Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pinellas LPA recommends denial of Largo map amendment amid traffic, remediation and density concerns
Summary
The Local Planning Agency voted to deny a countywide map amendment (FLU25.09) that would have changed 18.43 acres in unincorporated Largo from Residential Urban to Residential Medium, citing staff concerns about compatibility, lack of binding assurances and unresolved brownfields remediation. The denial will be transmitted to the County Commission.
The Pinellas County Local Planning Agency on Oct. 8 recommended denial of FLU25.09, a request to change an 18.43‑acre parcel at 13400 Pine Street (unincorporated Largo) from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential Medium (RM), after extensive public comment and a heated board discussion about density, environmental remediation and traffic.
Scott Swearingen, long‑range planning manager, told the board the property was previously approved under a development agreement for a 207‑unit affordable housing project that was never built and whose agreement expired. Swearingen said RU currently allows about 7.5 dwelling units per acre (roughly 138 units on the parcel) and RM would allow 15 units per acre (about 276 units) without bonuses; with affordable housing density bonuses a project could exceed that maximum, depending on approvals. Staff advised denial because the requested RM designation, without accompanying binding assurances such as a master development plan or affordability requirements, would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
Katie Cole, attorney for the contract purchaser Bel Air Development Group, argued the parcel is appropriate for greater density outside the coastal hazard area and that RPD zoning and a future master development plan would impose setbacks, buffers and other controls to protect adjacent neighborhoods. Cole also said the parcel may qualify for brownfields support, and noted the Live Local designation could alter procedural requirements for affordable housing projects.
Residents voiced strong opposition. Marva Perry and other neighbors cited prior contested transactions related to the property, warned against placing two high‑density affordable projects back‑to‑back (referencing the nearby Rainbow Village redevelopment), and described drainage, flooding into backyards and feeder‑road traffic concerns. Gloria Blaine, who lives immediately adjacent, said she has seen water enter her backyard and opposed high‑density development on that site.
After discussion the board’s initial motion to approve the amendment failed. The board then made a motion to deny FLU25.09 based on staff recommendation; that motion passed on roll call and the LPA will forward a recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners for its Nov. 18 public hearing.
