What were the most significant items on the Haines City Planning Commission agenda for October 2025?

Meeting Reading

Haines City Planning Commission

October 23, 2025

4 items on the agenda

**Anderson casts the cycle's first NAY vote — and the board's emergent dissent surface.** Charles Anderson voted nay on Marion Groves (Ord 25-2134), making this the first recorded dissent in the Haines City Planning Commission corpus. In the board-comments closing, Anderson said: *"I [don't] think it [is] their responsib[ility] to rubberstamp these items and [I do] believe that the board should consider the voices of the residents."* (transcription has typo "not" — context confirms Anderson is opposing rubberstamping). **Chair McLean shared Anderson's sentiment but reasoned past it**: *"if these projects are in compliance, then they have to approve them."* This is the Haines City board's first public surfacing of the same constitutional tension Leesburg's denial bloc carries — the mismatch between code-compliance and community-fit. **The corpus has captured the moment a Haines City dissent posture is born.**
**Vice-Chair Hamilton's response is the cycle's procedural moderation**: *"he doesn't want to discourage anyone to come to the planning meeting."* Lee then adds: *"it is not their jurisdiction to deny this item."* Three of the four reasoning frames are now on the record:
**John Bannon recurs across the year** — Bannon was at the August 11 Ford Family Trust hearing and is here representing Marion Groves. Recurring developer-side representative across at least two RPUD cases. Track corridor-wide.

On October 23, 2025, City of Haines City's Planning Commission considered 4 agenda items. **Anderson casts the cycle's first NAY vote — and the board's emergent dissent surface.** Charles Anderson voted nay on Marion Groves (Ord 25-2134), making this the first recorded dissent in the Haines City Planning Commission corpus. In the board-comments closing, Anderson said: *"I [don't] think it [is] their responsib[ility] to rubberstamp these items and [I do] believe that the board should consider the voices of the residents."* (transcription has typo "not" — context confirms Anderson is opposing rubberstamping). **Chair McLean shared Anderson's sentiment but reasoned past it**: *"if these projects are in compliance, then they have to approve them."* This is the Haines City board's first public surfacing of the same constitutional tension Leesburg's denial bloc carries — the mismatch between code-compliance and community-fit. **The corpus has captured the moment a Haines City dissent posture is born.** **Vice-Chair Hamilton's response is the cycle's procedural moderation**: *"he doesn't want to discourage anyone to come to the planning meeting."* Lee then adds: *"it is not their jurisdiction to deny this item."* Three of the four reasoning frames are now on the record: **John Bannon recurs across the year** — Bannon was at the August 11 Ford Family Trust hearing and is here representing Marion Groves. Recurring developer-side representative across at least two RPUD cases. Track corridor-wide.

CHANGE LENS

THE READINGmeeting record

City of Haines City Planning Commission — October 23, 2025

Meeting Overview

Type: Regular Meeting Quorum: Yes (5 of 7) Duration: 37 minutes (4:06 PM – 4:43 PM)

Attendance

Present: Charles Anderson, Earle Lee, Louie McLean / McLane (Chair — transcription varies), Joseph Hamilton (Vice-Chair), Eddie Perez
Absent: Brian Stokes
Staff Present: City Planner Grace Malpartida; City Clerk Sharon Lauther, MMC

Agenda Items

Item 5.a: Ordinance 25-2131 — RWS Ranch Zoning Map Amendment

Type: Zoning Map Amendment
Request: Change RWS Ranch zoning from County Agricultural/Residential Rural (A/RR) to City Residential Three in the North Ridge (R-3-NR)
Staff: City Planner Grace Malpartida REQUESTED REMOVAL of this item from the agenda
Action: Item removed; not voted
Conditions noted (had it proceeded): Traffic study must be approved prior to Preliminary Plat

Item 5.b: Ordinance 25-2134 — Marion Groves Zoning Map Amendment (FIRST READING)

Type: Zoning Map Amendment / RPUD
Location: 13.0+/- acres north of Highway 544 E, east of Cumbie Drive, south of Roe Road; Polk County parcel 27-27-34-000000-024020
Applicant: Marion Groves developer (represented by John Bannon)
Request: Approve RPUD for 120-lot development — 52 single family lots + 68 townhomes; lot mix 30 (52'), 11 (60'), 11 (70'); 24'-wide roadways with 2' Miami curb; 5' sidewalks both sides; min living area 1,400 sq ft; setbacks per RPUD standards
Staff Recommendation: Approve with two conditions:
1. Traffic study must be approved by City's traffic consultant prior to Preliminary Plat
2. 3-year construction-commencement reverter clause (extended from 2 years used on Ford Family Trust)
Public Hearing: Paula Blackwelder and John Zimmerman spoke in opposition. John Bannon (developer side) responded — committed to traffic study completion prior to design.
Notable Discussion: Anderson voiced concerns about the traffic study being done on a weekend; Lee asked if plans are totally in compliance. Anderson voted NAY.
Action: Recommend approval to City Commission with conditions
Vote: Carried (Lee / Hamilton; Anderson NAY) — first dissent vote in the Haines City Planning Commission cycle on the harvest record

Item 5.c: Resolution 25-1888 — White Clay Phase 1 and 2 Preliminary Plat Amendment

Type: Preliminary plat amendment (Resolution form)
Description: 767 lots across Phases 1 and 2; right-of-way, recreation, open space, retention, easements; amendment removes White Clay Pit Road as a road needed for improvement
Standards (42'/52' wide lots): 22' roadways; 5' sidewalks; 9.19+ acres neighborhood park space; max impervious 60%; min living area 1,250-1,400 sq ft (10%/90% split). Pre-existing RPUD approval predates new RPUD standards.
Action: Recommend approval to City Commission with conditions: 22' internal roads; 24' for Hughes/Kokomo Road and Powerline Road extension; all Resolution 24-1829 conditions retained
Vote: Carried (Anderson / Hamilton)

Item 5.d: Resolution 25-1892 — Scenic Terrace North Phase 2 Preliminary Plat

Type: Preliminary plat (Resolution form)
Location: South of County Road 544, west of State Road 17 (Scenic Highway); 109.70+/- acres across 10 parcels (272809-000000-031050 and adjacents)
Description: Phase 2 = 27 lots of 357 total maximum; 22' roadways with 2' Miami curb; 4.19+/- acres neighborhood park/open space; setbacks varied; min living 1,250-1,400 sq ft (10%/90% split). Utilities to be provided by Polk County.
Action: Recommend approval
Vote: Carried (Hamilton / Anderson)

Public Hearings Summary

Number of speakers: 2 in opposition (Marion Groves)
- Paula Blackwelder
- John Zimmerman
General sentiment: Localized opposition to Marion Groves on traffic and density grounds
Key concerns: Traffic study quality (Anderson echoed from dais — concern about weekend timing); compliance with surrounding character

Key Signals

Anderson casts the cycle's first NAY vote — and the board's emergent dissent surface. Charles Anderson voted nay on Marion Groves (Ord 25-2134), making this the first recorded dissent in the Haines City Planning Commission corpus. In the board-comments closing, Anderson said: "I [don't] think it [is] their responsib[ility] to rubberstamp these items and [I do] believe that the board should consider the voices of the residents." (transcription has typo "not" — context confirms Anderson is opposing rubberstamping). Chair McLean shared Anderson's sentiment but reasoned past it: "if these projects are in compliance, then they have to approve them." This is the Haines City board's first public surfacing of the same constitutional tension Leesburg's denial bloc carries — the mismatch between code-compliance and community-fit. The corpus has captured the moment a Haines City dissent posture is born.
Vice-Chair Hamilton's response is the cycle's procedural moderation: "he doesn't want to discourage anyone to come to the planning meeting." Lee then adds: "it is not their jurisdiction to deny this item." Three of the four reasoning frames are now on the record:
1. Anderson: the board should NOT rubberstamp; community voice matters
2. McLean / Lee: if compliance is met, the board MUST approve
3. Hamilton: don't discourage public attendance This is the classic denial-bloc-formation precondition: the board has surfaced its own internal philosophical tension on the record. Whether the tension consolidates into a Bowersox-style operating engine in 2026 is the cycle's structural question.
John Bannon recurs across the year — Bannon was at the August 11 Ford Family Trust hearing and is here representing Marion Groves. Recurring developer-side representative across at least two RPUD cases. Track corridor-wide.
The 3-year reverter clause is an extension of the 2-year clause used on Ford Family Trust — the city is calibrating its construction-commencement deadlines based on case scale. Smaller residential RPUD (Ford, 78 lots) → 2 years. Mid-size mixed (Marion Groves, 120 lots, including townhomes) → 3 years. The reverter mechanism is increasingly granular — a regulatory architecture worth watching as Haines City refines its tools.
White Clay Phase 1+2 (767 lots) is the cycle's largest preliminary plat action. With Scenic Terrace North Phase 2 (357 lots cumulative), the corpus shows two existing RPUDs delivering plats sequentially — the development pipeline behind Haines City's growth is structurally locked in. The N. Hughes Road / Scenic Highway corridor is being built out at scale.
The RWS Ranch removal is procedurally interesting. Staff requested the item be pulled before vote — typical reasons would be pending revisions or applicant withdrawal. The item's framing (County A/RR → City R-3-NR) makes it the kind of jurisdictional translation that previously cleared without friction. Watch whether RWS Ranch returns at a subsequent meeting.

Raw Notes

Anderson's exact words on the record: "that he thinks it not their responsibly to rubberstamp these items and don't believe that the board should consider the voices of the residents" — the transcription contains a typo ("not their responsibly" should likely be "not their responsibility"). Read in context with his dissent vote, the meaning is: Anderson believes the board should NOT rubberstamp AND should consider resident voices — i.e., he is OPPOSING rubberstamping AND he IS for resident input. The clerk's transcription quality on this passage is poor; the documented vote (NAY) is the harder evidence.

Chair McLean's response is the structural counter: even sharing the sentiment, he is bound by the compliance frame. This mirrors Leesburg's Vice-Chair Sanders' November 2025 question to the city attorney about whether the commission could be sued for denying code-compliant projects. Same structural tension; different cities; same cycle.