Commission approves zoning change for Kersey/Winchester site after neighbors challenge lot sizes and flooding protections

The Pinellas County Commission on April 22 approved a future‑land‑use amendment and a companion zoning change covering two adjoining properties at 2281 Kersey Road and 1736 Winchester Road in unincorporated Largo, NVote 6–1. The approval includes a conditional overlay that limits the maximum number of lots to 11 and establishes development standards the board adopted on the floor, including a minimum lot width requirement.

Lede/nut graf: The request combined a 1.02‑acre parcel on Kersey Road (rezoned from residential suburban to residential low) with an adjacent 2.18‑acre parcel on Winchester Road to allow a single‑family subdivision. County staff and the local planning agency found the requested land‑use and zoning changes consistent with the comprehensive plan; neighbors opposed the plan citing flooding, privacy and traffic concerns.

What the board approved

- Land use: Approved change of the Kersey Road parcel from Residential Suburban to Residential Low. - Zoning: Approved rezoning the two parcels to R‑3 with a conditional overlay limiting the subdivision to a maximum of 11 lots, retaining 15‑foot rear and 11‑foot side setbacks, and adding a minimum lot width of 70 feet as adopted on the floor. - Vote: Land‑use vote passed 6–1; zoning with the conditional overlay passed 6–1 after the board amended the conditional overlay on the floor to add a 70‑foot minimum lot width.

Why the measure drew public comment

Neighbors who live on adjacent Lawton Drive and in the immediate area urged the board to preserve larger lots and to require a substantial landscape buffer because parts of the neighborhood have experienced standing water and episodic flooding during recent storm events. Several residents presented photographs they said showed water in backyards after last year’s storms and argued additional lots and driveways would add impervious surface and intensify drainage problems. A number of residents also said the existing dirt section of Winchester Road already channels traffic onto Lawton Drive near an elementary school; they opposed any plan that would increase traffic through that narrow neighborhood street.

Applicant’s case and staff review

Applicant Dushant Gulati told the board he had purchased the adjoining parcel in part to create an access option to Kersey Road and to reduce cut‑through traffic on Winchester Road. County planning staff and the applicant’s engineers said stormwater controls required by county code and by the stormwater manual must be designed and approved at site‑plan review. The public record includes a traffic analysis that concluded the proposed subdivision would generate a small number of new peak‑hour trips and would not degrade the level of service on the adjacent major roadway (Belcher Road). County staff recommended approval, finding the rezoning and the conditional overlay would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and Countywide Plan Map.

Board discussion and compromise

Several commissioners pressed for conditions intended to preserve neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Wiecky, Commissioner Shear and others asked for changes that would increase lot widths and preserve the 2021‑era setbacks negotiated earlier in a related appeal. The applicant agreed on the record to a minimum lot width of 70 feet in response to commissioner questions; the board adopted that lot‑width requirement on the floor and included it in the conditional overlay.

Drainage and maintenance

County staff reiterated that any subdivision approval would require a detailed site plan, stormwater calculations and, where required, a separate SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) permit; those technical reviews occur after zoning and land‑use approval. Staff said required stormwater features — swales, retention/detention basins and associated easements — must be installed and permanently maintained by the subdivision (typically via an association or maintenance agreement) before certificates of occupancy can be issued. The board heard repeated requests from neighbors for a landscape buffer and for assurances that off‑site historic drainage issues would be reviewed with City of Largo and county public‑works staff.

Votes and motions

- Land use (FLU20Four‑3): Motion to approve passed 6–1. - Zoning (Z0N24‑5): Motion to approve rezoning to R‑3 CO with the conditional overlay passed 6–1. - Conditional overlay: Maximum units 11; minimum lot width 70 feet (amendment adopted on the floor); setbacks retained at 15 feet rear and 11 feet side; applicants agreed to a 10‑foot landscape buffer along the east side in keeping with staff recommendations; the larger 25‑foot southern buffer proposed earlier was removed by the Local Planning Agency but the board required the 70‑foot minimum lot width on the record.

Speakers (attributed)

- Dushant Gulati — Applicant/owner (spoke in favor of combining parcels and limiting access to Kersey Road) - Michael Schroederbach — Zoning Manager, Pinellas County (staff presentation) - Don Skelton — Traffic consultant (presented traffic analysis) - AJ Sherbiani — Project civil/landscape consultant (stormwater remarks) - Multiple neighbors (22 speakers during public comment) including residents of Lawton Drive who presented flooding photos and asked for larger buffers and fewer lots.

Authorities

- code: Pinellas County Land Development Code, conditional overlay provisions (sec. 130‑812.02 referenced by staff) - regulation: County stormwater manual; SWFWMD permitting processes (referenced repeatedly at the meeting)

Actions

- kind: land_use_amendment - motion: Approve future land use amendment: residential suburban to residential low on ~1.02 acres at 2281 Kersey Road. - mover: Commissioner Flowers - second: Commissioner Shear - tally: yes:6 no:1 - outcome: approved

- kind: zoning - motion: Approve zoning change to R‑3 CO with conditional overlay for 3.2 acres at 2281 Kersey Road and 1736 Winchester Road, limiting units to maximum 11 and setting development conditions including minimum lot width of 70 ft. - mover: Commissioner Shear - second: Commissioner Flowers - tally: yes:6 no:1 - outcome: approved

Discussion vs decision

- Discussion: Extensive public comment focused on flooding, historical drainage and neighborhood character. Staff and applicant explained the county’s stormwater review process and the requirement that stormwater controls be shown and permitted at site‑plan review. - Direction: Applicant must complete a site plan showing stormwater controls and required permitting; stormwater infrastructure will be maintained by the subdivider/association per county rules. - Decision: Board approved land‑use and zoning changes with the conditional overlay and a minimum 70‑foot lot width adopted on the floor.

Clarifying details

- traffic: Consultant reported roughly 14 AADT (average annual daily trips) attributable to the Kersey parcel change and no projected level‑of‑service degradation on Belcher Road. - flood zones: The subject parcel lies outside the 100‑year floodplain but inside an area mapped with a moderate flood risk (500‑year/"X shaded" area), and several nearby yards showed localized flooding after summer storms. - maintenance: Stormwater facilities required by code must be constructed, permitted and maintained by the developer/association; site‑plan review will confirm final design and outfalls.

Proper_names

[{"name":"Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners","type":"government"},{"name":"Kersey Road","type":"location"},{"name":"Winchester Road","type":"location"},{"name":"Allens Creek","type":"location"},{"name":"SWFWMD","type":"agency"}]

Searchable_tags

["zoning","rezoning","land use","flooding","stormwater","Pinellas County","Largo"]

Provenance

{"transcript_segments":[{"block_id":"s14716.686","local_start":0,"local_end":60,"evidence_excerpt":"Item 24 is case number FLU20Four-three. This is a request by Dushant Galante to amend the future land use map from residential suburban to residential low on approximately 1.02 acres located at 2281 Kersey Road","global_start":14716,"global_end":14776,"tc_start":"04:05:16","tc_end":"04:05:40","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"s23221.05","local_start":0,"local_end":30,"evidence_excerpt":"Okay. That's 6 to 1. Okay. Now we're on to item number 25, the request for zoning change.","global_start":23221,"global_end":23251,"tc_start":"04:53:41","tc_end":"04:54:05","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]}

salience":{"overall":0.65,"overall_justification":"Local neighborhood impact: rezoning affects drainage, privacy, and lot pattern; extensive resident comment and a direct amendment were adopted on the floor.","impact_scope":"local","impact_scope_justification":"Directly affects adjacent homeowners and future subdivision occupants.","attention_level":"medium","attention_level_justification":"Large number of public commenters and technical staff participation but limited county‑wide budget implications.","novelty":0.25,"novelty_justification":"Standard land‑use/zoning action with local controversy rather than novel policy change.","timeliness_urgency":0.50,"timeliness_urgency_justification":"Site development and stormwater planning will follow; residents will see construction timetable later.","legal_significance":0.20,"legal_significance_justification":"Quasi‑judicial zoning action bound to code and conditional overlay provisions.","budgetary_significance":0.05,"budgetary_significance_justification":"No direct county capital appropriation; developer obligations for public improvements may follow site plan approval.","public_safety_risk":0.20,"public_safety_risk_justification":"Neighbors cited traffic near a school and flooding risks; both are mitigated through engineering reviews and potential roadway improvements.","affected_population_estimate":2000,"affected_population_estimate_justification":"Immediate neighborhood and nearby school community likely to be affected by traffic and drainage changes.","affected_population_confidence":0.40,"affected_population_confidence_justification":"Estimate based on residential density within a few blocks of the site.","follow_up_priority":7,"follow_up_priority_justification":"Site‑plan review, stormwater permitting and coordination with Largo/public works required.","fact_check_risk":0.10,"fact_check_risk_justification":"Technical engineering assertions are subject to detailed review at site plan and permitting stages.","uncertainty":0.40,"uncertainty_justification":"Outcomes for drainage depend on engineering details not yet filed.","source_diversity":0.45,"source_diversity_justification":"Applicant consultants, county staff and multiple neighbors provided input.","stakeholder_balance":0.35,"stakeholder_balance_justification":"Residents and applicant both represented; staff recommended approval with conditions."} } ,{