Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Major topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues vote on 462‑acre Cascades rezoning after widespread resident objections on flooding, traffic and schools
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission continued a rezoning request for the Cascades expansion (about 462 acres) to Nov. 13 so the applicant can address construction access, drainage/runoff, wildlife studies, proof of phase‑one analyses and a firm requirement that Powell Road remain emergency‑access only. Residents cited repeated flooding, narrow rural roads and school capacity concerns.
The Brooksville Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 11 continued a contested rezoning application for roughly 462 acres—part of the Cascades master plan—to a date certain of Nov. 13 so the petitioner can respond to outstanding questions about construction access, drainage, wildlife and school impacts.
Staff described the petition (listed as Ordinance 9 84, RZ 2024‑1) as a request to convert several parcels to a City of Brooksville mixed‑use plan development that would allow a mix of single‑family homes, townhomes, villas and up to the number of residential units indicated in the comprehensive‑plan buildout. Staff noted the proposal could allow up to 1,477 dwelling units under the petitioner’s submission and as much as the comprehensive plan permits when combined with previously annexed acreage.
James Lipsey, the school district’s non‑voting representative to the commission, told members the district’s student‑generation model projects about 268 additional students from the proposed development (roughly 203 from single‑family, 40 from multifamily and 25 from townhomes) and reminded the commission that Condition 28 requires a formal school concurrency application before any first construction plan is approved.
Several residents from Powell Road, Rackley Road and nearby addresses gave sworn public comment, repeatedly citing what they described as recurring flooding and runoff problems associated with earlier developments in the area (notably Southern Hills). Residents urged the commission to restrict any construction access onto narrow Powell Road, questioned whether retention and drainage improvements would prevent water from being routed to existing properties, raised concerns about pesticide and fertilizer runoff affecting wells and local ecosystems, and warned that local roads and schools lack capacity for a major development.
Developer and consultant representatives said the property’s comprehensive plan envisioned residential development for many years, stressed that primary access would be to U.S. 41 (a six‑lane road) and said the petitioner does not intend to use the Powell Road emergency access for construction. The team also said the project must satisfy the water‑management district’s permitting and that the proposed master plan retains open space and floodplain areas for conservation. Staff outlined several conditions addressing roadway design, hammerheads if road extensions are not completed and that certain access designs require fire‑department and FDOT approvals.
After extended discussion, the commission voted to continue the item to Nov. 13 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers and asked the petitioner to return with a dated list of responses and additional materials addressing: clarification and memorialization of construction‑traffic access (particularly whether Powell will ever be used), flood/runoff analysis showing effects on Powell and neighboring roads, a wildlife/environmental study, documentation that Phase 1 environmental and engineering steps were completed, and a specific buffer proposal for Powell Road.
The continuance is a recommendation stage action by the commission; city council will receive the item and any revised staff recommendations at a later hearing if the petitioner proceeds.
