top of page

PGSP Neighbors United


If not, attend the

Hearing with the Board of County Commissioners on June 8th @ 9:30 AM

Register to attend by 5 PM, Monday, June 7th

The Magnolia Room

Pinellas County Cooperative Extension

12520 Ulmerton Road

Largo, Florida

Saint Petersburg has become a developers playground, leaving long term residents to bear the burden of increased cost of living, loss of neighborhood character, and loss of dutiful and thoughtful City Planning.

PayPal ButtonPayPal Button
PGSP Update .png


The ALJ and Governing Agency ruled, against case law, to use St Peterburg's Land Development Regulations to justify the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and apply a Land Use designation of Residential Medium (up to 30 units per acre) in a neighborhood that is currently zoned Residential Urban (up to 7.5 units per acre).



Forward Pinellas ruled on the zoning and land use amendments to allow 4-7 stories and between 200-400 additional residents on the property where Grace Connection Church currently occupies (635 64th St S).

Submitted to the State Agency March 18th:


Compelling legal points supporting that the Administrative Law Judge amend the Recommended Order submitted regarding PGSP v. City of St Petersburg to find FLUM 58 Land Use Amendment is not internally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.


The DEO should:
a. Make an explicit ruling on each of the above – stated exceptions, per §120.57 (1)(k),
Fla. Stat.;

b. Grant each of the above – stated exceptions, and remand the matter back to the ALJ;

c. Instruct the ALJ to revise the conclusions of law related to the failure to rely upon
professionally accepted data and analysis in the Amendments and use the maximum allowable densities are required by law;

d. Instruct the ALJ to make findings on the issue of compatibility and data and
analysis support for the Amendment, based on the legally correct interpretations of the statutory requirements, as set forth above;

e. Upon receipt of an Amended Recommended Order, forward this matter to the
Administration Commission with a recommendation that it issue a Final Order finding the FLUM Amendment to be not in compliance as the City failed to rely on professionally accepted data and analysis, examine the maximum allowable densities as authorized by the Comprehensive Plan in conjunction with the FLUM Amendment, and failed to maintain internal consistency within its Comprehensive Plan.

Respectfully Submitted on this 18th day of March 2021,

bottom of page