Pinellas Park council denies rezoning for 10‑lot subdivision after resident concerns about notice and flooding

The Pinellas Park City Council voted to deny Ordinance 2025‑19 on Aug. 12, rejecting a developer request to rezone two parcels on Sixtieth Street North for a 10‑lot single‑family subdivision.

Megan Montesino, planning staff, described the request as a rezoning from rural residential (RR) to single‑family residential R‑3 with a residential planned unit development (RPUD) overlay for a private, gated 10‑lot subdivision on a 3.41‑acre site. Montesino said the proposed lots would meet R‑3 minimum dimensions and that the RPUD would make the internal road, utilities and stormwater ponds private and subject to HOA maintenance. Staff recommended approval with a condition that the developer perform a sanitary‑sewer study for Lift Station 56 and complete any required upgrades if the study shows capacity problems.

The proposal prompted extended public comment and questions from council members about whether the property had been properly posted and whether nearby infrastructure could handle additional development. Council member Ricky Seville said he could not see a second notice sign from the main corridor and asked that the item be postponed so posting could be verified. Several neighbors said they did not receive understandable notice and that signs, if posted, were not visible to drivers on the main road.

Resident Louise Ferguson, who said she lives directly north of the site at 11253 Sixtieth Street North, asked about environmental resource permits and how often the regional water‑management district (Swiftmud) inspects permitted drainage features. "Swiftmud . . . will approve the plan based on the design, and they will be, requiring us to certify after it's all built that the construction has met the approved plan," the applicant's agent responded, adding that Swiftmud requires an as‑built certification after construction and audits the certified work periodically. Ferguson and other neighbors raised flooding concerns, noting nearby properties flood during heavy rain and hurricanes. Joseph Brokaw, also a nearby resident, said the area has seen rapid near‑by development and questioned why the developer sought more lots than the current RR zoning allows.

Applicant representatives said the RPUD actually limits density compared with the maximum R‑3 allowance and that the developer was proposing 2.9 units per acre under the RPUD overlay (below the R‑3 advertised 4.3 units per acre limit). The applicant confirmed the developer would comply with staff conditions, including a sanitary‑sewer study and any required upgrades.

After the hearing, a motion to deny Ordinance 2025‑19 was made by a council member and seconded. In a roll call the council recorded three votes in favor of denial and one vote against; the mayor abstained. The council chair announced a final tally of 3‑1 and said "the ordinance fails. The relief requested is denied."