Dade City commission denies rezoning ordinance for Merne-area property, orders expedited re‑application option

The Dade City Commission on second reading voted 3-2 to deny Ordinance 2024-07, a request to apply city zoning consistent with a Low Density Residential (LDR) future land-use designation on a roughly 142-acre annexed property north of the city. Commissioners then voted 5-0 to direct staff to expedite any new application the property owner files for a development order or different zoning.

The measure drew prolonged public comment from neighbors who said the property’s change from county agricultural zoning to an urban residential designation risks flooding, well failures and overloaded local services. “I moved back here … I moved specifically here to be in the country,” said Jim Folsom, who identified himself as a resident at 14716 Billy Lane near the site. Rita Barrett, a Dade City resident on Puckett Road, told commissioners: “Quit thinking about the money and let’s start thinking about Little Dade City.”

The applicant’s representative told the commission the tract was annexed in February 2006 and that about one-third of the site is floodplain or wetlands and therefore not developable. The representative said roughly 100 acres could be buildable and that, after required roads, buffers, stormwater ponds and open space, the property would likely yield “roughly 280 units,” or about 2.8 units per developable acre. That estimate and details about stormwater retention and permitting were presented as preliminary and subject to engineering review.

Staff and several commissioners outlined the zoning options available under the city’s comprehensive plan LDR category. Planning staff said RS-1 requires a 10,000-square-foot minimum lot size and permits up to four units per acre; RS-2 and RS-3 correspond to smaller lots and higher maximum densities (staff said RS-2 is roughly 8,500-square-foot lots with 5 units per acre and RS-3 about 6,500-square-foot lots with up to 6 units per acre). City staff and the applicant said the preliminary net yield would be lower than the ordinance maxima once infrastructure and drainage requirements are applied.

Several affected-property speakers described recurrent standing water and past hurricane-related flooding on River Road, Sumner Lake Road and adjacent low points. “Developing that is really gonna put a problem on it,” said a property owner who said storm runoff currently fills Sumner and Tob lakes and culverts through neighboring parcels. Residents repeatedly asked whether annexation of other surrounding lands was planned; city staff replied there were no current voluntary annexation petitions and no plans on the books to annex the area.

Commission debate focused on the rezoning standards listed in the staff report. Commissioner Church summarized that the staff checklist included 11 standards for rezoning approvals and that only three were marked “met” in the report. Commissioners who opposed approval said the proposed designation would be incompatible with surrounding rural land uses and could increase sprawl and traffic on narrow, unpaved Sumner Lake Road. Several commissioners cited long-standing concerns about stormwater management and enforcement of stormwater controls in past developments.

Mayor Pro Tem Woodard moved to deny Ordinance 2024-07 on the second reading “based on incompatibility with our standards for rezoning approvals.” The motion carried on roll call 3-2, with Mayor Black and Commissioner Cosentino voting against. The commission then approved a separate motion, 5-0, directing staff that should the applicant file a new development-order application, staff is to expedite review and the hearings process.

The denial does not change the property’s annexation status; staff and the applicant clarified that annexation occurred in 2006. City staff emphasized that engineering-level determinations about net buildable acreage, stormwater design, well impacts and traffic will be addressed during any future development-order, site-plan or permitting phases rather than at the zoning stage.

Commissioners and members of the public asked staff and the applicant to provide further technical analysis on stormwater retention, proposed drainage routes and likely impacts on neighboring wells prior to any resubmitted application. The expedited-application direction requires staff to provide notice and to process any new filings on an accelerated timeline if the applicant chooses to reapply.

The commission’s action leaves open multiple paths: the applicant may refile for a different zoning designation, pursue a development order or leave the property under its current county zoning until a future application is submitted. The city attorney noted legal options available to applicants and that denial on second reading operates like a denial if no subsequent motion is made.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance 2024-07 (second reading rezoning of annexed property, LDR/RS-1 requested): Motion to deny based on incompatibility with rezoning standards. Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Woodard; seconded by Commissioner Church. Roll-call vote: 3 in favor (motion to deny), 2 opposed (Mayor Black, Commissioner Cosentino). Outcome: denied on second reading.

- Direction to staff to expedite any new development-order application filed by the applicant: Motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Outcome: approved (staff to expedite new application if filed).

Why it matters

The decision halted an immediate change in zoning that residents said would allow a suburban-scale subdivision amid rural surroundings. The case highlights persistent issues for Dade City and other fast-growing Florida cities: how to reconcile older annexations and comprehensive-plan designations with stormwater constraints, infrastructure capacity and neighborhood compatibility. The expedited-application direction gives the applicant a faster route back to the commission if they seek a different entitlement.

What’s next

If the applicant chooses to reapply with a different zoning or a development order, city staff will process that filing on an expedited basis and hold hearings before the planning board and commission. Staff and commissioners requested additional engineering-level analysis, especially on stormwater retention and potential impacts on neighboring private wells, before any future rezoning or development-order approval.