Dade City commission rezones 142-acre River Road parcel to RS-1 amid resident objections about flooding, infrastructure

The Dade City Commission on Tuesday approved Ordinance 2024-07, rezoning a 142-acre property near River Road to RS-1, after a lengthy public hearing in which residents warned the change could increase flooding, strain roads and public services and harm wildlife. The measure passed 4-1, with Mayor Pro Tem Woodard voting no.

The vote assigned the RS-1 zoning district to the property and added language noting that “available infrastructure is not currently consistent with the maximum development potential for the property,” a provision commissioners agreed should be addressed during later subdivision and engineering reviews.

Neighbors and affected parties urged the commission to delay action or apply a different tool. Brenda White, a River Road resident who identified herself as an affected party, questioned the change in environmental findings since the last review and said the neighborhood would bear the long-term consequences: “If it ain't right, it's not right and now we're all gonna have to sit here and take that medicine,” she said. Mark Wilson, who lives on River Road, said the change from one-house-per-acre to an RS-1 designation could mean several homes per acre and warned of runoff and well impacts: “There’s just a lot of problems with it,” he said.

Attorney Clark Hobby, representing the applicant, told the commission the property must be assigned a zoning district under existing law and argued that RS-1’s 10,000-square-foot minimum lot size would likely result in a lower net density than county Res-3 development. “You must assign a zoning district,” Hobby said, adding that state and water-management regulations (referred to in the hearing as SWFWMD/Swiftmud rules) require developments to ensure post‑development runoff does not exceed pre‑development flows.

Commissioners and the city attorney debated the legal options the city could take. Commissioner Church said legal precedent and statutes make it risky to delay or deny a zoning application when an applicant seeks a district available under regulations. The city attorney noted the applicant could seek compensation under state law if denied or left without a permitted use. Mayor Pro Tem Woodard argued the commission could pursue an overlay or other neighborhood-scale regulatory tool later to address preservation, environmental protection and infrastructure constraints.

Commissioner Cosentino moved approval of Ordinance 2024-07 (RES-1) with the added language about infrastructure; the motion was seconded and carried in a roll call vote: Cosentino — Aye; Church — Aye; Mayor Black — Aye; Shive — Aye; Mayor Pro Tem Woodard — Nay. The ordinance text referenced in the public hearing describes that the city “does not currently have the capacity to serve this development with utilities if we were built today,” and commissioners said compliance with utility, stormwater and transportation requirements will be reviewed during engineering and subdivision stages.

Residents repeatedly raised specific concerns: potential increases in traffic on two‑lane River Road, the effect of added impervious surface on local drainage and wells, and changes in wildlife findings in consultants’ reports. Several speakers recommended alternatives including a planned development (PDR) or an overlay to more tightly control lot sizes, housing types and buffer requirements. Amanda McKnight suggested PDR as “an out of the box compromise” to negotiate density, design and open space in a future development agreement.

Commissioners emphasized that a zoning decision does not authorize construction or guarantee utilities; future site plans must clear engineering, SWFWMD and other permitting steps. The city’s staff report and several speakers noted the parcel contains wetlands and that buildable acreage will be reduced by ponds, roads and common areas — comments the applicant’s attorney said would likely reduce net density compared with county Res-3 allowances.

The commission’s action assigns the RS-1 district and signals that infrastructure deficiencies, stormwater compensation and access will be evaluated if and when a development plan is submitted. The record also documents a procedural history the city acknowledged: prior annexation and earlier hearings dating back to the county and to 2006 and 2020 were referenced by speakers as background to neighbors’ frustration and legal concerns.

The commission closed the public hearing after the vote. Commissioners said they would continue to explore tools such as overlays and design standards that might address neighborhood preservation, environmental protection and infrastructure constraints in the area.