North Port zoning board: homeowners have standing but appeal of Parcel K approval denied

NORTH PORT — The North Port Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 16 concluded a protracted quasi‑judicial hearing over the city planning department’s June 2024 approval of a 150‑unit condominium project on Heron Creek “Parcel K,” finding the homeowners association had legal standing to challenge the decision but ultimately rejecting the association’s appeal on every substantive count.

The board’s action followed nearly nine hours of formal presentations, direct and cross‑examination of planners and experts, and public comment from dozens of Heron Creek residents who said the development would overwhelm club facilities, add traffic on Sumter and Heron Creek boulevards and change a community they said was promised as low‑density residential. Appellant counsel argued staff misapplied the Unified Land Development Code and the Heron Creek development‑of‑regional‑impact (DRI) ordinances, with one contested point focusing on whether an assisted‑living facility in the DRI should have been counted as multifamily housing or as an office use for purposes of the DRI conversion matrix.

The board first resolved procedural questions. Vice‑Chair Matt Corte disclosed a conflict and recused himself from voting; the board set time limits for presentations and voted to allow extended applicant and staff presentation time. A motion to transfer the appeal from the zoning board to the Planning & Zoning Advisory Board — which appellants argued was the correct route for a question of comprehensive plan interpretation — was heard and denied by the BZA after extended briefing and oral argument.

Appellants included the Heron Creek Homeowners Association and counsel for residents. Appellant witnesses testified about the parcel’s 9.78‑acre size, complaints that the project exceeds the low‑density category on the city future‑land‑use map (four dwelling units per acre), and claims that city staff relied on a legal opinion and a DRI conversion method to justify a much higher effective density on Parcel K. Appellant counsel also argued the conversion matrix and related DRI allocations had been exhausted elsewhere in the project and that the developer’s approvals therefore exceeded the DRI caps.

City staff, represented at the hearing by Assistant Development Services Director Laurie Barnes, defended the department’s review. Barnes testified the department applied the code, the DRI conversion matrix and the project’s existing entitlements, and concluded the Parcel K major site and development plan (MAS) complied with the comprehensive plan, the ULDC, the DRI ordinance and relevant state law. The department introduced evidence the Heron Creek DRI was approved with an overall bundle of entitlements, that a conversion matrix had been adopted and used in prior amendments, and that programmatic traffic and stormwater reviews were completed at the DRI level.

Expert witnesses included Daniel Trescott, a long‑time DRI planner, who described how conversion matrices and DRI vesting are typically calculated across an entire DRI (the “unified plan of development”) rather than parcel‑by‑parcel; and traffic engineer Matthew Morris, who testified the Parcel K traffic analysis used current trip‑generation methods (he said the document contained a date/typographical error but applied the 11th ITE edition numbers) and that Parcel K ties into an existing master stormwater system and related Southwest Florida Water Management District permits.

At the hearing’s close the board split its work into legal findings and the merits. The board voted to grant the HOA standing to pursue the appeal — a procedural victory for residents — but then voted, count‑by‑count, to deny the HOA’s substantive claims. The board recorded abstentions where members had earlier disclosed conflicts; it denied challenges to staff jurisdiction, to the project’s compliance with comprehensive‑plan density provisions as applied in this DRI context, and to allegations of inadequate traffic, water and sewer review. The board also found that the pattern book and DRI conversion methodology cited by staff and developer counsel supported the department’s choices about how certain uses within the DRI were categorized for entitlement accounting.

The practical effect of the board’s votes is to leave the development services department’s June 2024 issuance of a major site and development plan for Parcel K in place. Appellants may have further judicial options; both sides referenced earlier litigation and appellate rulings in related disputes during the hearing.

What’s next: the board instructed staff and counsel to prepare written orders reflecting the oral rulings. The project’s proponents may proceed under the development order; opponents said they may seek further review in the courts.

Quotes capturing the dispute include Heron Creek resident Roland Oliver’s public comment: “We will be denied our panoramic view…if this project goes forward,” and appellant counsel Dan Lobeck’s closing: “These 150 units are going to have a big impact on the road…our clients will be faced with a lot more maintenance.” Assistant Development Services Director Laurie Barnes said staff’s determination was grounded in the ULDC and DRI ordinances and that: “The finding was that this project did meet all of the criteria under the city’s regulations and the development of regional impact ordinance.”

The zoning board’s minutes and the full hearing record show detailed legal and technical arguments; the board’s votes were taken on the record and will be included in the formal order to be issued in the coming weeks.