Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves first reading to annex Tuscant Drive parcel amid residents' objections over density
Summary
Florence City Council granted first reading of an annexation and NC‑6.3 zoning request for about 1.47 acres on Tuscant Drive despite strong opposition from Villa Toscana residents who said proposed townhome density and potential rentals would change their neighborhood's character.
Florence City Council voted on first reading to annex and zone approximately 1.467 acres on Tuscant Drive to NC‑6.3 after a contested public hearing in which nearby residents urged denial or a different outcome.
Planner Jerry (Planning Department) told council the property is currently unzoned in the county and that the NC‑6.3 designation would allow a mixture of attached and detached residential types, including townhomes and multifamily units. The planning commission recommended annexation and the NC‑6.3 zoning by a 4–2 vote.
Multiple Villa Toscana residents spoke against the annexation at council. Ken Winslow, a resident and former board member, said Villa Toscana is a 77‑home community that maintains a long entrance and that a proposed 23–25 units on the 1.47‑acre parcel would "impact the character of our community." Gloria Lucia, another resident, told council she viewed the developer's statements about possible county approvals as coercive and said the neighborhood's conservation designation should be respected. Several residents asked the council to require larger buffers or to maintain the parcel as commercially zoned if annexed.
Council discussion acknowledged two competing principles: property‑owner rights and the council's responsibility to evaluate compatibility with adjacent city zoning. Several councilmembers noted the parcel's unzoned county status means the owner could pursue a range of county uses if annexation were denied; others said annexation triggers the city's obligation to apply city zoning standards and to consider neighborhood impacts. Councilman George Jabali and others asked whether alternative zoning would exist that allowed lower density; planning staff said NC‑6.3 is the city district that specifically allows townhomes, and a different residential category would not permit that product.
Council members also discussed mitigation options: additional buffer yard requirements, neighborhood gates or agreements, and traffic‑calming measures. Planning staff said a traffic study would be triggered only at higher density levels and suggested the developer could be asked voluntarily to consider access and design changes.
The motion to annex and zone the parcel to NC‑6.3 passed on first reading (voice vote with recorded opposition during the hearing). The annexation and zoning will return for a required second reading, and council members encouraged staff to seek additional engagement between the developer and neighborhood to explore mitigation measures before final action.
Why this matters: the decision sets the municipal zoning for a parcel immediately adjacent to existing single‑family neighborhoods and raises recurring questions about how Florence balances infill housing, density, property‑owner rights and neighborhood character.
Next steps: the proposal will return for second reading; staff said that final development plans (site plan, stormwater, access) must be submitted and would be subject to city development standards and any additional conditions council imposes.
