Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners authorize appeal of court order on Pebble Creek rezoning after heated debate
Summary
After debate and a failed initial vote, the Hillsborough County Board voted 4–3 to authorize the county to appeal a circuit court order that quashed its denial of rezoning for the Pebble Creek golf‑course proposal. Opponents argued the item should not have been on the consent agenda; supporters cited consistency with the comprehensive plan and strong resident opposition.
The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners voted to authorize the county attorney to file a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a circuit court order that quashed the board’s denial of the rezoning application for the Pebble Creek golf course.
Assistant County Attorney Cameron Clark told the board the item would seek appellate review of the judge’s order — a writ of certiorari focused on the lower court’s order rather than the facts of the application. "This item is just, seeking board authorization to file a petition for the certiorari with the 2nd district court of appeal in the matter of GL Acquisitions Corporation Inc. v. Hillsborough County," Clark said.
The decision followed an extended exchange. Commissioner Wostel told colleagues he was "very displeased that this was put on consent," arguing appeals of quasi‑judicial land‑use denials are atypical and that the court quashed the original denial. "I voted no on this because these are quasi judicial hearings," he said. Chair countered that circumstances had changed since the board’s earlier 5–2 denial and cited changes to the land‑development code and community concern: "The 1,363 emails that we received, 1,090 opposed the request, which is 80%." The Chair framed his motion to pursue the appeal as consistent with comprehensive‑plan provisions on neighborhood protection.
An initial motion to appeal failed on the first vote (3–4). After a motion to reconsider carried, the board voted again and approved authorization to appeal by a 4–3 margin. The clerk announced the final tally and noted a recorded no vote by at least one commissioner during the later announcement.
The case arises from the board’s prior denial of rezoning PD‑23‑0132. Commissioners on both sides cited the quasi‑judicial nature of land‑use denials, judicial findings that the board’s prior denial lacked competent, substantial evidence, and the volume of public input that had been included in the administrative record. The authorization directs the county attorney’s office to proceed with appellate filings; no appellate outcome was guaranteed and counsel noted the appeal focuses on whether the lower court’s order was legally correct, not a re‑weighing of local factual findings.
Next steps: county attorneys will prepare the certiorari petition for filing with the Second District Court of Appeal consistent with the board authorization.
