Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pinellas LPA unanimously recommends land‑use and zoning changes for 4.08‑acre East Lake parcel
Summary
The Local Planning Agency voted unanimously to recommend a future‑land‑use amendment (FLU25‑05) and a companion zoning atlas amendment (ZON25‑03) for a 4.08‑acre portion of a 5‑acre East Lake property. Staff said a 2015 development agreement limits the site to an 80‑bed assisted‑living facility; the owner does not wish to pursue that use.
The Local Planning Agency for Pinellas County voted unanimously to recommend a change in future land use and a companion zoning map amendment for a 4.08‑acre portion of a roughly 5‑acre property in the East Lake community. The board forwarded FLU25‑05 and ZON25‑03 to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners for final action at a hearing scheduled for Oct. 21, 2025, at 6 p.m. in the Palmer Room at 333 Chestnut Street.
Scott Swearingen, the county’s long‑range planning manager, told the board staff sought to change the site’s future land use designation from institutional to residential rural and to alter the zoning from limited institutional with a wellhead protection overlay to residential agricultural with the overlay. Swearingen said the requests are companion cases and that the change is supported by comprehensive‑plan objectives that guide development along Keystone Road’s rural open‑space corridor.
Swearingen said the subject area for the two cases is 4.08 acres and that the residual parcel (about 0.92 acres of the larger 5‑acre property) would remain in preservation. He told the board that a 2015 development agreement had limited development on the property to an assisted‑living facility and that, per the agreement, that allowance is for an 80‑bed facility. "Per the development agreement, it does say ... an 80‑bed," he said in response to a board question about conflicting slide text.
Staff told the board the property owner does not wish to pursue the assisted‑living facility and that county procedure requires the LPA and BOCC process to effect a map change even when a development agreement expires. County counsel advised that only the county can initiate the reversion under the development agreement language and reiterated that the LPA is the statutorily mandated review body for comprehensive‑plan amendments.
Swearingen said traffic impacts would be reduced under the proposed change, noting an assisted‑living facility configured as allowed by the development agreement would generate more trips than the residential rural designation (staff estimated the site might hold one unit per two acres under residential rural rules, meaning roughly two single‑family units on the 4.08‑acre portion, compared with an 80‑bed assisted‑living facility). He also noted the site contains a portion in flood zone A and lies within the county’s wellhead protection overlay, which carries additional regulatory limitations.
After board questions and confirmation there were no public proponents or opponents present either in the room or online, a member moved approval of FLU25‑05 "based on the presented evidence." The clerk recorded the motion as "Motion by Hamilton, second by Brito." The LPA voted to recommend approval unanimously. The board then voted unanimously to recommend approval of the companion zoning amendment ZON25‑03 (motion by Hendricks; second by Brito).
The record for the BOCC will include staff materials and any written comments submitted at least 15 days before the BOCC hearing, per the notice the LPA read at the meeting. The BOCC public hearing remains scheduled for Oct. 21, 2025, at 6 p.m.
