“I Feel Very Strongly That This Board Let This Neighborhood Down.” — Hillsborough Commissioner Ken Hagan
The group calling itself “Save Pebble Creek” has very few opportunities left to try to, as they see it, save their neighborhood. The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) voted 5-1 on June 9 to “remand” the proposed GL Homes project — the home builder has been trying for year to purchase the 149 acres of the Pebble Creek Golf Club’s golf course (which closed in July 2021) and build 250 single-family homes on the property — back to the Zoning Hearing Master (ZHM) on Monday, July 20, 6 p.m., but for a very limited, constrained purpose.
Just for clarification, a “remand” in a land development or zoning context “occurs when a higher authority (like a court or appellate board, in this case, the 2nd District Court of Appeals) sends a project application or dispute back to a lower authority (like a local planning commission or, in this case, the BOCC) for further review, additional findings, or reconsideration.”
Chief assistant county attorney Cameron Clark (photo) told the Board that the only part of the case that could be remanded was to add an “ex parte” communication (Note – An “ex parte” communication in land development is any “one-sided” communication between a project applicant, supporter or opponent and a decision-making board member outside of a public hearing) by Ace Golf and still-Pebble Creek Golf Club owner Bill Place to District 5 County Commissioner Donna Cameron Cepeda.
In his email to Comm. Cepeda dated Apr. 7, Place wrote, “I believe the GL [Homes] project offers the best possible solution for residents and we have worked with them every step of the way,” which will need to be included in the official record of the project.
And, while the remand will not include the last line of Place’s email (but it is a matter of public record), it said, “I did not want to make the offer before your position was taken on this (not that it would have influenced), but I would be quite happy to support your re-election.”
After Clark explained to the commissioners exactly what the BOCC could and couldn’t remand, Dist. 7 Comm. Joshua Wostal moved to remand Place’s ex-parte communication issue to the Zoning Hearing Master at the BOCC’s zoning hearing on July 20.
After the motion was seconded by Dist. 1 Comm. Harry Cohen, Board Chair & Dist. 2 Comm. Ken Hagan explained to the Save Pebble Creek supporters (who held up “Remand” signs behind Clark as he spoke) in attendance that no public comments could be made at that meeting.
Prior to the vote, Comm. Hagan asked Clark, “Do you see any avenue or opportunity to broaden that remand at this time?”
Clark responded, “I would say that’s very difficult. It’s not impossible but all the issues that have already been discussed in this case…the evidence that’s been submitted…that the Board discussed in its denial and that were discussed by the court…essentially, those are closed issues at this point. So, new evidence on, say, the desirability of maintaining open space, things of that nature, would not be helpful at this point because, essentially, it’s already been determined that those issues were resolved by the court.”
Hagan then said, “I’m just going to say, having represented Pebble Creek for 24 years…I feel very strongly that this Board let this neighborhood down. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and the county attorney has made it very clear what our options are [now].”
Dist. 6 Comm. Chris Boles then asked Clark, “When this comes back before us, after the July 20 [ZHM] hearing, will there be an opportunity for public comment at that time, and will it be limited only to what happened at that hearing? Would you expound upon that?”
Clark responded, “So, just as the ability to comment at the July 20 ZHM hearing is going to be limited — and I believe this comes back to [the BOCC] Land Use in September — there will be a new oral argument opportunity but it would be limited to that issue only because everything else that’s [already] in the record is going to be the same as it was in July 2023, and there’s already been oral arguments on all of those issues.”
The commissioners then voted 5-1 (Dist. 4 Comm. Christine Miller was absent) in favor of the remand, with Comm. Hagan casting the lone dissenting vote.
Save Pebble Creek founder Leslie Green released this statement after the BOCC’s vote:
“It is unfortunate that after the BOCC voted against the rezoning application, its decision-making authority was ultimately limited by a court ruling that prevented the Board from relying on its original reasons for denial, including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
“I believe that if the County had pursued one additional appeal, the BOCC’s denial would have been upheld, and this matter could have been resolved much sooner. We were hoping for a much broader remand that would have allowed consideration of the soil contamination issues and an update to the 2022 traffic study. I fear living here during the soil cleanup.”
The History Of The Case
As Clark explained prior to the vote, the BOCC first denied the GL Homes rezoning application in July of 2023: “The developer appealed that denial to circuit court, where the applicant prevailed,” Clark said. “The county then appealed that ruling to the appellate court, where the county prevailed. It was sent back to the circuit court, where the circuit judge essentially ‘fixed’ his order and once again quashed the Board’s denial from July of ‘23, which effectively rewinds this application back to [that date]. The effect of the court order is to place significant restraint on the Board’s action.” We will update this story after the July 20 ZHM hearing.
No comment yet, add your voice below!