Dade City tables Summit View subdivision preliminary plans after residents raise concerns about grading and notice

The Dade City Commission voted 5-0 to table preliminary-plan reviews for Summit View 1B Part 2 and Summit View 2 and move both items to the start of the Jan. 28 meeting, citing outstanding questions about grading activity, neighborhood-notice materials and which standards govern approval.

City staff had recommended approval of Summit View 1B Part 2 after a routine review of subdivision standards, but multiple commissioners and nearby residents said they needed more information before making a quasi-judicial decision. The items were tabled after public comment and a request to have the staff member who prepared the original report available for questioning.

Isaiah (city planning staff) told the commission that staff posted public notice boards and mailed notices to adjacent property owners on Nov. 19, that a neighborhood meeting was held Jan. 9, and that the development is subject to prior zoning actions including a rezoning under ordinance 2005-0905 and a subsequent modification approved by ordinance 2020-23. "Staff is recommending approval of Summit View 1B Part 2 preliminary plan as presented, and the applicant is here to answer any questions you may have," Isaiah said during the staff presentation.

Simone Savino, attorney for the applicant (Stearns Weaver Miller), introduced the preliminary plan and said the plans before the commission show the lot layout and design and that the applicant held a joint neighborhood meeting on Jan. 9 to discuss both 1B Part 2 and the adjacent Summit View 2. "We were encouraged to do it, but also we wanted to do it because there's certainly questions from the public," Savino said.

Engineer Ed Mazur, the project's engineer of record, clarified inconsistencies displayed in different plan sheets about lot counts and phasing and told commissioners that some construction plans for earlier phases had been approved and that construction in several areas is already complete. On lot counts he noted the lower-left site-data table shows 58 lots for the parcel before the commission, while other materials presented to commissioners referenced larger counts.

Two nearby residents who spoke during the public-hearing portion, Lisa Moretti (16331 Isla Woods Trail, Dade City) and Mary McKnight (36210 Saint Joe Road), said the applicant's neighborhood meeting lacked complete materials and a reliable recording, and they raised concerns about large-scale earthmoving between Summit View phases. McKnight asked whether the developer had provided settlement-agreement monitoring reports and whether removal and placement of fill complied with an 18-month timeline in a 2018 settlement agreement referenced in the packet.

City Attorney Patrick Brackens said the city had just received a spreadsheet from the applicant earlier that day showing quantities of dirt removed and that the preliminary review of that spreadsheet indicates the volumes removed were less than the maximum allowed under the 2018 settlement agreement. "I haven't gone through it. I just got it today. More work needs to be done on it," Brackens said, and he said he would forward the report to commissioners for review.

Commissioners pressed staff for the specific standards they should apply. Commissioner Cosentino asked staff to cite the conditions in ordinance 2020-23 and the subdivision-review sections that the commission must use when judging the preliminary plan. Planning staff replied that the review considered compliance with Article 7 (subdivision standards) and the relevant ordinance conditions, but the director who signed the original report was on medical leave and could better address detailed questions.

Given the outstanding questions, Commissioner [motion mover not specified] moved to table item J-1; a second was recorded and the roll call vote was 5-0 (Mayor Pro Tem Woodard, Commissioner Cosentino, Commissioner Scheid, Commissioner Church and Mayor Black voting Aye). The commission then moved to table item J-2 to the same Jan. 28 meeting; that motion also passed 5-0.

The commission directed staff to place both Summit View items at the beginning of the Jan. 28 agenda under public hearings, to provide the recently submitted dirt-quantity report to commissioners, and to ensure the planning director or the staff member who prepared the original report is available to answer procedural and ordinance-specific questions at the continued hearing. No preliminary-plan approvals or denials were made at this meeting.