Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dade City declines to act on 79‑acre Hidden Hills annexation after residents cite environmental concerns
Summary
A proposed voluntary annexation of about 79.38 acres known as Hidden Hills—currently an operating sand mine—generated sharp questions from commissioners and strong opposition from nearby residents about alleged dumping, contamination and infrastructure capacity. One commissioner moved to approve the annexation, but the motion had no second and died, leaving related land‑use items moot for now.
City staff introduced Ordinance 2025‑16 on Jan. 13, a voluntary petition to annex roughly 79.38 acres of currently unincorporated land (an operating sand mine) into Dade City. Staff and the city planner said the parcel is contiguous to municipal boundaries and met statutory criteria for voluntary annexation; the planning board had recommended approval by a 3‑2 vote.
The item prompted intensive questioning by commissioners about environmental and infrastructure implications. Commissioner Cosentino and others asked whether environmental or geotechnical studies had been submitted; staff and the planner said none were required for the annexation stage and that DEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) regulates mining operations. Several commissioners cautioned that annexation can vest certain rights and that annexing an active mine could create a legal nonconforming use within the city that would continue until development occurs.
Nearby residents turned out in significant numbers to oppose annexation. Sharon Thomas, who lives on County Road 52, told the commission she had seen truckloads of material brought into the pit and said, "The water's gonna hit it, and it's gonna sink," urging the commission to require environmental study and to tour the site. Other residents described traffic and public‑safety concerns and asked that the city require current traffic and environmental studies before approving annexation and related land‑use changes.
Applicant representatives and the landowner responded: counsel for the applicant, Commissioner Shelly Johnson, said the sand mine operates under a DEP permit and that the owner does not plan to expand mining operations before development. Owner Jay Pashley described prior borings, a previously prepared master plan, and said parts of the site have been mined selectively; he also said there are areas with minerals and that he had worked with engineering firms on layouts in past years.
Commissioners debated competing priorities: several said annexation would give the city regulatory control and the ability to enforce standards if development proceeds; others said the city lacked key technical review (DEP permit analysis, environmental testing, sewer capacity analysis) and were uncomfortable moving ahead with an annexation at first reading. One commissioner moved to approve the annexation on first reading; no second was offered and the motion died for lack of a second. The mayor noted that without approval of the annexation the companion items to change future land use and zoning (items G‑2 and G‑3) were moot and would not be heard.
No formal annexation vote occurred; staff and the commission indicated the matter could return later with additional technical documentation or under a different procedural posture.
