Trustees deny rezoning request for 33.37-acre Horseshoe Bend parcel after residents raise traffic, view and detail concerns

Village of Four Seasons trustees voted on Dec. 11 to deny a request to rezone a 33.37-acre Horseshoe Bend parcel from R1 to R2, ending a months-long review after residents and the planning-and-zoning panel raised concerns about traffic, sightlines and insufficient project details.

The application, filed by Kelly Development Group LLC, sought to leave two shoreline lots as R1 single-family and reclassify roughly 28.87 acres as R2 to allow multifamily construction. Developer Mark C. Kelly and his project team presented drawings showing roughly 300 condominium units clustered along the lake and additional single-family areas, but the trustees said the materials lacked the specific conditions they would need to support a rezoning.

"I'm not making a change to the character of the Four Seasons," Mark C. Kelly told trustees during the presentation, saying the plan concentrates multifamily buildings away from established neighborhoods and that landscaping and buffers would mitigate impacts. He added the developer planned to pay up-front utility connection and impact fees and said the proposal would create construction and local-service jobs.

Residents and local community boards pushed back. Bob Avery, speaking for the Treetop Village board of directors, said the submission "lacked the level of detail, clarity, and supporting documentation necessary for citizens, adjacent property owners, or decision makers to reasonably evaluate the scope, impact, and long-term consequences of redevelopment." He urged trustees to require a professionally prepared, detailed plan before any entitlement decision.

Legal counsel Todd Miller cautioned trustees that rezoning from R1 to R2 without specific, enforceable conditions would allow any use permitted under R2 zoning, not just the project shown. "If the plans are not concrete . . . your approval tonight would give [the owners or successors] the ability to build anything consistent with your R2 zoning classification," Miller said, explaining why trustees must weigh the broader zoning consequences rather than only the developers' illustrations.

After discussion, a trustee moved to approve the rezoning "as presented," a second was made and the board held a roll-call vote. Multiple trustees voted no, and the motion failed. Clerks recorded the motion as not passing; counsel and staff noted the applicant can return with a conditioned planned-unit development (PUD) or a more detailed submittal.

What happened - The planning-and-zoning commission previously held a public hearing and was split on a recommendation (three in favor, three opposed) after a straw poll among hearing attendees. Six written correspondences from residents were read into the PNZ record; a majority of public comments at the hearing were opposed. - Developer presentations indicated about 300'10 condominium units and a $2.5 million replanting/landscaping budget, and the team described paying $12,000 per-unit water/sewer impact fees to County Water & Sewer District No. 4 to fund capacity upgrades. - Trustees voted on the rezoning motion and it failed. Counsel advised the developer may return with a PUD or revised materials if they wish to pursue entitlements.

Why it matters The trustees decision preserves the villages current R1/R2 balance for now and underscores two local tensions: residents desire to protect scenic views and the comprehensive-plan preference for lower-density shoreline uses, and developers arguments that multifamily projects will supply off-season economic activity and jobs. Rezoning decisions also set legal limits on what subsequent owners can build; a denial leaves the existing zoning in place.

Next steps Trustees and staff told the applicant that a return with clearer, professionally produced site plans, a possible PUD with enforceable conditions, or further community outreach could be accepted at a future meeting. The developer indicated willingness to keep working with neighbors and staff on refinements.