Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed 280‑home PD on Lithia Pinecrest draws broad opposition over density, traffic and drainage
Summary
Developers sought a 280‑home planned development and concurrent comprehensive‑plan amendments to expand the Urban Service Area along Lithia Pinecrest Road; applicants proposed larger lots at the southern edge and added buffers, while Preserve Rural Lithia and many neighbors urged denial citing incompatibility with surrounding rural lots, wildlife corridors, flood risk, and unsafe roads.
A contentious planned‑development proposal to build up to 280 single‑family homes on roughly 190 acres along Lithia Pinecrest Road dominated the June 22 Zoning Hearing Master docket. Applicants, represented by Kami Corbett and others, said the project would include larger lots along the southern boundary, 20‑foot vertical screening, retention of existing vegetation where feasible, and offsite roadway and stormwater commitments tied to the development. They said the project’s density (about 1.47 dwelling units per acre under the proposed RES‑2 designation) would be lower than the maximum allowed and argued the design would preserve wetlands and open space.
Residents and the advocacy group Preserve Rural Lithia mounted sustained opposition. Attorney Jane Graham and land‑use planner Susan Swift presented a multi‑point critique: they argued the general site plan lacked required specificity, that the submitted June site plan omitted key elements used in staff review, and that a sudden increase from 38 lots (existing/platted) to 280 represented a “not gradual” transition at odds with Comprehensive Plan policies protecting rural character. Neighbors raised public‑safety and infrastructure concerns: testimony included accounts of multiple fatalities on Lithia Pinecrest, claims that road shoulders and sidewalks are substandard, and worries about well water depletion and flood impacts on local creeks. One opponent stated the project “would increase the density 630%,” and others emphasized the wildlife corridor and documented panther sightings near the site.
Planning Commission staff and Development Services considered the rezoning consistent with the county plan only if the concurrent comprehensive plan amendments are approved; Development Services recommended approval of the PD assuming the plan amendments pass, and the Planning Commission reached split conclusions at different stages (staff consistent; commissioners split). The Planning Commission’s board previously transmitted related amendments to the BOCC; the BOCC will consider the plan amendments at future dates. The Hearing Master closed public testimony and signaled he would prepare a recommendation for the BOCC; given the breadth of community opposition and the concurrent comprehensive‑plan issues, the matter will remain an active, high‑profile county planning item.
