Regarding the ANRAC meeting that we were fortunate enough to find out about the night before it was held July 10, 2025
To all - I have no idea why there wasn’t some sort of notification regarding the meeting sent to us. Apparently, ANRAC held a meeting prior to either the zoning or commissioners meeting (I am not sure which) at which time they recommended against the proposed changes. The Pulte group was not notified of this first meeting and therefore was not present to present their site to the members of ANRAC. Pulte requested the meeting so they could state their case and answer questions.
Why would they not send out a mailing regarding a process that is going to make decisions that affect us, like they did for the zoning and commissioners’ meetings is not something I can answer but am with many of you that it was wrong.
As a result, there were too few of us present. I understand that we all have commitments, but for them to pull a stunt like this is disheartening to say the least. And in this case the ‘them’ is our own government leaders.
The purpose of the ANRAC committee is to make a recommendation to the county regarding the site and the proposed changes as they relate to water, nature, wildlife, etc.
The quote from Nigel Morris, and the recommendation they sent originally; regarding the Pulte project (at which time NEITHER Pulte or a representative from our neighborhoods were present);
“ANRAC could find NO GOOD REASON to support the density”
The following is a list of the concerns the ANRAC group had questions on at this meeting.
- Does Pulte currently own the land – the answer was NO it is under contract.
- Does Pulte have an option on the land that is in yellow believed to be owned by Hanson - the answer is NO they haven’t been able to get a hold of them, they don’t know who or if anyone has an option on it (our question would be that clearly they are trying to purchase it, based on their statement of “ they can’t get a hold of them? “ right?)
- In general, basic concerns about how much green space, how much preservation area, and water and sewer concerns.
Water and Sewer – they answered that the sewer will go to a treatment plant in Port Charlotte – which means UNDER the water, under 75…..etc – Is that because it is less costly.
Questions were asked regarding impacts on wells and future requirements for other communities to ‘hook up’ – those other communities being us -the current residents on Washington Loop. While they said we would NOT be required to hook up – look at the Cape Coral area homeowners who were also told they did not have to hookup and could keep their wells. They are now required to hook up to not only water but sewer. And they are water rationed. I think personally it is short-sighted to say we will NOT have to hook up when it goes by our property’s. If there is NOT enough water for them to have wells and septic’s, then maybe they should not crowd that many homes in this area.
Flooding questions – would be addressed thru permitting and overseen by government authorities to prevent flooding. I’m personally not sure that is a satisfactory answer, given that our neighbors on the west side of 17 are experiencing flooding from the few developments that have already been built and causing problems. Pulte is aware they will have to do a water study, and will not be able to affect the houses to the south (the Washington loop residents). (should that not already be done? – isn’t that something the commissioners and ANRAC should insist be done first?)
Topic points and statements made by Pulte group (my questions and things we should discover in purple italic and underlined)
Delisi - Pulte rep direct quotes:
“Development is coming south to Desoto County line and so we added 1M sf retail” (is that statement based on the WMDC??) believes they can bring in even more than “1M of industry to benefit the county”
“The density is only allowed thru transfer of Density units, and this proposal is relying on Density units based on Charlotte County Ordinance”
Delisi made a special point of the fact that Pulte is ‘required’ to present this proposal for the entire 4,900 acres even though they are only interested in the dark yellow and orange area. The Yellow area they are not involved in. This is in fact true as part of the FLUA anyone seeking to utilize any portion of the RSAOD must create a master plan for the whole Overlay District. Future Land use appendix 1 – page 38
PULTE is asking for an increase in the density units that could be purchased and transferred to this area from 6,000 to 8,000 - on the dark yellow portion of property, and not asking for an increase on the yellow portion. Delisi explained this by stating it makes more sense to have a higher density of housing nearer to Route 17 and to have a transition area to the farmland to the East.
The Yellow areas notes 1.2 unit/AC (as ORIGINALLY ENTITLED) – It is only “Entitled” to 1 home per 10 acres per zoning code. Without a master plan that density cannot be increased. See inset box from THEIR proposal below.
Delisi said - “Green Belt is a lot larger than the cm shown on the screen image” (I’m sorry but when he made that statement it was like saying we are idiots, like we can’t tell it is proportional, and trying to make us think there really is a whole lot more than what there really is.)
In fact the green areas per their plan state are ‘restored areas’ They made a big production with respect to conservation and saying that the farmers are responsible for the destruction of natural habitat, because of sod farming, crop planting and pasture graze lands, and their plan will restore the natural habitat that farming has destroyed.
They were specifically asked WHAT plantings – and could not give an answer.
Does anyone know how much a Density unit costs??
Who finds the units for the Developers to buy?? Is there a website marketplace for them? Does ‘staff’ find them for developers?
Pulte/Delisi also said that they were only for increased density on THEIR portion. He was not able/or chose not to answer the question of what happens if the other portion decides it wants increased density as well. And there was NO answer when they asked about future land use and potential zoning changes after, if this is approved.
Delisi said “they don’t control the next developer” of the rear area and what they will ask for.
They were asked how many miles of road? Did not know the answer.
Pulte was asked about golf contaminants and run off from their proposed golf course which they are dubbing as green space. In my opinion golf courses are not green space – they are not habitats where wildlife will live, and natural plantings are allowed to grow.
The Chairman Nigel did state that he was working on a project along Sam Way that
I tried to keep this paired down, it was an exceptionally long meeting that went well over the time allotted for it.
Further discussion regarding the details about zoning and the Comprehensive plan RSAOD (Rural Settlement Overlay District)
My opinion is that it is sad that the Site Plan Review office at the County or ‘staff’ who go thru the proposals and help the Pulte and other groups put together the presentations, are so biased that they can’t seem to give a straight answer.
The ‘staff’ were asked what is the current zoning and density allowed for that zoning?
The current zoning is AG which allows 1 home per 10 acres, the entitlement per the zoning code is 1 home per 10 acres, which equals 490 homes.
Their insistence that they are entitled to build 6,000 homes based on current zoning is incorrect. The future land use plan shows changes that can be made but it is NOT the current zoning. For ‘staff’ to state that it is currently zoned for 6,000 homes is simply not true, and a ‘staff’ member should know the difference in terminology and SHOULD NOT misconstrue the facts to the very people who pay their wages.
My personal opinion is that the TDU’s are outdated. There should be a moratorium on their use until they can be reevaluated, and the future use plan can be updated. Clearly the plan laid out in 2010 is outdated, and they need to use real focus groups based on residents of the area to determine the best path forward.
It was highly irritating when one ANRAC member stated “I don’t have to live there’, and he is deciding what can happen in our community?
The ANRAC chair was pointedly asked ‘WHY they did not see a good reason to approve the higher density when they first reviewed the Pulte case” He/they never gave an answer.
For me personally, I feel that reason is important, and what could keep this from moving forward. This question was never answered.
The end result, the ANRAC committee made a motion and it was seconded by two members to SEND THE SAME “DENIAL of SUPPORT” they sent the first time “no good reason to approve”. And it was unanimously accepted with the exception of Nigel the chair.
Pulte requested another meeting in which they can further their explanations, and it appears they have already withdrawn that request.
Since this posting (which I just realized I had done incorrectly - and it never showed up) they - Pulte - have sent letters to the HOA Presidents requesting a meeting to ‘go over our concerns’. My personal opinion is that this meeting only gives them the advantage of knowing what we have problems with; so they can have the answers and rebuttals ready.
Last – note that they are looking at WATER ACCESS from west of 17…..as depicted in their diagram! Are the people on the West of 17 seeing this?? Can you imagine the traffic to get to water from even 490 new homes??
This rendering directly from Pulte website
NOTE THE ‘Possible water access’
TAKE AWAYS
#1) We need a daily check for meetings and agenda reviews, at all levels.
County commissioners
ANRAC
Zoning
And to check and see if the planning sessions are posted and open to the public?
#2) Investigate a new Development plan the 2010 plan is old, no longer reflects community needs….
How many housing units are being built, and are vacant (take a look at Babcock ranch and the housing market there /development)
How many vacant lots are there in Prairie Creek?
#3) Is there a master list of these density units that are available to purchase and transfer here? Where are those properties?
MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT UNTIL NEW AND UPDATED LAND USE PLAN CAN BE DONE!! Unless we find a reason the commissioners can say NO to this proposal they will have to say YES! If there is not a legal way for them to say NO – they county can be sued by the developers so we have to help them, and show them how to say no and not get sued!!!