Dade City approves preliminary plan for large development with traffic-study condition

The Dade City Commission on Oct. 12 approved a preliminary plan for a large residential subdivision under an existing 2021 planned development (PD) ordinance, voting 3-2 to grant approval with conditions that include a third‑party traffic study examining ingress and egress along Happy Hill Road.

The vote comes after residents and commissioners raised concerns about changes between the 2021 PD master plan and the new preliminary layout, the location of a proposed access point on Happy Hill Road, potential floodplain and stormwater issues and whether a corner house on the property would be removed or used for another purpose. The motion passed 3 to 2, with Mayor Pro Tem Woodard and Commissioner Church voting no.

The preliminary plan covers roughly 70 acres that were previously entitled for about 496 lots; the applicant proposed a reduced plan of 381 detached‑home lots. The applicant told the commission the proposal includes 8.85 acres of parks (exceeding a 4.38‑acre minimum) and 18.37 acres of open space (above the 16.86‑acre requirement). The applicant also told the commission it has received approval from the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the project.

Residents at the public hearing said the new lot layout departs from what they remembered in the PD master plan attached to Ordinance 2021‑05. Philip Clark, who identified himself as living on Happy Hill Road, said email exchanges he had with developers’ counsel previously had shown “no construction of any kind whatsoever north of the connection point between the lake to the west and the lake to the east.” Clark told the commission he had been told the developer had agreed to preserve mature oak trees and avoid construction north of that connection point.

Betsy Brownlee, who gave her address and identified herself as a lifelong resident, urged the commission to consider “quality of life and safety” for existing neighbors, saying, “Traffic is horrible. It’s going to get worse.” Brownlee also raised concerns about schools, emergency services and wildlife habitat.

The applicant’s representative responded that the property is zoned planned development residential (PDR) and “has 0 commercial entitlements,” saying the corner house is being rented by a family and is not included in the preliminary plan for subdivision. The representative explained that the preliminary plan phase addresses lot layout and that detailed stormwater, FEMA and county access approvals occur later at the construction‑plan and final‑plat stages: “That is going to be dealt with at the construction plan phase, which is prior to your final plat approval.”

Several commissioners said they were not satisfied with the lot layout as presented and emphasized the access point on Happy Hill Road. Commissioners asked the applicant to study alternatives and to minimize impacts on existing homes, particularly a house located near the proposed entrance. Commissioner comments repeatedly urged the applicant and staff to consider a roundabout or alternative access if feasible.

In response, planning staff and the applicant said Pasco County must review and approve access to Happy Hill Road because it is a county road, but staff noted the commission may require additional third‑party review. Tara Salomere, a planning staff member who spoke during the meeting, confirmed the planning board had recommended that final‑plat approval include a traffic study examining ingress and egress points, and she said the city could request third‑party review at the construction‑plan stage.

The motion approved by the commission requires that, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a traffic study that specifically examines all ingress and egress points along Happy Hill Road, compares alternative locations to determine the safest location with minimum impact to existing buildings and property owners, and be submitted to the city’s third‑party reviewer at the construction‑plan stage. The motion also made final plat approval contingent on demonstration of unified ownership of the property for platting purposes.

Commissioners and staff explicitly distinguished discussion from decision: the commission approved the preliminary plan (a formal action) while directing that additional engineering and traffic analysis be required before construction and final plat (direction). Several commissioners said they could still vote against final approvals if subsequent studies showed safety or compliance problems.

The commission’s approval does not remove subsequent regulatory reviews. The applicant, staff and commissioners noted the project will still require water‑management permits, county right‑of‑way and access permits, construction‑plan engineering for drainage and stormwater (including any future FEMA or SWFWMD changes), and other final plats and permits before any homebuilding begins.

The commission’s 3‑2 approval ends the public‑hearing item for the preliminary plan. The commission did not adopt any changes to the 2021 PD ordinance itself on Oct. 12; instead, it approved the current preliminary plan with the traffic‑study and final‑plat conditions included in the development order.