Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County board authorizes appeal of Pebble Creek rezoning denial after split vote
Summary
After an initial failed vote and a successful motion to reconsider, the Hillsborough County Board voted 4–3 to authorize the county attorney to appeal a circuit court ruling that quashed the board's denial of rezoning for the Pebble Creek Golf Course development.
The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners voted 4–3 to authorize the county attorney to file a petition for writ of certiorari in GL Acquisitions Corp. v. Hillsborough County, arising from the board's denial of rezoning (RZPD‑23‑0132) for a proposed development at Pebble Creek Golf Course.
Assistant County Attorney Cameron Clark told the board the petition would ask the 2nd District Court of Appeal to review the trial court’s order — not the application facts — under the 2nd‑tier certiorari standard. "This item is just seeking board authorization to file a petition for the certiorari with the 2nd District Court of Appeal," Clark said in presenting the item.
Commissioner Wostel spoke against placing the item on consent and against pursuing the appeal, saying the board's land‑use hearings are quasi‑judicial and that the lower court found insufficient evidence to support the denial. "These are quasi judicial hearings…there is no competent substantial evidence for the determination of a denial," Wostel said. A different set of commissioners emphasized that their motion to deny had been based on comprehensive‑plan policy concerns, not public opposition or personal views of developers.
The board initially voted down the authorization, then approved a motion to reconsider. On the final tally the motion to authorize the appeal carried 4–3; the clerk recorded Commissioners Cameron, Cepeda, Cohen and Wostel as voting no. The authorization directs the county attorney's office (and outside counsel where engaged) to proceed with appellate filings on the matter.
The chair noted the record includes extensive public input: "1,363 emails…80% opposed," and said the denial motion had cited comprehensive plan provisions on neighborhood protection. The appellate filing will focus on the trial court's order as the proper subject of a certiorari review rather than rehearing the underlying land‑use facts.
No new procedural action on the rezoning itself was taken at the meeting; the appeal is limited to the order identified in the petition request and will proceed through the courts.
