Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies

Annexation plan opens door to tiff

Seminole says the county's protest of a plan for a house to be annexed was filed a day late.

SEMINOLE - At first, the proposed voluntary annexation of a house into Seminole seemed to be a typical transaction, but now the proposal is poised to turn into a spat between the city and Pinellas County.

At issue are questions over the legality of annexing land separated from the city by a body of water and the deadline for filing a timely objection to the proposed annexation.

The saga began in early spring when homeowner Michelle Moore asked Seminole for annexation information, which she was given. Soon, she came back, asking to be annexed. Moore could not be reached for comment.

Her waterfront home, at 5803 Long Bayou Way S, and the houses near it are within the area Seminole plans to annex. And one side of Moore's property abuts the water and is just 1,900 feet straight across from the Seminole city border.

That, says Mark Ely, a Seminole city planner, clearly satisfies the requirement that a property be touching, or contiguous, to a city before it can be annexed. The law states, he said, that water, like roadways, are not barriers to annexation if the city can supply adequate services.

Because Seminole uses county water, sewer and law enforcement - the same as the Moore property currently uses - there is no question that the property would continue to receive services, Ely said.

So on Aug. 4, the city sent the information to the Pinellas Planning Council and the county as required. The county received it Aug. 8.

On Aug. 19, the county objected, saying the waterway was a barrier to contiguity. That meant the property did not touch the city limits of Seminole and could not be annexed.

But the city ignored that letter and gave the annexation tentative approval on Aug. 23. The final approval is scheduled Sept. 13.

Why did Seminole ignore the county's protest?

It was filed one day after the 10-day limit for objecting, Ely said. The time begins tolling when the county receives the notification letter.

"It's a procedural boo-boo," Ely said. "They missed it by a day. . . . From our perspective, we're going to proceed to second (final) reading."

Pinellas County Planning Director Brian Smith said of the annexation, "We have some questions about it. . . .It would be our view that it's not adjacent to the city (because it's) across the water."

But annexing across the water is not a new idea. Seminole, for example, jumped the water in 2000 to annex a large portion of tax-rich property along the west side of Park Street. The land annexed included Target and the Otter Key Condominiums.

It is unclear how hard the county objected to that. Smith said he recalled the county objecting, but the annexation, which was done by referendum, happening anyway.

Smith conceded that the county is being more proactive about objecting these days. One reason is that 2000 annexation, which, Smith said, "kind of put it on the radar screen. Before that time, annexation wasn't quite as much of a debated point."

Smith was also aware that Seminole thinks the county's objection is - literally - a day late. The county's view is that the deadline may not have to be adhered to at all costs, Smith said. But missing it might make it easy for someone to reject the protest, he acknowledged.

That someone would be the Pinellas Planning Council, the body made up mostly of Pinellas mayors, who review annexations and recommend whether the County Commission should approve them.

Had the county's objection come within the 10-day time frame, the Planning Council would have heard the argument. Now, it's not clear whether it will look at the issue.

Dave Healey, the group's executive director, said he is not sure whether the Planning Council will be sympathetic to Seminole's contention that the objection came in too late. It's likely, Healey said, that he will run that issue by council members at their Oct. 19 meeting.

It is clear, however, that the Planning Council does not see jumping a body of water as a bar to annexation, said Healey.