Winter Springs affirms commitment not to provide utilities to Tuskawilla storage facility 

Winter Springs Mayor Kevin McCann urged the City Commission to commit to not providing utilities for the controversial three-story storage facility to be built along Tuskawilla Road, calling the project a “monstrosity.” 

“The city manager and I did seek some outside counsel just to verify that the storage unit being built on Tuskawilla … that project certainly appears to be moving forward,” McCann said, during the city’s last commission meeting. “It’s been permitted through [Seminole County] as an enclave.”

The project has been a point of contention for the city, as the lot located just south of Michael Blake Boulevard is within a small Seminole County enclave despite being surrounded by Winter Springs city limits, giving the county jurisdiction. 

Before a vote last year by the Seminole County Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone the land to allow the development, Winter Springs residents and city staff argued for a reconsideration of how the project could negatively impact the community. 

The rezoning vote passed with only one dissenting vote.

McCann raised a point he’d made prior to that vote last year, claiming that Florida state statutes would not allow for the development to be built without tying into the city utilities. 

“To receive any utilities from the city, they must close that enclave, be annexed into the city, and then they get utilities,” McCann said. “[The developer] got approval from the county to build it, as long as he built it with no utilities being promoted, no water, no sewer, nothing from the city.” 

McCann expressed his upset with the project and how it had come about, calling the actions “political.” 

“I’m asking this Commission to reconfirm their commitment to not providing utilities to this monstrosity that’s going to hurt our neighbors,” McCann said. “We will not give utilities to someone who used legal wrangling to get around our system, our zoning, our expectations of development and putting that monstrosity right in people’s yards and in the core of our city.”

Commissioner Cade Resnick told the mayor and Commission that he was also against the project, but questioned the city’s previous handling of the project as well as the potential benefits of annexation. 

“There’s politics, then there’s business,” Resnick said. “They came to us three times to ask for a project, we sent them away … I’m in agreement with you up until the point that if this land were to be annexed into the city, there is a tax benefit to us for ad valorem taxes. If we don’t annex it into the city, the county gets the ad valorem taxes.”

Resnick added that while he didn’t know the amount those taxes could potentially return, there could be value there worth discussing despite the city’s perceived “loss” against the developer. 

“Sometimes when you lose, you can also win in the long run if you think about it,” Resnick said. 

Resnick also argued that by annexing the enclave the city could rezone it if the project were to “go belly up”, as well as prevent the county from repeating the same process in the future. 

McCann added that despite objections to the project, the city “cannot be anti development.”

“Look, our city doesn’t like apartment complexes, and we don’t like storage units and warehouses,” McCann said. “If we had encouraged them to do other projects, instead of just saying no, I think we may have been in a better position.”

Deputy Mayor Matt Benton said he felt the project had never actually considered Winter Springs in its decisions, instead going around the city to do so. 

“I don’t think I ever saw this as a negotiation within the city,” Benton said. “I never saw that at all. They bypassed us.” 

McCann said action taken to not provide utilities to the project would happen in the near future as the project’s final plans have not yet been approved. 

“Will we fold, provide the utilities and things so that they can build this thing?” McCann said. “Or are we going to stand our ground and make them work for it?”

Commissioner Victoria Bruce asked McCann if the project applicant had requested to be annexed into the city, to which he responded that while they had not the project was still “moving forward.” 

“We have one more Commission meeting before this dais changes,” McCann said. “I’d like this commission as they sit here to reconfirm whether they are for or against this project, and so that if we say we’re against it, and then there’s a new Commission in under a month from now … they would have to actively vote to change it and go on record to change it, supply utilities and make it far easier for this development to be built.” 

Commissioner Ted Johnson, one of two commission members up for re-election this November, said he was against offering utilities for the project regardless of his future on the dais. 

“I for one would be opposed to offering those two services in the future,” Johnson said. “Now, my future is very limited here, but you’re asking for an opinion, and I for one, would say no, they don’t deserve to have the water and sewer facilities, and they can figure it out.”

After much discussion, Winter Springs City Attorney Anthony Garganese told the commission that while they were free to discuss the item, no decision could be made in a “binding fashion” based on the information that had been presented, cautioning against a formal vote. 

“City Commission already has a policy in its comprehensive plan … anyone outside of the city wants to have water and sewer service, it has to come to the City Commission as a request, and the Commission then has to consider it,” Garganese said. “If the City Commission were inclined to even offer water and sewer outside of the city boundaries, the property owner will have to enter into an annexation agreement with the city. None of that is being requested to my knowledge, and none of that is before the commission for a formal vote.”

Johnson expressed his concern over motioning for a formal vote and said he thought the commission should follow Garganese’s legal advice. 

“If and when they approach us and request annexation and utilities, that’s when we give our answer,” Johnson said. “Whether that’s this body or after the election different individuals, but to take a vote now, I think it’s kind of premature and may have some type of legal influence down the road, if and when annexation is requested.” 

McCann explained that while he was looking for a commitment from the dais on the utilities decision, it would be verbally and without a vote.

“I’m asking for a commitment to not supply utilities to this project,” McCann said. “I do not want to interfere with other projects outside the city limits being able to get that infrastructure if it’s required and if it helps them and it works for the city.”

With no formal vote able to be made, it’s unclear if the contentious utilities decision will be upheld down the line despite the city’s disapproval of the storage facility. And with less than two weeks until the election, commissioners may find themselves rehashing their commitment to not provide utilities once again down the line. 

For now, those still on the dais appear somewhat united as they wait for the project to move forward. 

“I’ll admit I drive by that and I see that development moving forward, and I see what that is going to do to my neighbors and Tuskawilla Crossings,” McCann said. “I’ll put it politely, it does not make me happy. This is a different discussion … are we for the residents? Are we for the developers? We must allow development, but I think we have a right to be heard.”

Want to contact your elected leaders and weigh in on this topic? Find their contact information here. Have a news tip or opinion to share with OCN? Do that here.