearing master to recommend approval subject to conditions.

Hearing master Pamela Jo Hatley closed the public testimony but did not make a decision at the June 21 hearing. The hearing master will file a written recommendation with the clerk; the Board of County Commissioners will consider the record and the hearing master’s recommendation at a later public meeting. Several residents asked the hearing master to postpone action to permit a formal community negotiation on benefits, drainage and safety.