Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Parcel Waiver topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hardee County planning board recommends waiver so Square D Ranch can split parcel without 200-foot road frontage

2524980 · March 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hardee County Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend approval of a waiver allowing Square D Ranch to create a parcel that would not meet the A-1 zoning district's 200-foot public road frontage requirement, conditioned on recording a 60-foot access easement on future splits.

The Hardee County Planning and Zoning Board on an unspecified March meeting voted to recommend approval of Planning and Zoning Application No. 25-21, a waiver request from Square D Ranch, LTD, LLP that would allow creation of a parcel that does not meet the A-1 zoning district's 200-foot minimum lot width along a public road.

The request, presented by county planner Miller and sought by property owner John Daniels, would split an approximately 78.9-acre parcel so the western portion could be sold to the ranch manager. Staff told the board that the county's Unified Land Development Code normally requires 200 feet of public road frontage for new lots in A-1 zoning, and staff recommended denial under the code's waiver criteria but noted the proposal's "uniqueness." The board approved the waiver with a condition requiring verification that the existing 60-foot access easement be included on any future splits of the eastern half.

Why it matters: The decision lets the owner proceed, subject to the easement condition, while creating a parcel that would lack direct public road frontage. Board members discussed long-term implications if future owners seek to build on or further divide the land, and whether recorded easement language will allow access for future owners.

Miller, identified in the hearing as a county planner, told the board the application is a new type of waiver added to the county's code changes in 2023 and that staff reviewed the request under ULDC sections cited in the staff report. "This parcel is zoned A1, has an agriculture future land use, and is bordered on the western property line by Dallas McClellan Road," Miller said, describing the parcel and surrounding agricultural parcels. Miller said the applicant's ownership of roughly 1,100 acres across six adjoining parcels and multiple access points made the case less typical than an ordinary frontage waiver.

Owner John Daniels described his plan in public comment. "My name is John Daniels. . . . The ranch . . . is around 1,150 acres, and we have 3 access points," he said. Daniels said he and the ranch manager had agreed that the manager would buy the western portion to build a home, barn and pasture and that the owners initially tried to structure the sale so the remainder would retain the required 200 feet of frontage on Dallas McClellan Road.

Board members asked whether the eastern parcel created by the split would be landlocked and whether the existing 60-foot easement runs along the full northern boundary of the 80-acre area. Staff confirmed the easement crosses the northern boundary and said staff would verify on the final survey that the easement is depicted and recorded to ensure future access. Miller also noted the county had mailed courtesy notices to surrounding property owners and received only one informal inquiry at the planning office.

Several board members warned the applicant about longer-term limits on development without road frontage. One member noted that an existing lot of record created before 1996 may still be buildable, but a newly created parcel lacking the required frontage would need a waiver or other legal mechanism to be recognized for new building permits. Miller reiterated that the criteria for granting waivers require a showing of hardship or undue hardship and explained staff's recommendation of denial under those standards, though staff recognized the parcel's unique circumstances.

The motion to recommend approval of Application No. 25-21, as amended to include the condition that verification of the 60-foot access easement be required on any future splits of the eastern half, passed with all members present voting "aye." The mover and the second were recorded in the hearing; the motion carried and the board entered the staff report into the record.

The board listed the next regular meeting for April 3, 2025, and adjourned.