COMMUNITY RESEARCH NOTES - HISTORICAL WORKING COPY
Published September 29, 2026. This is community analysis, not an agency finding. Later updates supersede earlier pending/download notes: the county ZIPs have been reviewed; 13 new requests were sent September 29; Talavera written records have been received and published. See documents.html for the current tracker. Internal local filenames referenced below are research references, not additional public download links.

# Kent Grove: review of the county document packages

Reviewed September 28, 2026. Sources are the three ZIP files supplied by the owner from public-records request 3862. These are historical submissions and comments, not a verified complete current permitting file. Page references below are PDF page numbers unless otherwise stated.

## Most consequential finding: the traffic conclusion does not resolve KGD/SR 52 operations

The 97-page Lincks Timing and Phasing Analysis models **85 homes**, a **2028 buildout**, and **85 PM peak-hour trip ends: 54 entering and 31 leaving**. Its operational analysis is expressly PM-only (p. 4, printed p. 1). The modeled intersections are **SR 52/Shady Hills Road and SR 52/US 41** (pp. 8, 14–15). KGD/SR 52 is counted and appears in traffic distribution diagrams, but does not receive an intersection delay/queue analysis in the reported results or the intersection-model appendix (pp. 90–97).

The study concludes that its analyzed segments and intersections meet adopted service criteria. That is favorable evidence for the applicant within that scope. It does **not** demonstrate acceptable queues, turning delay, or turn-lane storage at KGD/SR 52, nor establish acceptable AM operations there.

This appears consistent with the county's staged review: the June 11, 2025 acceptance form requires an Access Management Analysis at preliminary plan review. The October 10, 2025 Accela comments expressly require the analysis to cover both project access connections and **Kent Grove Drive/SR 52**, with resulting improvements the applicant's responsibility and not Mobility Fee creditable. Obtain the actual analysis and current conditions before alleging noncompliance or that the county never required it.

### The appendix contains useful AM and PM counts

National Data & Surveying Services counted KGD/SR 52 on **Thursday, April 17, 2025**, in sunny weather, during **7–9 AM and 4–6 PM** (pp. 49–57). Thus it would be incorrect to say the package contains no AM counts; it contains no AM operational analysis of this intersection.

The peak-hour summary (p. 50) reports:

| Movement | AM, 7:15–8:15 | PM, 4:45–5:45 |
|---|---:|---:|
| Southbound KGD left to eastbound SR 52 | 42 | 28 |
| Southbound KGD right to westbound SR 52 | 22 | 6 |
| Total leaving KGD, these two movements | 64 | 34 |
| Eastbound SR 52 left into KGD | 14 | 46 |

The lane diagram on p. 49 depicts a **single shared left/right outbound KGD lane**, with one-way stop control on the southbound approach. This corroborates the configuration described by the resident at the time of the count. It does not measure ten-minute waits, queue length, or current field conditions.

Figure 2 (p. 7, north points left on the diagram) assigns the old 85-home plan **32 additional PM eastbound left turns into KGD** and **18 additional PM southbound left turns out of KGD**. These are forecast project movements, not observed counts, and do not by themselves prove turn-lane overflow. Use them to request a quantified storage and queue analysis.

### Specific traffic questions supported by these records

1. Where is the latest KGD/SR 52 Access Management Analysis and county/FDOT review? Does it evaluate AM and PM conditions, shared-lane blocking, side-street delay, usable turn-bay storage, queue spillback and available gaps in SR 52 traffic?
2. Does it include observed queue lengths and waiting times on multiple representative school/work days, including resident-reported spillback toward Giddens?
3. Does it compare existing, future without project, and future with project conditions, using the latest plan and committed nearby developments?
4. Which specific improvements are required, who funds/builds them, and what approval/occupancy milestone requires their completion?

The earlier 85-home model is larger than the later 77-home proposal; that difference alone does not invalidate it and may be conservative for total trip generation. The issue is the missing local operational analysis and whether the latest layout, distribution, background conditions and mitigation are addressed. The methodology file mentions 2% background growth while the final study uses 3%; that increase is not evidence of understating growth.

## Road package is incomplete for the questions at hand

**SSRA-2025-00084.zip contains only one one-page project narrative.** It says the property is west of Kent Grove Road and north of SR 52 and seeks R-4 rezoning. It contains no road-condition investigation, pavement design, drainage/culvert analysis, mitigation estimate or approval letter.

The separate T&P acceptance form (TP-2025-00032.pdf, p. 3) identifies both KGD and Hamlin as substandard, distinguishes county KGD from private Hamlin, and cites mitigation requirements. It estimates about 802 daily trips for the 85-home scenario. The 94-trip difference on p. 2 is a zoning exemption calculation, not the project's modeled PM traffic.

October 10, 2025 county comments reference July 11 geotechnical work, planned FY26 full-depth reclamation between SR 52 and Lussier Lane, and a $375,000 applicant contribution before the first record plat. The project narrative anticipates improvements before first plat approval. Later records previously reviewed refer to a June 9, 2026 agreement and different payment timing; obtain the executed current agreement and final conditions rather than treating the October 2025 text as controlling today.

Reclamation of pavement alone does not establish that intersection turning capacity, culvert capacity, road elevations, emergency access or flood duration have been resolved. Request the actual design and scope before drawing conclusions about what the work includes.

## Flooding: physical constraints documented, impacts not yet quantified

The July 14, 2025 Listed Species Report, p. 3, maps **8.481 acres of stream/lake swamp** and describes the wetland as a **stream and its floodplain**, seasonally flooded. At that date, formal wetland limits were still being determined by SWFWMD under **#916070**. That identifier matches the entry ID in the district's email linking ERP 48731.000, providing a useful cross-reference; the final determination itself still needs review.

County stormwater comments require the latest SWFWMD floodplain study information, applicable floodplain compliance at the first site-development permit, and access/maintenance easements over pass-through drainage and the finalized 100-year floodplain. The easement would give the county a right, **not an obligation**, to maintain it. Identify the actual responsible owner/entity and maintenance obligations.

The applicant narrative (pp. 5–6) promises later stormwater review and no adverse neighboring impacts. This package does not supply the drainage model/calculations demonstrating that claim. Wetland/floodplain presence establishes a constraint to evaluate; it does not independently prove the proposal will worsen off-site flooding.

Request existing/proposed-condition hydrology and hydraulics; watershed boundary and off-site inflows; downstream tailwater; culvert dimensions and condition; floodplain storage/fill accounting; road low-point elevations; and predicted water levels/durations at the photographed neighborhood locations. Match dated flood photos/videos to rainfall and surveyed locations so the model can be checked against observed conditions.

The documents use different acreage bases: the ecological report totals **41.511 acres**, while the rezoning narrative uses **40.96 acres**, approximately **9 acres of wetlands**, and **31.96 upland acres**. Its density estimate is 102 potential units, while staff comments state 96; the requested cap is 77. Seek a reconciled, approved survey/wetland/density table rather than infer wrongdoing from those differences. The narrative's stated 2.4 units/acre corresponds approximately to upland acreage; 77 divided by 40.96 gross acres is about 1.88.

## Water service conflict to resolve

The applicant narrative, p. 5, says public water/sewer are immediately east. The October 10, 2025 Public Utilities Engineering comment says **there is not water capacity at the proposed connection on the west side of Talavera MPUD**. This documents an unresolved issue at that review date, not proof no alternative can serve the project. Request the approved current connection, capacity confirmation, necessary easements, off-site construction and completion conditions.

## Wildlife lead

The July 2025 species report, p. 10, records **27 potentially occupied gopher-tortoise burrows and one abandoned burrow** from a **25% coverage survey**. Its estimate is **53 tortoises**, not 53 directly observed animals. It anticipates a conservation permit before development. Seek updated survey and agency permit records; do not assume habitat presence automatically prevents development. Species rules/status have not been independently updated in this review.

## Source register and review limits

Extracted source files are preserved under `work/county-records/` with the original filenames. All 19 file entries were inventoried (18 PDFs and one DOCX; the one-page narrative appears in two packages). Text extraction covered the PDFs and county comments. All 97 traffic pages were rendered and visually surveyed to identify appendix contents; key KGD count/geometry pages and selected environmental pages were inspected at readable resolution. This was not an independent engineering audit of every calculation or a title/survey certification review. Scanned signature/deed pages and unrelated title/tax details were not used to infer findings.

Primary source locations:

- Traffic study: `T&P-2025-00032/T&P-2025-00032/25043 - Mitras Property - Timing and Phasing Analysis_SIGNED_5.22.25.pdf`
- Acceptance/road comments: `T&P-2025-00032/T&P-2025-00032/TP-2025-00032.pdf`
- Staff comments: `REZONE-2025-00016/REZONE-2025-00016/Accela Comments_Mitras Rezoning.docx`, October 10, 2025.
- Applicant narrative: `REZONE-2025-00016/REZONE-2025-00016/Mitras Project Narrative.pdf`.
- Ecology: `REZONE-2025-00016/REZONE-2025-00016/Mitras Listed Species Report.pdf`, July 14, 2025.

**Priority:** obtain the KGD/SR 52 Access Management Analysis, the complete SSRRA file and current mitigation agreement, the drainage/flood model and final wetland determination, and utility capacity confirmation. These documents will determine whether the concerns remain unanswered or have been addressed since these 2025 submissions.