Repacked into the banks to recontour and also to open up the capacity of the canal.

Once that is complete, then we come back in either time frame of the job starting to stopping.

Either Mother Nature has started to grow grass back through.

If that is not the case, then we will actually order sod to be laid down to help ensure that the dirt that's been repacked stays in place.

Comprehensive plan amendment public hearing.

The Board of County Commissioners will consider the transmittal and adoption of map amendments to the comprehensive plan.

The board will also consider applications for rezoning concurrent with related applications for future land use map amendments.

Also the applicant for CPA 25-37 has requested a continuance to the April 9th, 2026 comprehensive plan amendment public hearing at 6 p.m.

I know uh once the request came in, every effort was made by staff to reach out to those in public record uh notifying them of the continuance.

So at this time, can we have a motion to continue?

Move to continue.

Motion Commissioner Myers, second commissioner uh Miller, please record your vote.

Commissioner Colin.

Aye.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay.

So again, uh anyone here for CPA twenty-five-thirty-seven, that's been continued to April 9th.

Uh this time um ask the clerk representatives to swear in uh anyone speaking on the following rezoning applications RZ twenty-five dash zero five zero zero, RZ 25-1245, RZ-25-1111, and RZ 25-1281.

My apologies, sir.

The vote count was five to zero.

Please stand and raise your right hand.

If you plan on giving testimony tonight, if you can please stand and raise your right hand.

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Thank you.

You may be seated.

Okay.

Uh now I ask Planning Commission staff to introduce the first item on tonight's agenda.

Uh good evening, Commissioners.

Uh David Hay with your planning commission staff.

We have uh five adoption items for with concurrent rezonings and one transmittal of a large scale amendment.

Um the first will be a one HC CPA twenty-five-01.

It's a comprehensive plan map amendment, and the presenter will be Tyreek Royal.

Good evening, Commissioner Sarek Royal, Planning Commission staff.

Today I'll be presenting HCCPA to 501 at 2002 West Highway 60.

This request is a privately initiated small scale map amendment with approximately 9.5 acres.

The request is to change the land use designation from residential one to suburban mix U6 as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on August 14th, 2025.

The original privately initiated requests sought a future use designation of Office Commercial 20.

The location of the site is in the eastern portion of the unincorporated Hillsborough County.

This is in the rural area, the Will Hill Protection area, and not located within the limits of a community plan.

This is the aerial photo outlined in pink.

Surrounding uses include agricultural uses to the west and south, single family uses to the north and light commercial uses to the east.

And here's the east view of the property with the south being site being located to the left.

And finally, uh here's the west view of the property, and the south site is being located to the right.

The site currently is in the residential one future land use category, which allows for the consideration of agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, and multi-purpose projects.

Commercial uses are subject to locational criteria.

The site is approximately 1.7 miles away from urban service area in the public quasi public area.

You can see in the southwest is Madara Park.

The parcel designated as Office Commercial 20 in red has has had a future land use category designation since at least 1999.

The applicant is requesting the change of future land use category from residential one to SMU 6.

The SMU 6 allows for agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, research corporate park uses, light industrial, multi-purpose, and clustered residential and or mixed uses.

Office uses are not subject to locational criteria.

Some impacts the change from the Res 1 to SMU6 will allow for an increase in development by allowing significantly higher residential density and greater commercial intensity.

The density of one dwelling unit per gross acre would increase the six oil units an acre.

The commercial intensity would increase from a point two five FAR or approximately 103,000 square feet to a 0.5 FAR or approximately 2006,000 square feet.

Planning Commission staff have reviewed the proposed application and found it to be consistent based on the goals, objectives, and policy of the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, including objective 5.1, which recognizes the importance of agricultural uses as an industry and valuable economic resource.

Policy 5.1.8 which supports existing agricultural uses for their importance as a historical component of the community.

Policy 5.2.4, which states agricultural related commercial uses, more intensive or heavier than neighborhood serving commercial, maybe consider in the rural land use categories.

And policy 5.2.5, which state agricultural and agricultural support uses are the preferred uses in rural areas.

With that, the planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment HCCPA 2501 be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Todd Pressman, 200 Second Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

This is HCCPA2501.

Probably the most outstanding point to remind you, Commissioners, is that this appeared before you and you remanded it back for a lower future land use category, which we did.

And as you heard from Tyreek, Planning Commission is finding an inconsistent.

So we reduced the category to SMU 6 again at the remand at direction of the Board of County Commissioners.

Tyreek has walked you through the location on State Route 60.

We are out somewhat near uh Plant City.

This is the future land use map, as you can see.

Um the other important point that you might remember is that uh the applicant is a family trucking business.

Mr.

and Mrs.

Navarro here, if you would stand up, please.

Uh this is their family trucking business, and their business is composed of these larger trucks that travel the Texas and back weekly for agricultural products under Navarro Produce.

It's family business as you can see here, and they run quite a number of trucks.

Um then they serve as the Plant City Pharma Flea Market, which is one of the largest in uh this uh area in Florida.

Uh as you can see, there's a large intensive agricultural use to the west.

There's a tremendous forest buffer to the north.

Happy Pets is a uh uh animal um uh care facility uh overnights and things of that nature, and a church compound.

Uh this is just to give you a feel for the uh pet care next door and the church compound as well, has a lot of events.

Um I think just important note that the real subject of this request, which you see in zoning, is for uh storage of their vehicles and truck vehicles, and because it's agriculture next door, they can store uh the exact same kind of trucks exactly next door, right on the other side of the fence.

Uh it's kind of a bureaucratic element, but the similar use but more intensive is abutting.

You can see that's pretty prevalent on the on the agricultural side.

Uh the roadway, State Raw 60 carries 21,500 vehicles per day.

It is uh listed as one of the state principal arterial roadways, and also on the truck route plan of the Board of County Commissioners.

Uh this is the site plan.

Uh the area of the trucking storage parking is located uh many hundreds of feet from State Route 60 and would be buffered and screened.

Um there are a number of agricultural goals, uh 5.2.5 supporting agricultural uses in rural areas, agriculture uh more intensive uses can be permissible in the rural land use categories.

Agriculture is historical element of the community, agriculture uses are encouraged, shall be permitted in non-rural uh areas.

We've had no citizen objections, 12 persons have been notified multiple times.

I think there's been about 48 or 50 notices.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh this is a public hearing.

I don't think anyone is signed up.

Would anyone like to speak to the item?

All right, seeing none, uh, we'll hold off on the vote until after the uh rezoning.

Yes, commissioners.

The next item is agenda item 82, the root of concurrent rezoning PD 25-0500.

This is a request to rezone from AS1 to a plan development to allow one single family residential unit with a truck dispatch office, warehouse uses open storage for nine commercial vehicles and nine domestic vehicles.

Again, it's on the north side of state row 60 as shown in the presentation for the related CPA.

Uh staff did find this request approval subject to conditions.

That's not consistent by the planning commission, and we're hearing also recommended approval or vote for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Applicant need to add anything.

Um I'll keep it very short.

Oh, thank you.

I'll keep this very short, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll do an abbreviated presentation.

As you heard, we've had no opposition.

Staffs are in support.

This is a remand from the Board of County Commissioners.

Um and development services commission uh planning commission both supports ZHM previously and now supports there's been no agency objections, no citizens objections to date.

Um I've introduced you to the use and how it works.

This is the site plan as presented.

Uh I think it's just important to note that the sub the actual activity of what's proposed is almost 500 feet from State Raw Six you can see here, and almost 600 feet to the rear of the property line.

And uh again, I I won't go through these uh goals, but in the entire chapter of agriculture, there's uh policy at the policy that uh supports us in terms of its location, the rural areas, history of agriculture, um, and the um comments by the board of uh comments by the planning commission and your staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any proponent testimony?

Any opponent testimony, planning commission?

Sir, we do have one person uh online um that signed up to speak to this.

I'm sorry, speak up.

We do have one person online that had signed up to speak to this.

We have Aaron Watson.

Okay.

She is finding up to speak to her every item.

Uh Aaron, go ahead.

Excuse me, Erin.

Can you hear us?

Hold on one minute.

Hold on one second, ma'am.

No, no one was signed up on the list that I was provided.

Uh do you know who this I do not have Ms.

Watson as a party of record for the rezoning?

Yeah, I will find that last one on the model of the pool.

I apologize.

Ms.

Watson, we're having trouble hearing you if you can take anyone note.

Oh, Ms.

I'm checking the list.

Yes, it is.

Ms.

Watson, did you receive a letter of mailed notice?

No, I signed up online last year just now.

I was planning on a containing in person, and some things came up and I wasn't able to.

I'm just here to listen the meeting and comment on the pre-zoning of the hundred twenty-one acres in County Road 39.

And then okay, that's not this item.

Uh so and you didn't you're not a part of record on that item either.

So feel free to listen, but you will not be able to um to speak this evening.

Planning commission.

Good evening, Tyrell, Planning Commission staff.

The proposal meets an intent flu objective 4.4 and flu policy 4.4.1 that require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

And in this case, the surrounding land use pattern is comprised of a mix of uses, like commercial, single family and agricultural uses are in the media area.

The applicant proposes to mix the storage of personal vehicle while the trucks are in use.

And it's important to know that the surrounding area is comprised of mostly agricultural uses.

The proposed use of trucks is related for agricultural activities.

There will also be a home base office, which is residential in nature.

Will complement the surrounding single family uses adjacent to the site.

The proposed plan development aligns with the character of the surrounding area, which is consistent with flu objective 4.4, and it's accompanied policies related to neighborhood protection.

The proposed plan development will allow for development that's consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Hearing Master.

The hearing master considered the application for rezoning approximately 9.7 acre parcel with approximately 300 feet of frontage along the north side of SR60, approximately 1.3 miles west of the state road 60 and 39 intersection in eastern counties.

From AS1 to PD to allow for a trucking storage and dispatch yard with one single family home.

Development services staff has found that the proposed rezoning is approvable subject to conditions.

The zoning hearing master noted that the proposed use is a small-scale highway related non-residential use that will be well buffered and screened from the adjacent land uses.

Subject to the approval of the concurrent CPA to SMU 6, and the recommendation was for approval.

Commissioner Wolstall.

Thank you.

We got a motion to approve uh HC CPA 2501.

Commissioner Walsall, second Commissioner Miller, please record your vote.

Aye.

Commissioner Wolstell.

Thank you.

Motion carry with seven and zero.

All right, can we have a motion for RZ25-050?

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wolstell sign commissioner Myers, please record your vote.

Aye.

Motion carry with seven and zero.

Okay.

Next item.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stabid Hay again.

Planning Commission staff.

The next item is item A3.

It's uh uh HC CPA 25-24, and it will be presented by Mr.

Tyreek Royal.

Good evening again.

Tyreek Royal Planning Commission staff.

I'll be presenting HCCPA 2524 at 10601 Paul Buckman Highway.

This request is privately initiated.

Small scale map amendment with approximately 4.74 acres.

The request is to change the lineage designation from agricultural rule 15 and AR agricultural rule 110 to light industrial.

The location of the site is in the eastern portion of Hillsborough County.

Is that part of the 2025 cycle in the rural area and not within the limits of the community plan?

This is an aerial photo of the site, Outland and Peak is located south of Count Line Road and West of Paul Buckman Highway.

Surrounding uses include agricultural and single family uses to the south, single family uses to the north, agricultural uses to the west, and heavy industrial properties to the east, uh, which is mosaic property.

Here's some photos.

This is facing southwest on Paul Buckman Highway with the site being located behind the sign.

This is West towards the subject site.

This is a photo of the restaurant adjacent to the subject site.

This is facing north on Paul Buckman Highway.

The subject site is to the left.

This is facing east on Paul Buckman Highway, uh, towards the Mosaic site.

The subject site is behind the camera.

And this is facing south on Paul Buckman Highway.

Uh subject site is to the right.

The site is in a AR15 and AR110 future land use categories.

Allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, feet lot, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, industrial uses that are related to agricultural and mining related activities.

The applicants for changing the changing land use category to light industrial.

The light industrial allows from consideration for agricultural, light industrial uses such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials.

That's the predominant use, including including support offices, warehouses, and retool uses.

The change from AR1 to 5 and AR1 to 10 to light industrial willow for an increase in development by allowing greater commercial intensity.

Commercial intensity would increase from a point two five FAR or approximately 51,000 square feet to 0.75 FAR or approximately 154,000 square feet.

It's important to note that this this is determined to be a lot of record one dwelling unit would be permitted.

Hillsborough County and Infrastructure Planning Department commented that there's not adequate capacity to accommodate additional trips generated by the proposed flu in the future condition of 2050.

Environmental protection committee, uh committee commented that future land use change involving light industrial could cause potential issues with noise, dust, odor, and other automotive factors that may affect communities around the area.

Planning commission staff has reviewed the proposed application, found to be consistent based on the goals, objectives, and policies in the comprehensive plan, including flu policy 4.8.1, which states high-intensity non-residential development shall be located external to merging and established residential neighborhoods and access material or collector road rates and flu policy objective 7.1 and policies 7.1.2 and 7.1.8, which encourages economic growth.

With that, the planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment HCCPA 2524 be found consistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Applicant here.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh Chris McNeil, 15957 North Florida Avenue on behalf of the applicant.

I appreciate your time this evening.

Uh just to add to uh some additional from staff.

Uh again, this is uh A and AR uh seeking to be light industrial with uh open storage as defined in the LEC uh with no recycling permitted, and this is for uh 4.79 acres.

Um objective 2.2 also uh be attitude consideration for this site as well as the other ones mentioned by staff.

Um affordable housing that also uh presents to be inconsistent in line with these current development patterns as well as uh policy 4812.

Uh one of the things that the uh is not reflected in in staff's um uh image there is the industrial all in Pascoe County, so the Pasco County line is just north of here.

So you can also see that uh heavy and uh industrial and light industrial just to the north and the um comp plan amendment and PD that was just to the north of us uh that was done uh some uh some years ago in uh 1601 and and PD 17 was uh similar uh use and just to the north of us, and we're mimicking that pattern uh as well.

Um again, planning commit commission board found it consistent on October 13th, uh 2025 uh to be consistent.

And with that, I have uh plenty of other data if there's uh any questions, but I'd like to save some for uh the the um uh zoning.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Uh this is a public hearing.

We had three people that had signed up.

Um in person, Robert Nelson, Mr.

Nelson here want to speak.

If not, there are two virtual uh Lindsay umnis, I think is he has not checked in.

I'm sorry.

Lindsay had not checked in.

Okay, and then the second one was I guess um Aaron, who was the same one from the last item that signed up for for B1.

So with that, we'll hold off on the vote till after the companion rezoning.

The staff need to introduce that commissioner Z rezoning concurrent rezoning item A4 is rezoning PD 25-1245.

Uh the request is rezoned from agricultural rural to a to planned amendment for a parcel on the west side of state roads uh 30 39 to allow for open storage.

Uh staff did find this approval planning commission found a consistent hearing officer recommended approval.

I would note the western half of the property would remain as open space.

Uh staff again, staff is recommending approval and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Applicant.

All right, yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Uh again, Chris McNeil, uh, on behalf of the applicant, uh, who I'd like to mention is also here.

They're very excited about this opportunity uh as well.

Um as you noted this request is for the uh 9.59 acres, which is the whole site, so part of it is gonna uh stay agriculture and in the rear, just the front, uh, is the uh area that is looking for open storage.

Um again, this is uh another image here that did kind of give you the perspective to the north of the open storage is uh currently existing and and uh operational as well as the heavy industrial uh across the uh street.

And uh just to say again uh zoning staff reckoning approval, no objection from any agency Luho approval and and uh planning commission finding it consistent.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you, Mr.

McNeill.

Uh any proponent testimony, any opponent testimony.

Planning commission.

Good evening again, Tark Royal Subject site consists of single family residential uses in the right-of-way with additional single family uses being located to the north, south, and farther west.

On the east side of Paul Buckman Highway is a long-standing false plant owned by and operated by Mosaic Company, which has been in continuous operation for several decades.

This facility is designated under a heavy industrial flu category.

Agricultural uses are dominance in the land to the south and west, public quasi public and institutional uses are also situated to the south.

Given the presence of heavy industrial uses in the media vicinity, the proposal is consistent with the intent of flu directive 1.1 and flu policy 3.1.3.

Overall, staff finds that the proposed plan of development is compatible with the existing development pattern found in the surrounding area and the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh hearing master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the application for rezoning of approximately 10.97 acres located on the west side of SR 39, approximately 660 feet south of County Line Road SR 39 and northeastern Hillsborough County.

The rezoning is proposed from AR and A, agricultural, rural and agricultural to a PD to allow for open storage of RV's boats, trucks, and equipment.

The zoning hearing master noted that the use will only occupy the front half of the approximate 10-acre parcel, and the use will be set back approximately 140 feet from SR 39 with the eight-foot tall fence, which will screen the outdoor storage use from adjacent land.

It is noted that the request for the LI future land use only covers the front half of the subject site matching the land area identified on the PD site where the open storage land uses are proposed.

The zoning hearing master noted that the predominant land use in the area is an approximate 3,000 acre phosphate processing plant facility facility located to the east across the highway.

The zoning hearing master concluded that the proposed rezoning for an outdoor storage land use as conditioned by the planned development would be compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Move to approve.

Second motion, Commissioner Myers, second Commissioner Wilson.

Uh please record your vote.

Commissioner Hagen.

I mean Cohen, sorry.

Motion carried seven and zero.

I can move a motion for RZ 25-1245.

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Walshels and Commissioner Myers, please record your vote.

Aye.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

A5.

All right.

Commissioners David Hay again, planning commission staff.

The next item I will be presenting.

It is map amendment HC CPA 25-30.

It's located on the south side of 11th Avenue Southeast and east of 27th Street Southeast in Ruskin.

Do we have the presentation?

There we go.

Next slide, please.

It is privately initiated.

It's small scale.

It's approximately 4.7 acres.

Currently, the subject site has a future land use category of suburban mixed use six, and the applicant is seeking to go to that office commercial 20 future land use category.

Next slide, please.

Here we have the general locator map.

It is located within the southern portion of unincorporated Hillsboro County.

It falls within the urban service area.

It also falls within the boundaries of the Ruskin Community Plan and the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

Next slide, please.

Here we have an aerial of the subject site.

You can see the subject site is outlined in yellow.

There's a large lake directly to the east.

That roadway dead ends.

There is an unimproved right-of-way on the east side running north-south.

But 11th Avenue Southeast dead ends into that lake there.

Predominant pattern on 11th Avenue Southeast is single family detached.

There are some non-conforming commercial uses that are occurring, especially directly to the north of the subject site.

Along East College Avenue to the northeast is the new Moffitt South Shore campus.

And then further to the south, there's a mixture down on 14th Avenue Southeast.

There's a mixture of mobile homes, medical office, and single family detached.

Next slide, please.

Next, we're looking southwest toward the adjacent residential uses.

The subject site is located out of frame to the left.

Here we're looking northwest from 11th Avenue Southeast toward the AS1 zoned property.

The subject site is located behind the photographer.

Next slide.

That darker pink is the community mixed use 12.

Then we also have some residential four and residential one further to the south.

That is the urban service uh boundary, that blue line.

So everything to the south of that blue line is in the rural area.

Next slide, please.

Here we have the uh proposed future land use map where you can see the subject site has uh changed to that bright red representing the office commercial 20.

Next slide.

Next, uh we have the overall impacts under the existing SMU 6.

The subject site can be considered for up to a maximum of 28 residential units or maximum non-residential development of up to approximately 102,000 square feet.

Under the proposed office commercial 20, that development potential increases.

The maximum residential potential goes up to 94 dwelling units, and the potential non-residential increases to 153,000 uh approximate square feet.

It should be noted that though the density increases from six to twelve, uh sorry, uh six to twenty units per acre, and the floor ratio increases from a 0.5 to a.75.

Light industrial uses, which can be considered under any proposed plan development in the existing SMU 6 would no longer be allowed to be considered under the uh proposed Office Commercial 20 future land use category.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh as always, we send these out to our partner agencies, and we did receive some comments of note.

Um, the Hillsborough uh comments from Hillsborough County did include uh based on the traffic analysis, there will not be adequate capacity on four of the five analyzed impacted roadway segments to accommodate the uh additional trips generated generated by the proposed uh flu.

Uh the EPC did comment that there uh noted that there appears to be some wetlands on site, and the school board comment uh did uh provide that there was adequate capacity uh at the existing uh schools.

Uh next slide, please.

Um while uh formulating the planning commission recommendation, we always look at all of the comprehensive plan uh policies.

These were related to the request.

Uh though uh the request is related to several of these general policies, the planning commission found two main areas of inconsistency.

Uh next slide, please.

First, uh staff find uh the planning commission finds that the introducing the Office Commercial 20 future land use category at this location at the end of a local dead end road poses potential compatibility issues uh and is inconsistent with several policies related to neighborhood character and overall compatibility.

The existing SMU 6 category is designated as suburban land use in the adopted comp plan and it surrounds the site on all four sides.

The Office Commercial 20 is an urban designated category, and the nearest urban designated land use, the CMU 12, is approximately a thousand feet to the southeast and also near the intersection of of Interstate 75 and College Avenue.

Additionally, though the Office Commercial 20 category removes consideration for light industrial uses, the remaining parcels along this portion of 11th Avenue Southeast will retain consideration for light industrial uses through the remaining SMU 6.

So in the staff's finding, the removal of the potential light industrial uses would have minimal impact on the overall development pattern along 11th Avenue.

What the Planning Commission found more significant is that the proposed Office Commercial 20 allows consideration of multifamily developments with up to 20 dwelling units per acre.

A potential multifamily project at the end of this local roadway could significantly impact the area, such as increasing traffic on the existing larger lot single family detached residential pattern along this portion of 11th Avenue.

Moreover, the overall building massing could pose negative uh effects as most existing structures are single story.

And for the record, there is that related rezoning, which will which the applicant is seeking a CI zoning district, which under the current SMU 6 designation could be considered on site currently, but would require a planned development to demonstrate mitigation measures that reduce impacts on the surrounding residential uses.

The requested Office Commercial 20 removes that requirement for a planned development.

Since CI uses are currently permitted to be considered through the planned development and the overall existing density under the SMU 6 category aligns with this uh the established development pattern along this uh portion of 11th Avenue.

The Planning Commission did find that the request uh Office Commercial 20 uh would create a pattern that would not uh the the development pattern under that office commercial 20 would not be compatible with with the uh surrounding SMU 6.

And so based on that uh policy direction, the planning commission staff, uh the planning commission, I'm sorry, recommends to you all this evening that the proposed map amendment be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Applicant here.

Thank you.

And uh and thank you, Mr.

Hay.

Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451, St.

Petersburg.

This is HECPA 2530 with a companion rezoning to CI.

As you've been uh presented, the site is located in South County.

Request is SMU 6 to OC20 for 4.7 acres.

This is a small business, Mr.

Johnny Soap is here.

This is for his property and his business and his employees and his family who are involved with the business as well.

So you can see that we're located uh near Sun City Center Boulevard in I-75.

This is as the property appraiser has it.

You'll notice that we're at the end of 11th Avenue Southeast, um, surrounded by very intensive wetlands and forestation, as noted here.

Also notices in place of the wetlands butting the site and national wetlands as well.

So the site is very isolated at the end of a roadway, which is an important consideration for this site, located at a dead end, as you can see here.

And I think it's interesting to note that the entire area is SMU 6.

SMU 6 is a very intensive category, and that's a budding CMU-12, which is also a very intensive category.

SMU 6 includes these are some of the uses for SMU 6 that currently are permitted under the future language category as of today are light industrial, multi-purpose, uh cluster residential and corporate park uses.

Commercial office uses as well.

Those are intensive uses.

We don't believe that what we're moving up to, particularly protected under the zoning of CI, is really much more intensive than what's permitted today.

Again, light industrial multi-purpose commercial as I indicated to a mixed use.

So again, this is the subject site, and even the planning commission does note that they've analyzed parcels located east of 24th Avenue and found that though there have been recent developments long parcels fronting on College Avenue, such as Moffett South Shore campus, and extra space storage.

So they're recognizing that there has been a movement towards much more intensive uses in this area.

So to the north is a 98,000 square foot health practitioner and retail and storage, which has been approved.

So this area is changing and is getting much more intense.

When you look at the Ruskin Community Plan, the community plan under economic development does note to provide opportunities for business growth and jobs, which is what this what this uh property does and what Mr.

Soap does, and ensure that there's appropriate land area zone for office, light industrial type development.

So it recognizes movement towards these kind of uses that are employing people and support small business in the area.

When you look to the media north, there are very intensive uses.

Dixie Wrecking is located directly to the north, and Bowman's is also located to the north.

These are just a couple shots of what uh those uses entail.

Um so with that uh I'll end this presentation and we're if I may ask, Mr.

Chairman, we're at six minutes, it's should be three minutes for future land use review, and then 24 zoning.

No, for this, you actually have 15 minutes, so thank you for keeping it short.

And uh then the public hearing for the CPA, each person gets three minutes, and I think we have 16 or 17 people that have signed up that I believe are all in support, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, but I'll have additional time under the zoning, correct?

Oh, yes, absolutely.

So I'll I'll complete this here.

Uh come back and finish under the uh zoning portion.

Okay, so uh this is a public hearing.

Um many of the names here I I can't I can they're not legible, I can't read, but um those I guess those that want to speak, I mean I they could start to come forward.

Good evening, sir.

Uh my name's Johnny Soap.

My brother uh my partners back there, Michael Camus.

We're a small business.

Uh we've been at that property a little over seven years.

I've been in business 20 years, trying to find a home in Hillsborough County.

I've been up to this different parts of this building.

I don't know how many times prior to finding this one.

So we've been there seven years.

We've got huge community support.

The whole entire 11th Avenue going up to 27th, signed to please let us exist and stay in business.

And my my heart's just filled with joy, all the support at Ruskin.

And if you you know Ruskin, you know why.

Um we're just we're just trying to work.

As uh Mr.

Freshman has showed you these things.

We're here to ask for your help.

We know our neighbors, we're part of the neighborhood there.

Um we've been there a long time.

Definitely understand the professional perspective of y'all's views here, planning commission, and everything.

Um you're not here in tonight or the last hearing, a single neighbor.

Anyone outstretched all the way past our recent neighbors on 11th, both ways, 27th, of one single complaint.

And we got brought here after Milton, we stopped getting our mail there.

So we went to the post office.

That's how we come up under zoning the day after I got the notice.

I contacted Mr.

Pressman to get this set up, and we're we're here now.

You know, and I got some employees here, some are missing.

They're my son's one of the employees.

It's freak, he had a freak uh lung collapse, so he's at Tampa General, which I'm going there after here.

And uh my brother is actually got the strep, so or he's got something, I'm not sure, but so he stayed.

Um we're just looking for your support and to open it up.

I mean, if you if y'all was able to drive down there and spend the hour and see what was going on, it'd be an easy decision.

Thank y'all.

Sir, I want to I want to first thank you for your uh vigilance, and it's it's pretty clear that you have uh widespread community support.

So just thank you.

Thank you hanging there.

Um would anyone else like to speak to this item before we go to the rezoning?

Good evening, sir.

Hi.

Uh I'm a concerned neighbor thinking that uh under the powers that be something trying to be changed that doesn't need to be changed.

We have a trucking company that is a good neighbor.

He helps everybody in the neighborhood, he helps out anybody that needs help.

And um I would ask that everything stay the same.

And he's a he's a good good guy, and he's a good neighbor.

And thank you for listening.

Thanks for coming down, sir.

Can you say your name for the record, please?

Uh Gene Franklin.

Thank you, Mr.

Franklin.

Thank you.

Next.

Good evening.

Jill Penwell, I just want to say they are good for the community when both storms came through.

They used their um chainsaws and their stuff, and they cleaned up all the debris on the street so they could use the streets to drive on, and then they kept the debris on their property, and took people was able to come pick it up.

That's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you for letting me talk.

I'm Timothy Mark Johnson.

Uh been part of the Greater Hillsborough County community for 15 years.

Um, a 24-year Army veteran.

Uh Russell Soap, Mr.

Russell Soap, who's on that property, uh, has helped me time and time again.

I'm on a reduced income, as you know.

Uh we occasionally have issues with our cars, our vehicles.

He's helped me out time and time again.

Uh uh, just charging me for uh for parts, no labor, and he's been a great benefit uh to me and my family.

Uh and as you know, he's uh been a part of the community for going on uh for more than seven years, and he's doing an excellent job in supporting the community.

Uh I ask that you uh uh take this and and uh favorably approve the request for a rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next ruin a phone.

My name is Michael Kelso from Sun City Center.

I don't understand the complexity of what's going on.

I just want to character witness for these guys.

As the young lady said earlier, during the storms a couple years ago, it was the soaps who would took their equipment and their manpower and their people who cleaned up the 11th Avenue Road because it's a dead end road.

The county wasn't gonna get to it.

They took care of that at their expense, their five people are, and that's that's the kind of thing we need in the community.

As you said, you've got I don't know how many people from here to support them.

They're good people.

I don't know how many times I've seen people come in, their cars broken down, they fix them, they don't have any money, they take care of them.

And this is the kind of people you need in the community, they need your help.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next speaker.

Good evening.

Ladies and gentlemen, uh, my name is Frank Odo.

I've been a resident of Hillsborough County for 12 years.

Uh I do a lot of uh volunteer and fundraising charitable in the area.

I live in Sun City.

I've been the co-chair for the breakfast for uh 4th of July and holiday breakfast, which we've served 1,800 people and raised over $6,000 for the community.

I am also the vice president of the Romanolis Car Club, which we boast 200 people, and uh probably the vice president of the Pontiac Club, uh, which also boasts 200 people.

Uh Russell and Johnny, any time we ever needed anything, I mean, car-wise, uh money-wise, I do a lot of uh fundraising for different charitable churches and also car shows, which we raise money for the public.

And they've always been very, very, very generous with their time and money and whatever I ever needed.

Uh they're very good friends, they're good to the community, they're good people, they're hard workers.

Uh it'd be a shame to see anything happen.

They pay their taxes.

Um I really didn't really prepare to say anything, but I'm just talking from the heart.

So uh I hope you guys could really see it in yourself to give these guys a chance.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

Do you have two people online?

Uh Dave and hold on, we're not there yet.

Please come forward, sir.

Hello, my name is Paul Laterno.

I'm uh lifelong Hillsborough County resident, and Russell and Johnny have uh supported me and my family and the community.

And um they help anybody they can, and hopefully you guys will look out for them and approve anything that or this particular case.

Hopefully, you'll approve them on what they want to do.

Thank you.

God bless you.

Thank you, sir, for coming down.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Uh we have a couple of individuals online.

Is it uh Danita Sisko and Dave Sisko, I believe.

That is correct.

My name is Davis Sisko, and I'm a former small business owner in Florida for 40 years, and I sure wish I had neighbors like this that were to give me some of these kudos that these guys are getting.

I know these two people for about three years now.

And uh they are the most giving people that I have ever seen for business owners.

It's unbelievable.

Everything these other people have said is nothing but the truth.

And as far as I can see, I don't see any problem with the property.

Don't see any problem with what they're doing.

They're just great in that area.

Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you, sir, for your comments.

Appreciate it.

Next.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Again, we'll hold off on the vote until after the companion rezoning staff need to introduce the item.

Real quick, uh, Commissioners, the concurrent items deny agenda item A6 rezoning standard 25-111.

The request is rezoned to parcel from AS1 to commercial intensive with restrictions.

The applicant did offer just restrict some uses, prohibiting crematoriums, convenience stores with with or without gas and recycle materials and recovery facilities based on surrounding development pattern.

Uh staff did find this request not supportable, given the pronoms of the single family residents in the area.

Uh Planning Commission also founding inconsistent in hearing officer that was also not supportive of the request.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Applicant.

Thank you again.

Thank you again.

Uh thank you, Brian.

Todd Pressman, 200 second of his health, number 451, St.

Petersburg.

Um oriented to the site.

This is a rezoning from ASC 1 to CI.

We've excluded a few uses that would just be completely inappropriate, the site.

Be sure to do that.

Made you aware of the isolation of the site.

And the intensity of the overlay future land use category now, which is very intensive.

Again, Russ and Community Plan Economic Development.

We believe it supports this request quite strongly.

And other uses in the media area.

And commissioners, I think this is probably the most important point to get across to you visibly.

Um bringing forward written support, petition-wise, letter-wise, from the abutting owners.

And I think uh, and these are the actual petitions as well.

So when you look at the zoning hearing master, uh, of course, when she asked, first of all, uh about opposition only replied, uh, we noticed a total of about 48, about total 48 notices.

But the ZHM SOME uh summary and conclusion does not include the widespread closely located and abutting neighbors and written support.

One of the critical elements of the of that report is compatibility.

And when you look over the zoning hearing master report, that is an element that's not included in that report.

This concise the abutting owners who would be impacted who would potentially have negative and negative impacts have signed forward, making aware that they are in support.

I think that's a critical difference in the ZHM report.

Um and they noted in the ZH summary incompatible with the residential development of the media area, yet at the same time, we're bringing forward to you written conclusive communication that those residents are in support.

I think that goes in line with great respect to Mr.

Hand, the Planning Commission in the same regard in terms of compatibility for the site, and you've heard it from residents here as well.

Um finally, as I presented to you the unique factors or locational elements at the end of the street where we see that there is great intensity that is occurring.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman Commissioners, we do ask for your support.

Mr.

SOAP hopes to have it and his team of people, and we appreciate your time tonight and the staff's review as well.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Uh those that are in support of the application, and again, you need to be a party of record for the rezoning.

Does anyone want to speak that's a party of record?

Okay.

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you, Commissioner.

David Hay, Planning Commission staff.

I have been sworn.

Uh, although uh the site is within the urban service area.

Oh, sorry, I should start.

Our analysis is based on this pending OC20 uh future land use category.

Uh, although the site is within the urban service area where growth is directed under objective 1.1, the primary issue is compatibility.

The surrounding areas, predominantly single family residential, mobile home parks, and lower intensity mixed uses.

There is no commercial zoning along 11th Avenue.

Um CI zoning would allow a level of intensity that staff finds incompatible with the established development pattern.

In this case, the CI uh zoning would not provide a gradual transition as called for within policies 3.1.3 and policy 4.4.1, and would introduce uses that could create significant impacts on those nearby residential homes.

Additionally, the site lies within both the Ruskin Community Plan and the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan, each of which emphasizes preserving community character and promoting development that respects the area's historic and cultural identity.

Staff finds that the CI zoning would be out of character and inconsistent with those adopted community visions.

In summary, the planning commission uh staff concludes that the proposed rezoning does not support the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, does not provide an appropriate transition to surrounding residential uses, and conflicts with both of those community plans.

So the recommendation to you this evening is that it be found inconsistent with the unincorporated county, uh Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Okay, thank you.

Hearing master.

The zoning hearing master consider the applicant's request for rezoning to the commercial intensive zoning district with restrictions.

The property is 4.7 acres in size, currently zoned AS1 and designated as MU6 by the comprehensive plan.

The rezoning application is associated with the comprehensive plan amendment proposing to change the category from SMU 6 to Office Commercial 20.

The subject property is currently under a code enforcement violation.

The applicant testified that the property is currently used for motor vehicle repair, equipment maintenance, dumpster storage, and tractor trailer storage.

The zoning hearing master noted that both planning commission and development services department staff do not support the rezoning request and found it incompatible with the residential development and the immediate area.

The zoning hearing master concluded that the request for commercial intensive restricted is incompatible with the residential land uses in the immediate area and inconsistent with the code and comprehensive plan and the recommendation was for denial.

Okay, we're going to board discussion.

Commissioner Wollstrom.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll be pretty brief, and I could just tell all of the speakers that spoke in support.

You could breathe a sigh of relief.

I pretty much know where the board's gonna go a lot of times, and I think that you're gonna be happy on this one.

Um of the speakers, Mr.

Kelso said that he didn't really know what's going on technically, and really I I think that this process is intentionally made so convoluted that no one knows what's going on in these situations.

So you're not alone, sir.

Um I would tell you that I I did come in here off of the base briefing, I just saw three marks of no, and I was just like, okay, well, I'm probably not gonna support it, but that is the benefit and the reason that we have public testimony.

Uh the board has wide discretion on comprehensive plan amendments legislatively, and if we needed to point at something, the economic development policy 7.1.11 says employment center shall be planned throughout the interstate 75 corridor, um, which is exactly in that perimeter of where we're talking about today.

So um I I'm only not making a motion to approve uh because I see the single member district is in queue, so I will defer to her.

Um, but I will be supporting this item for approval.

Thank you.

Commissioner Miller.

I second in that thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um what happened today is uh an example of what happens when the community shows up for you.

We do prepare a lot.

Um we sit with staff and do briefings as we go, um, and we just don't get the testimony on tonight.

Um, I just want to say um I don't have the formal names, but Mr.

Russell, Mr.

Johnny, thank you for being incredible community partners.

Um, as Commissioner Wistel mentioned, this is my district.

I will take you up on your offer to come out and see your business.

Um, I have a strong small business background, and I love to see those that are making a difference in our community.

And it really touched my heart to see that you showed up not only during a storm, which we did as a as a county, had to come together and help neighbors, but it seems to me that you do this as a regular practice, and um I think you'll find today that it's going to pay off for you.

Um, with that, thank you, sir, for allowing me to make the motion to approve um A6.

Second.

Okay, so we have a motion.

We have a motion to approve HCCPA 25-30 by Commissioner Miller, second Commissioner Cameron Cepeda.

Commissioner Cameron Cepeda, do you make any comments?

Yes, I was just gonna also say that you know it's like he mentioned, it's isolated into the roadway.

Um, you could see from the pictures, you know, a record service there.

And uh really want to thank you, sir, for being such a blessing to our communities, so many people.

Thank you, and I'm very happy to support this for you.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Uh, please record your vote.

Aye.

The motion carried seven zero.

We have a motion for RZ 25-1111.

Motion, Commissioner Myers, and Commissioner Wellstock.

Please record your vote.

Aye.

The motion carried seven and zero.

Okay.

Thanks for coming down.

Okay, next item.

Next item is uh item A7.

It's comprehensive plan map amendment HC CPA 25-31.

And and Mr.

Tyreek Royal will be making the presentation.

Please please try and be quiet on your way out.

Can we have a motion to reconsider?

Just kidding.

Okay.

Uh, that was that was that was hard to go.

Oh, I was not.

I think I will have maybe like once.

I'm gonna make some of the things that I'm gonna do.

Please go ahead.

I'm sorry, was the item already introduced, Mr.

Okay.

Apologize for that.

Uh good evening, Tariq Roy, Planning Commission staff, and today I'll be presenting HCCPA 2531 at 12780, Dr.

Martin Luther King Boulevard and 2922 Shady Acres Road.

This request is a privately initiated small-scale map amendment with approximately 4.45 acres.

The request to change the land use designation for residential lines of light industrial.

The location of the site is in the eastern portion of the Hillsborough County.

It's within the rural area and within the limits of the Sephen Romango community plan.

This is the aerial the photo outlined in pink.

It's located north of MLK.

Uh the surrounding area exhibits a mix of land uses.

Nearby development includes single family and mobile park, mobile home park uses as well as a court corridor along MOK that contains several long established industrial commercial utility related uses.

Railroad line runs parallel along MLK to the east of the subject site is a U-Hall rental facility, vehicle storage areas and RV storage and repair operations.

Further east is the Tampa Bay Fisheries, and directly west of the site is a public communications tower.

Here's some photos.

This is looking towards the subject site, MLK Boulevard is behind the camera.

This is looking towards MOK and the subject sites behind the camera and view.

You can see the CSX railroad.

And this is looking towards Shady Acres and MOK, the subject site is to the left.

Again, the site is in the Res 1 future land use category, which allows for consideration of agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, multi-purpose projects.

Commercial uses are subject to locational criteria.

The area designated light industrial further east along MOK is Tempered Bay Fisheries, and that's been operation for about 30 years.

Applicant is proposing any requests the future land use category to light industrial.

The LI category allows for consideration of agricultural, light industrial uses such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of material as the predominant uses, including uh support offices, warehousing, and retail uses.

Uh once the impacts, the proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density and higher, allow for higher commercial intensity.

The density of one dwelling unit per gross acre will be eliminated and commercial intensity will increase from a 0.25 FER or approximately 48,000 square feet to 0.75 FAR, approximately 145,000 square feet.

The Hillsborough County community uh community and infrastructure planning department commented that based on the traffic analysis, there's not adequate capacity to accommodate the additional trips except for the segment of MOK from Val Ricky Road to Macintosh.

Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed application and found it to be consistent based on the goals, objectives, and policies of the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, including the Sephiroth Mango Community Plan Goal 3, which states that commercial development should be directed to the US 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard corridors.

With that, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment HCCPA 2531 be found consistent with the goals and objections and policy of the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Applicant here.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tyreek.

Todd Pressman, 22nd of his South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg with HCCPA 2531 with a companion rezoning.

Planning commission board found a consistent 7-1.

We had no opposition.

37 persons have been noticed.

Although I do say no opposition, my friend Grace McComas, who pays close attention to this area, is here this evening, and she did make comments.

So no opposition except for my friend Grace.

Located in the Cephon areas you can see here on 574.

It's two parcels.

The issue is from Res 1 to L I rezoning companion as well in control.

So when you look at the zoning map, you'll see along with the future land use categories that it is an intensive area.

Uh of the roadway.

Planning Commission notes as well.

The corridor along Dr.

MLK can contains several long-established industrial commercial and utility-related uses, and a railroad line runs parallel to the boulevard.

So when you look at the future land use amendment, you can see that we're sandwiched between LIP on one side and LI on the other.

So that prior order in the planning commission report we feel supports in that sense.

This is as the zoning map has it.

When you look abutting east to the site, this is a butting to the east.

You can see it's an intensive use.

An existing commercial general on the next eastward site is as you can see here.

An existing CG again eastward is existing here.

And that's all contained in the zoning map along with the CSX railroad track, which which is an important consideration because across the street runs the CSX railroad, uh, which is obviously very intensive use and recognized and intensive use.

The site is right across the street from this view here.

Planning commission notes a railroad runs along Dr.

MLK Boulevard, reflecting an area's role as transportation service corridor.

Under traffic counts, it is an arterial roadway carrying anywhere from 14,000 to 11,000 vehicles.

It is part of the Hillsburg County truck route plan as well.

Planning Commission recommendation notes that it aligns with the intent of Objective 4.44.1.

New developments relate to predominant character of their surroundings.

It's a reasonable compatible fit, already surrounded by a mix of higher intensity uses, and goal three, which is an important goal of the community plan, which directs commun commercial development toward the U.S.

92 and Dr.

Emil K.

Jr.

Boulevard.

That's an important determination or directive by the by the uh Cefna Mangle Community Plan goal three.

Commercial development should be directed to the U.S.

92 Martin Luther King Boulevard corridors.

Um and encourage revitalization redevelopment of older existing commercial areas and uses as well.

Um with that, I'll uh just finish.

Mr.

Capaz is either trying to get on line or trying to get down here, so he emailed his comments, which I'd like to read very quickly, Mr.

Chairman, which is that from the property owner and applicant.

Southeast Roofing and Construction is a family-owned and operated roofing and construction company that has been in business for just shy of 15 years.

Myself, my brother, brother-in-law, and three children all work in the business.

We've been located the property for about four years as we grew out of our other location.

We are looking to have the property rezoned as we continue, or land use changes.

We continue to expand our operations and need the extra space to grow into in service or every increase in clientele.

Uh we ask for your help and hope to have your consideration this evening.

With that, I'll conclude and uh finish up with the zoning.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, this is a public hearing.

I know Miss McComas signed up.

Uh would she like to would you like to speak?

Good evening.

Good evening.

Twenty-four years now, Mr.

Hagan.

Yes, ma'am.

You've been doing this a long time, but I know we we've been in together.

My name is Grace McComas.

I live at 805 Old Darby Street, Cefner Umango community.

Cefner.

Um I'm here to oppose the CPA 2531 and the additional uh rezoning 251281.

Uh so many things are convoluted about this, Mr.

Wastel.

Where are you?

Uh this is this is crazy.

Um I'm here to support the Cefner Mango Community Plan as well as trying to uh straighten out some of the misrepresentations in that zoning, is and just stated by Mr.

Percman again that goals two and three are only partial statements that he makes, encouraging commercial on these two corridors, which we do, and he chooses not to complete the statement as they are stated in the community plan.

Commercial is not planned in our Sephenomango community plan in the rural area, nor in the urban service area east of State Road 579.

This property is both in the rural and well east of 579.

Commercial is encouraged on 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard, which is 574, west of State Road 579.

So it the statements that they're making that the community plan is they're consistent with the community plan is far off course.

And I don't even know why it got changed, but it seems like uh the zoning hearing master and development services decision was to divide to abide by the planning commission's decision on amendment 2531, and that was originally found to be inconsistent.

Back in August of 2025, the county commissioners appointed the planning commission to establish amendment 25-29, which is adopt was adopted February 9th.

After the zoning hearing master hearing, the information originally in optics with an inconsistent finding was changed and now states that the CPA 2531 is consistent.

So if that is because of the 2529 rural light industrial future land use, which was just uh approved or adopted, uh, it includes uses introduced in the zoning zoning district, but not allowed in CN or CG.

Not only is one of these properties that being mentioned to be to be uh uh light industrial, is a residential area.

Thank you, Ms.

McComas.

You have an opportunity during the rezoning to speak about it.

CPA you want uh in the in the rezoning?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Well he mentioned it all at one time, so I got confused.

Okay.

So all right, so go back to the CPA, okay?

Can I finish the CPA?

No, no, ma'am.

Three minutes are tough.

I'm sorry.

Three minutes.

Okay.

CPA is not supposed to have a uh timing.

No, this one's three minutes.

Doesn't say in the papers.

In any event, uh Ms.

McComas up.

You know where I'm going.

I'd like it to be denied.

I understand.

Mr.

Pressman, you have an opportunity for rebuttal.

No, Mr.

Chairman, I think the Planning Commission report and the goals as indicated under future lands.

I think that they clearly support the request.

Thank you.

Okay.

Staff need to introduce the uh rezoning.

Commissioners, the related item agenda item A8 is rezoning standard 25-1281.

This is a rezoning from commercial general to commercial intensive.

Uh again, the parcels located on the north side of MOK at the corner of Shady Acres Lane and M OK Boulevard, again, currently zone CG.

Uh with the based on the uh LI plan category, comprehensive plan amendment and surrounding development and the surrounding development pattern.

Uh staff did find the uh CI zoning district uh uh approvable.

Uh Planning Commission found it consistent in the hearing officer recommended approval.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Pressman, you need to add anything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll keep this an abbreviated uh presentation, Mr.

Chairman.

Planning Commission finds it consistent development services supports the ZHM supports it.

I showed you the intensity along the roadway and adjacent to the use and the uses.

Again, Sephora Mangle community plan, those are the specific goals.

I think what's critical, and the main point I want to leave you with is that we um have tremendous support from the abutting neighbors as you can see the petitions here, and they lay out in this fashion.

So to the bottom lower left are the two parcels of the site, everything in yellow is uh contained by ownership of uh these two letters uh in support.

So the abutting property owners uh which includes some residential or perhaps residential from the aerial uh which are located further away are in support, and then abutting uh to the west would be the radio farm uh radio tower farm.

So beyond having all the support from the regulating agencies, you have before you uh written uh support from the abutting affected owners or could be affected owners.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Any opponent testimony?

Ms.

McComas, do you need to add anything?

So you got I got to talk about the CPA because of the zoning because of what he said, but in actuality, I got to get back to the fact that the CPA was it was mentioned in the the new rural light industrial future land use 2529 that was prepared after the the was uh approved after the zoning hearing master had his meeting.

Um but that the CIA I I don't understand all the technical stuff, so I have to just read what I wrote.

On reading the new CPA 2529 rural light industrial plan use future land use, I also see it in use includes uses introduced in the CI zoning district, but not allowed in CN or CG.

Now one of these properties is CG.

There are no remarks or resources that identify the location of a CI zoning district in this area of Cefner.

There are two properties which are being confined, and since one of them is RS 1 and the other one is CG, both of them are pretty bad news.

And since one of them is RS 1, and the other one is CG, both of them are pretty bad news.

That's why I brought it up.

I would res I would like to have the the uh true wording of the comprehensive of the zoning to be listed, not just the half sentence that makes it sound like, yeah, all of 574 all the way through to Dover in those corridors.

They are not.

579 is the north-south entrance to the I-4, and it does not include anything east of that line.

This is east of that line.

So if the community plan has any influence whatsoever on your vote, I think this is an important thing to know that it's continuously stated incorrectly, because you guys can't know every single property that you have to see.

And I see Mr.

Hagen is doing his usual trip.

He has to leave when we speak.

So I would just hope that you all would deny this rezoning, the CPA, the whole deal.

Because since that new comprehensive plan 2529 has been adopted and referenced.

This one was referenced in that plan.

That it should be should not be able to be approved according to that new 2529.

I don't know.

I don't know how to say it.

Does y'all can understand what I'm saying?

I know you know what I'm saying, but do you care what I'm saying?

Mr.

Wastel convoluted.

Yeah.

What I said at the zoning hearing master, I just didn't appear tonight because I felt like talking.

I did talk at the zoning hearing master, and I don't feel like talking.

I never do like to do this.

Anyway.

Okay, I think I said all this one before when we were talking, so I don't want to leave anything out because I'm going to be upset with myself if I did.

Anyway, uh since this since the new uh CPA 2529 has been adopted in the end and this this particular amendment change request has been referenced in that.

I would respectfully expect you to abide by that current CPA and deny the CPA 2531 and the amendment change to LI with the rezoning and the rezoning.

Thank you.

I'm gonna go have my heart attack.

Thank you for your comments, Mr.

Pressman.

You have five minutes.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh Madam Vice Chair and Commissioners, if you look at I I'm only going to focus on one point.

Uh when you look at the uh ZHM report, he notes under that goal two about US 92 Martin Luther King.

The conclusion is that the subject application reading from the report of CI is not the type of regional office industrial research corp that is targeted.

The State Strategy is not addressing, is not precluding the consideration of CI zoning elsewhere within the MLK Junior Boulevard.

That's a critical consideration and clarity for that policy, which he refers to as policy two.

When you look at the planning commission report, they in the sense concur as well, noting the proposal does not represent new commercial intrusion into a stable residential neighborhood.

Rather, it does align with goal three of the community plan, which does direct commercial development toward U.S.

92 and not Dr.

Martin Luther King Boulevard Juniors given corridors, given the site's position between these corridors and the established pattern of non-residential uses around it.

So it is consistent with the community plan's intent.

With that, we appreciate your attention and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Planning Commission.

Good evening again, Tariq Roll, Planning Commission staff.

The proposal is with the aligns with the intent of the flu director 4.4 and flu policy 4.4.1 was called for new development to relate to the predominant character of its surrounding area.

The area around the site already contains a wide mix of uses.

Well, there are single family homes and mobile home parks nearby.

While there are single family homes and mobile home parks nearby, the corridor also includes several longstanding industrial, commercial, and utility uses.

Railroad runs along Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard, reflecting the area's role as a transportation and service current corridor to the East Light Industrial Future Linux category supports the container truck and storage and a U-Haul rental facility.

And there are additional vehicle storages areas along with RV storage and repair operations.

Directly west of the site, it's a public communication tower.

They're typically found next to or within higher intensity commercial or industrial areas because they're in infrastructure needs.

Overall staff finds that the proposed zoning rezoning is compatible with the existing development pound repound within the surrounding area and does support the revision of the South Romango community plan along with the Hillsburg County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the request to rezone an approximately 4.445 acre parcel located along the north side of MLK Junior Boulevard, east of El Rico Road intersection in the Ceft Normango area.

The zoning hearing master noted that there is a mix of heavy commercial uses to the east and west along the north side of MLK Junior Boulevard and industrial further to the east along MLK Junior Boulevard.

Development Services staff finds the rezoning approvable, subject to the approval of the plan amendment that is concurrent with the rezoning this evening.

The zoning hearing master stated that the request for CG to CI is not expanding the existing footprint of the commercial zoning.

The change will allow for slightly more intensive commercial uses and outdoor storage uses on the site.

The zoning hearing master found that the subject application is located within an area that's already zone commercial.

And additionally concluded that the proposed zoning does not expand the area zoned commercial and does not represent new or expanded strip retail development.

The zoning hearing master concluded that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the land development code and recommended approval.

Okay, Commissioner Wolfsol.

Thank you.

Mr.

Roman, can you just clear up what the confusion was about what was ever put into optics that said consistent and then was changed to consistent.

I believe that what she was referring to is the is the planning commission recommendation where the planning commission staff recommendation was inconsistent, but the planning commission voted to recommend to be consistent.

Okay.

Yeah, I you when someone challenges me, the first thing I typically will do in these situations is go and look and see how Chair Joseph of the Planning Commission voted, and he voted I in support of it.

Um I don't really see Ms.

McComas.

Um I'd love to pull a needle out of the haystack for you here, but um it's looks like some just some increase of open storage into an area that you know the last one that I worked so hard to kill with the board is because it seemed very suspicious to introduce um such a high level of um entitlements um and units per acre for that last project that we talked about, but I I just don't see it here.

So I'm not really finding a reason to to vote no on this project as it sits.

I don't see anyone else in the queue, so I'll move for approval.

We got a motion to uh to approve HCCPA 25-31 by Commissioner Wolstall.

Second Commissioner Myers, uh, please record your vote.

Aye.

The motion carried seven to zero.

All right, we have a motion for RZ 25-1281.

Move to approve.

Motion Commissioner Myers, second commissioner Willstone, please record your vote.

Aye.

The motion carried seven to zero.

Okay, eight nine.

Good evening again, David Hay, Planning Commission staff.

The next item is uh item A9, HC CPA 25-33, and it will be presented by Miss Willow Mitchie.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Willow Mickey with the Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 25-33, located at College Avenue in 18th Street Southeast.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 19.53 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the feature lanes category from suburban mixed use six to residential twelve.

Here's a general location map.

The site is in the urban service area and within the limits of the Ruskin Community Plan and the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

Here's an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

It is located north of East College Avenue, west of 21st Street southeast, and south of East Shell Point Road.

Within the vicinity of the site, there are single family residential uses to the west, north and east, and mobile home park uses to the west.

East of the site, there is vacant land that is owned by TICO, and further east of that, there is a parcel with heavy commercial uses that operates as an auto repair shop.

To the south of the site across East College Avenue, there is vacant land, agricultural land, light commercial, and heavy commercial parcels with developments such as a Dollar General, a self-storage facility, and an automotive shop.

Here are some photos of the site.

Here we're looking at the site from 18th Street Southeast, sites on the right.

Here we're looking from the other angle, so the site is on the left.

Here we're looking at the law office across the street from the site on 18th Street Southeast.

This photo is looking down 3rd Avenue Southeast site is on the right.

And this photo is looking onto residential that's adjacent to the site.

The site is in the SMU 6 future lanes category.

This category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial, multi-purpose, and clustered residential andor mixed use.

Office uses are not subject to locational criteria.

Surrounding land use categories include SMU 6 on all sides of the subject site, with Res 6 to the northwest and res 4 located further south on the south side of 11th Avenue Southeast.

There is public quasi public located north of the site on the north side of East Shell Point Road.

While not shown on this particular map, residential 12 is located approximately one mile west of the site.

And commercial mixed use 12 is located further east near the I-75 corridor.

The request is to change the site to residential 12, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multipurpose projects, and mixed use development.

This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change.

Currently, under SMU 6, the site can be considered for up to 117 dwelling units and 425,363 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential 12 would allow for the consideration of 234 dwelling units and 425,363 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment would allow for an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential density.

The proposal has been reviewed by the commenting agencies.

There were no objections, however, the Hillsborough County Fire Rescue Department commented that this amendment may have a significant impact on Hillsborough County Fire Rescue.

The community and infrastructure planning department commented that based on the traffic analysis, there will be adequate capacity to accommodate the additional drips, except for a few segments that are located east of the site along State Road 674.

The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.5 relate to the urban service area.

Objective 2.2 and policy 2.2.1 pertain to the future land use categories that establish permitted land uses.

The proposed uses for the site align with the Res 12 category and is consistent with these policies.

FLU's objective 2.3 and 2.3.9 outline the utilization of density and intensity requirements to encourage growth in efficient and predictable patterns throughout Hillsbore County.

The proposed amendment from SMU 6 to Res 12 would allow for a residential density that is compatible with nearby development.

The proposal is also consistent with Objective 3.1 and its associated policies related to compatibility.

The proposed Res 12 designation is compatible with surrounding land uses in the evolving character of the College Avenue Corridor from largely low density residential and agricultural uses to a more integrated mix of residential, commercial, and community mixed use development.

Objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 emphasize the importance of enhancing and preserving the existing neighborhoods and communities.

The uses that are permitted within the REST 12 category are complementary with and are generally similar to the uses that exist currently surrounding the site.

FLUS Objective 6.3 encourages clustering to ensure that development will incur in a manner that protects existing natural resources and retains the character of and the ability to manage the area surrounding those natural resources.

The proposed REST 12 category would support this approach by allowing the development to be concentrated on the upland portions of the site and therefore protecting the natural resources on the property.

Policy 1.2.3 in the mobility section prioritizes projects that enhance multimodal access to parks, recreation, health care, healthy food, better jobs, school, and other community elements.

This policy is supported by the proposed request as a development site's location along a major transportation corridor, would provide access to a wide range of amenities and services.

This proposal is also supported by the housing section, which promotes a variety of housing options, in field development within the USA, and housing that is well served by transportation infrastructure services.

And lastly, the proposal supports the Rusk and Community Plan by aligning with the intent of uses in the Northeast Ruskin Character District by allowing cluster development, which preserves the on-site wetlands, and by aligning with the desired uses along College Avenue.

The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsboro County Comprehensive Plan.

And that concludes my presentation.

All right, thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Thank you.

Great.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Alec Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive with the law firm of Gardner Brewer Hudson.

I just wanted to expand on a couple of justification points.

Staff provided really good input in the staff report in terms of supporting policies and objectives, but just to expand on a couple of those.

The first one being that given that the site has a pretty extensive wetland footprint, with getting additional density, we are able to cluster that on the uplands in order to minimize the impacts to the wetlands.

So that was the theory behind the density increase.

Also, and in the staff mentioned this as well, but this area of Ruskin, specifically this College Avenue corridor has grown over the last decade or so in some have been developed with some pretty significant employment generators.

The first of that being that 70,000 square foot state of the art Moffitt facility.

That's within a very approximate radius of the site as well.

And I think that this aerial is a really great overview, as you can see here.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I don't believe anyone signed up, but this is a public hearing.

Would anyone like to speak to the item?

All right.

Um seeing none, uh can we have a motion?

Move approval.

And a motion approved.

Commissioner Wolstalls like Commissioner Miller.

Uh please record your vote.

Aye.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

Uh for the following uh proposed amendment.

Uh the amendments being heard this evening for consideration of approval of the transmittal of the amendment to the state and agencies for review.

Uh, if the request is approved for transmittal this evening, there'll be a second and final uh public hearing prior to the consideration, the final adoption of the amendment.

Before I pass things over to the planning commission, uh, we originally had uh believe about 15 individuals sign up to speak on B1 after B2 was continued.

A number of those individuals have expressed an interest to speak on B1.

I'm gonna allow that.

However, I would suggest uh consistent with what we typically do when we have a number of speakers that we give each speaker two minutes.

So if we could have a motion to that, move approval.

Motion Commissioner World Still and Commissioner Myers, uh, please record your vote.

All right.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay, planning commission.

All right.

The uh last item for this evening is HCCPA 25-22, and the presenter will be Willow Mitchie with the Planning Commission staff.

Willamickee Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 25-22 located at 11115, South County Road 39.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is large in scale and approximately 118.75 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the feature land use category from agricultural rural one to five to residential one.

Here is the general location map.

The site is in the rural area and is within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

Here is an aerial uh photo of the site.

It is located west of South County, Road 39 and south of Lithia Pine Crest Road.

Within the vicinity of the site, agricultural uses are located to the north, west, and south.

Single family residential surrounds the site on all sides with public quasi public located to the southwest.

Here we have some site photos.

This one is looking down State Road 60, and the site is on the right.

This photo is looking onto the existing residential on the site.

Here we're looking onto the site from Old Welcome Road.

Looking onto the site with the adjacent residential to the right.

And then this is looking on to residential subdivision subdivision subdivision, sorry, um down the street from the site.

The site is in the AR 1 to 5 feature landings category.

AR 1 to 5 allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, feedlots, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses and mining related activities.

Surrounding land use categories include AR 1 to 5 to the south and southwest and res one to the northeast and west.

Further north, the public quasi public land use includes an elementary school and there is also natural preservation in agricultural one to 10 further east.

The request is to change the site to residential one, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, and multi-purpose projects.

This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change.

Currently, under AR 1 to 5, the site can be considered for up to 23 dwelling units and 1,293,187 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential one would allow for the consideration of 118 dwelling units and 1,293,187 square feet of non-residential uses.

During the rezoning process, commercial location criteria may affect the allowable square footage for potential non-residential development.

The proposed amendment would increase development potential by allowing consideration of higher residential density.

This proposal has been reviewed by commenting agencies.

There were no objections.

However, the Hillsborough County Community and Infrastructure Planning Department commented that there is not adequate capacity to accommodate additional trips generated by the proposed feature land use.

The Hillsborough County Zoning and Compliance Review commented that a rezoning would be needed to accommodate the proposed density of the new feature land use designation.

The proposed request is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Objective 1.2 and the associated polys are related to rural areas.

The proposed amendment to res one is not compatible with the surrounding area and does not align with the intent of the rural area designation.

Within the rural area densities will be no higher than one dwelling unit per five gross acres unless located with an area identified with a higher density land use category.

Objective 2.1-2.2 in the associated policies pertain to the future land use map and the future land use categories that establish permitted land uses.

Although the Res 1 category uses may be considered for the site, the proposed amendment for the Res 1 future land use category would allow for the consideration of a higher density density that is generally not compatible with the rural area.

The proposal is also inconsistent with objective 3.1 and its associated policies related to compatibility.

Although the Res 1 designation is present to the west, north, and east of the subject site, the site itself is not located within area designated to support densities exceeding one dwelling unit per five gross acres.

Additionally, the majority of the nearby parcels with a res one feature land use category were originally designated as such in July 1989 and were not the result of plan amendments.

Given these factors, the proposed change to Res 1 is inconsistent with both the policies guiding development in the rural area and established character of the surrounding area.

Objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed request for res one would not complement or appropriately integrate with the established character of the adjacent land uses that are lower in density to the northwest, south, and further east of the property.

Approval of this request would represent a departure from these policies associated with the intended function and identity of the rural area.

And lastly, one of the strategies with the South within the South Shore Area Wide System Plan is to continue continue to support and preserve agricultural activities that have been historically important part of South Shore Heritage and maintain agriculture as an integral part of the South Shore economy, landscape, and natural resource base.

Goal two of the plan states that aquacultural and related uses are the preferred use of areas outside the urban service area boundary.

The change to residential one would conflict with the plan's emphasis on preserving agricultural as a foundational economic and cultural element in the rural area.

With that, the planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, and that concludes my presentation.

All right, thank you.

The applicant here.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh members of the commission of those at the DIAS.

I am here on behalf of Project 2522.

I'm sorry.

Can we hold the clock here to make sure?

This is not.

I can't.

There we go.

All right.

Acknowledge I lost about 20 seconds there, technical difficulty.

Introduce myself for the record, Michael Brooks, 400 North Tampa Street.

I'm here representing GLH Enterprises, which is the Henderson Family Holdings, is the manager of that company.

Dr.

Henderson is here this evening.

He and his family have been the beneficial owners of this of the strawberry farm that we're going to talk about here this evening for uh nearly 45 years.

Land use counsel, of course, is myself and uh Rebecca Kurt, uh, who you all know.

Planning is um is to be done by half.

Uh Isabel Albert is going to come up and speak tonight.

We have Todd Amidin from Landmark Engineering here and Transportation Michael Yeats.

All right, I'm I don't know what I'm doing.

This button keeps what am I doing?

Okay.

I'm sorry about that, folks.

This first slide is really site information.

There's two things that uh I want to relay here other than some basic facts.

The site is a hundred, the subject property is 118.75 acres.

This is in the rural area.

It has the subject properties have a land use designation of AR one to five, as you heard from the uh the intro presentation, and the request is to change the land use designation of the area within the pink from AR5 back to Res 1, and that will be where I'm going to start this presentation.

The yellow shading is the extent of the existing farm operations that are owned by the applicant.

So you notice they extend beyond the subject property boundaries.

The reason for that is because those parcels outside the pink lines uh are res one, and so there's no need.

So part of the farm is already res one.

The entirety of the farm, as I'm going to tell you, has been res one uh for much of the history.

So I'm going to start quickly with um and not to give a um historical lesson here, but uh it's necessary for this site.

This is a excerpt from the July 1989 future land use map.

Uh this particular future land use map uh as you will notice.

Um this was one of the first iterations uh of the implementation of the 1985 Growth Management Act.

Uh you will note that these plans, if if you looked at them in a detail, uh they have the appearance of the technology that was available at the time.

They are hand colored.

Certainly, there's a lot less detail on them than what we're accustomed to working with now.

But with regard to the subject property, it is very clear.

Uh that is the area that is in the uh the yellow box.

Uh it was in a area that was uh rural residential on this plan, which uh we refer to as RR, it was one unit per acre.

Um and then the AR transition to the south, um, and we're going to talk more about kind of what happened with a lot of the environmental land.

But this was the starting point for the very first iteration of the comprehensive plan as we contemporary uh comprehensive plan as we know it today.

The first major change, not the only change, but the first major change happened in October of 1994, and we had the first year amendment.

In fact, it was named the first four years.

Um there was a change in land use labels amongst other substantial changes, and in particular, residential rural residential R became residential one, still one unit per acre.

So it was just relative to this conversation.

It wasn't really a name change.

And you can see here uh in this pink box that is the uh the boundaries of the subject property.

Um you can see it's not debatable, it was squarely within the res one.

In December 1998, that is when things began to change.

Um this was the second major revision, also in your amendment, but this one was the first seven years, uh, 1989 and 1996.

This was the first map that changed the subject property and some of the adjacent properties from residential one to the R1 designation.

We have researched the files, we're not able to find any instance where specific notices were sent out to the owners of affected property owners.

I I will say that was not unusual for the time, but um I was able to pull the newspaper publications, which is a statutory requirement.

Um it's somewhat dated in our kind of our current technology uh era.

But uh the point of this is that if you were a property owner, and even if you happened to be thumbing through the back of the sports page or the metro or wherever these were, and you chose to read that, you were still challenged with determining whether this map um affected your property.

Uh and I think it's important to point out this time in night seems kind of sounds crazy, 1998.

You still had to come to the county center to figure out what the zoning of your property was, right?

The things that we enjoy today, online digitizations and GIS systems, those things didn't exist.

You had to come over here and go meet Mr.

Renee and Mr.

Verne, uh, and then you had to go to the planning commission, go to the library, and before you could get the full picture.

So it was not easy for property owners at this time, even in 1998, um, to follow what was happening at the county, and there was a lot happening.

Um before mobile phones, before internet, before a lot of businesses, at least the one that I started in, even had internet or uh email, I'm sorry.

And so with that backdrop of how we got here, I'm just gonna leave this final slide, and I'm gonna ask Miss Albert to come up, who is going to explain, notwithstanding the inequities of what the kind of the story, and I'm gonna conclude with uh when she's done.

But what we're asking for is to essentially put a portion of the residential one that was removed back into residential one.

It is bound on three sides, and I'm gonna elaborate on that uh a little bit later.

Uh some of the other land that was taken out has since been acquired by Swift MUD.

And so the remaining property owners that were affected by this are largely Dr.

Henderson, there's a parcel to the north, uh, and two parcels to the south.

Who I believe one of those gentlemans is in the room and probably does not know this fact until uh until I just uh mentioned it.

So with that, I'm gonna ask Miss Albert to come to the dais or come to the podium, and I'm going to enter her resume into the record.

Thank you, Isabel Albert for the record, 1000 North Ashley Drive.

Um, I'm here to talk about the comprehensive plan and the land use designation that you have in the um currently.

And what how it's been done is being separated by categories, and each category is has land use designation that are similarly acting um uh character and uses that are similar to each other, and they're bound they're bundled in these um categories.

And the first one is the rural category, and in the rural category, as I said, are going to be uses that are very similar in uses, uh similar in nature and characteristic.

And under that, you will find the residential one category.

It is clumped with the all the rural land use category.

The next category is semi-rural, which is not in the semi-rural, it is actually in the rural category.

Here, what we see is what's been happening since 1998 with the last uh major comprehensive plan amendment.

You'll see that the ELAP land and the public land have slowly been accumulating in this area and being established.

And what happened was it automatically created these two residential enclaves.

You'll see here on either side of this corridor of public land.

And that what resulted is it created these real enclaves of residential one land use.

And these are created in effect, these rural communities that you you hear in these rural areas.

And most interestingly, in this context, in this view right now, the predominant land use is residential one at 6,500 acres approximately.

The one after that is you have agricultural rural, and then you have a small acreage of agriculture.

So this tells you that the predominant character of the area is a residential.

Again, so this uh with the approximately 2,000 acres of cumulative residential one adjacent to our site.

With that, obviously, we're requesting an infield, which is going to be limited infill into an existing established rural community, and we're requesting to could to bring us back to what we were at one unit to one acre.

The request also provides this transition in lot sizes.

Originally, as you can see on your left-hand side, it was that established agricultural rule, which is shown here as these larger lots to the south of us, and then to the north and east and uh northwest.

You'll see these smaller lots, which was established or invision with the original um RR, then later residential one, and these are shown in these smaller uh lots, uh lots outlined in um white.

But it also provides a transition of land use.

Currently, today there is no transition.

This is a pocket of agriculture that is uh in between agricultural rural to the south and residential agriculture to the north.

So what this provides the request is provides a nice transition between the larger agricultural sites, residential to the south, and then towards the smaller uh residential and agricultural to the north.

So this brings me back to currently what's today.

We talked about the rural community, but there's also suburban enclave.

This functions sort of like a suburban enclave.

You have 2.5 miles away from the site, you have a fire station, you have a school, you have the Tico Easement, you have these platted subdivision just north of us.

And so basically what you've heard from me today is that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan by providing this nice transition with the help of this in field that we're proposing to go back to our residential one.

And that brings me uh to the end of my presentation.

But next you're gonna hear from Michael Yates.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, Michael Yates uh with Palm Traffic.

Uh, just wanted to go through briefly with you on the uh traffic conditions out there.

I believe we're gonna hear some conversation about traffic out there.

Uh so uh what I've shown here is basically from the staff report.

Uh the net change is only 931 daily trips, a relatively small change.

The existing roads out there on county road through nine quiet be removed.

Operated acceptable level of service.

You can see the volume to capacity ratio is 0.59.

So that means 40% of the capacity of the road is still available.

And I do have an aerial up here which is important for what I believe is the traffic issues that you're gonna hear about is that the school is in the southwest corner of the intersection, and the intersection is signalized, but it does not have left turn lanes.

Every approach does not have a left turn lane.

Uh the eastbound, southbound and westbound have right turn lanes, but again, no left turn lanes.

And so what happens at a signalized intersection, this will cause significant delays waiting to get through the intersection.

Um there are two CIP projects, they're really the same project.

It is just getting split uh for the intersection to do some improvements, and uh, this is a excerpt from the draft plan for the intersection, uh, which shows that a turn lanes will be built at the intersection, will have a left through and right on every approach to the intersection.

Uh, this is currently in your CIP.

They are going through the preliminary design right now to get these preliminary layouts.

Uh you know, I we're anticipating 2030, probably for what we're hearing for this improvement to be constructed.

Uh, but the county has also done an interim improvement plan, which is part of the CIP, they're trying to get this uh under construction within the next year.

Uh this will add a northbound left turn lane and extend the southbound right turn lane.

So this will help the operations of the the intersection, particularly on the northbound approach by providing the northbound left turn lane.

Again, we are asking for a comp plan amendment, not a rezoning.

So the development is not coming as it would with a rezoning application.

This is just a comp plan amendment.

So from that, I will turn it back over to the team to finish up, but that was the traffic center.

We got 10 seconds, Mr.

Brooks.

Well so we have in this presentation two pages of sides of planning commission findings that I think that we can boil down to really one thing.

We're done.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to public uh hearing.

I'm gonna call the names and the order in which signed up for B1 first, and then I'll go down the B2 list.

First three speakers, uh Rebel Taylor, Gary Taylor, and Tina Coggins.

And each person will be given two minutes.

Good evening.

Hi.

Good evening to all of you.

First time doing this.

Um lived out here for 10 years now, and he is talking about the traffic gonna be bad, and he's gonna fix it up at the corner.

Um that's great.

It doesn't work for both ways.

Doesn't work for the animals, doesn't work for all of us out there.

We hope that you reconsider.

Do not change, don't rezone.

I don't I don't understand him saying not that they don't want to rezone it now, they want to amend it.

Um wish I can understand that more.

Um I'm hoping that you drive out there, look around.

Um tired of seeing dead animals where they're just they're pushing our animals out more and more.

Uh dead cougars, dead everything is out there on that road.

I mean, what do we want next?

Um, just please consider not to do this.

Um, please don't rezone.

Please don't let them build a subdivision here.

We just had a fire the other day on the sheriff's facility.

Um spread over to our neighborhood.

They had to evacuate our neighborhood.

And how do they fight the fires with helicopters?

Because we don't have uh fire hydrants and things like that out there.

You bring a tanker, it's not big enough to do anything.

The fire can sit continued for two days.

So there's a lot of more to consider than what we've seen up here today.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

I thought my comments might be a little premature, but since I paid 12 bucks to park on a little at a rip.

Uh, my name is Gary Taylor, no relation to this fine lady.

I live on Bryant Road in Lithia, lifelong resident of Hillsborough County, and I come here tonight to stand in opposition of any rezoning or further development of our area.

Forty years ago, my wife and I decided to raise our children in a wholesome environment of uh farming and ranching community, and we did just that.

They raised chickens, cattle, goats, whatever they wanted.

And when fish hawk development was a bit of a setback, we've moved forward, but enough is enough.

We have all seen what happened to Riverview, an endless chain of cleverly named subdivisions stacked full of shoebox houses located 15 feet apart.

We do not want that in our area.

Now, in the seventh grade, I took a civics class.

I don't know if they teach that anymore, but they told us uh as citizens what we had was our voice and our vote.

I'm giving you the voice.

You'll hear others that we could elect people that would serve and protect our interests, and that's all we're asking for.

In closing, I gotta tell you I was delighted to hear the way you all dealt with Mr.

Soap, because you exercised common sense and you listened to the people, and that's all we're asking for.

We've got a great community out there.

We'd like to keep it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Tina Coggins.

Followed by a Tegan Zelee in the Nasuze Lee.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

This is something I feel very strongly about.

I moved to the Brandon area in 1976.

I'm 61 years old.

I was 11 then.

I've lived from North Brandon out to Riverview on the Allafa River.

We went up to the mountains and the beach for a short term, and we are back in Lithia, Florida.

We lived in Lithia prior to going to the beach.

So I know the area very well.

We own a plumbing company, one of the oldest in the area, Coggins Plumbing.

We own the gas works of Tampa Bay.

If anyone should be for development, it would be someone in our business.

We make our money on new homes being built.

But the area that we chose to move back to four and a half years ago and buy a 41-acre farm to which we just purchased the 40 acres adjacent to us.

We now own 81 acres at 1220, South County Road 39, less than a mile from Dider Henderson's strawberry fields.

We didn't buy this farm thinking that anything like this that they're proposing could come so soon.

The roads are not made for the amount of traffic that goes by our home every day.

Anyone that comes to our home says, this is beautiful.

This is what I aspire to have one day.

And we sit on our front porch in the rocking chairs and we watch the thousands of cars that go by every day.

We came back from a meeting in Plant City yesterday afternoon at four o'clock, and I made a video on my phone, which I'd be happy to share with any of you.

When I hit the intersection at 39 and Lithia, and it went all the way to almost old welcome road.

If I want to go eat at my friend's shop at the corner of 39 and Lithia, which is literally two minutes from my home, it takes a minimum of 20 minutes in traffic at dinner time to get there.

Thank you, ma'am.

I hope you'll take into account mine and everyone else's.

Tina Coggins.

Thank you.

Tegan Zealy, followed by Sue Zaley, and then Lynn Ryder.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you guys for being here and listening to us.

My name is Tegan Zealy.

Um, I'm gonna come at this with a little bit of a different perspective.

I have been watching for the past few years our farmland disappear.

And I realize that if the farmers want to get rid of their farmland, that's fine, they can.

But if you rezone this amend it to Res One, you're diminishing our ability to have our family farms.

And our farms, if we start getting rid of our farms, where are we going to get our food?

In Hillsborough County, we have we are the third highest producer of crops in the state.

Hillsboro pulls in, we export 36 million dollars of veggies and melons to Canada annually.

Continuing to pave over our farmland is gonna have a ripple effect that will echo nationwide.

Hillsborough County exports crops throughout the eastern U.S.

into the Midwest.

Internationally, we export strawberries to Canada and blueberries get air freighted as far as Europe and Japan.

So I guess I would ask you guys as a county.

Do we have a plan in place with other Florida counties to establish new farmland to replace what's being developed in our county?

Our family farms, they guarantee us a reliable food supply, not only to feed our local citizens, but also the nation.

They're a huge economic driver, generating millions of dollars in tax revenue while creating jobs in our local community.

People are already struggling to afford food.

How much more expensive will our food get when it's not coming from local, but it's coming from out of state and out of country?

Just food for thought.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sue Zaley.

Sue here.

Followed by Lynn Ryder.

Then Tony Parker and Danielle Kimbrell.

Good evening.

Good evening, I'm Sue Zaley, and I'm sorry my daughter just stole half of what I was gonna say.

But with our farmland disappearing, we will become more dependent on other communities, other states, other countries.

And it's going to make our food not as affordable.

And we're already struggling at the grocery store.

So I'm just requesting that that you not approve another subdivision, another more housing.

Let's keep as much of Hillsborough County rural as we can.

Um there's plenty of houses out there that are available.

We don't have to have another massive development.

We need to get our infrastructure in place first.

And I just say once it's gone, it's gone.

There's no getting it back.

So can we just slow down a little bit?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lynn Rider.

Tony Parker and Danielle Kimbrell.

Good evening.

My name is Lynn Ryder.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the board this evening.

The planning commission determined that HC CPA 2225 is inconsistent with the goals and objectives and policies of the unincorporated Hillsburg County comprehensive plan.

The proposed amendment to change AR 15 to residential one is not compatible with the surrounding area and does not align with the intent of the rural designation.

Directly to the east of the property in question is Old Welcome Road, along that road or one, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, and forty acre parcels.

On many parcels, there are horses, cows, chickens, and goats.

Many share a boundary with the Allify River Corridor Nature Preserve.

There's a dog boarding facility, a wildlife rescue and rebuilt rehabilitation center, one small farm grows sugar cane.

You won't find this in the subdivision.

The proposed plan amendment does not align with multiple criteria used to determine compatibility.

There are concerns regarding the intended character of the development in the rural area, inadequate transition of use, and potential development that would be too dense for the portion of the rural area.

The property is located outside the urban service area.

Water and wastewater services are not available, which means 181 individual wells and 181 individual septic tanks on the subject property if developed.

Based on traffic analysis, there's an inadequate capacity to accommodate the attritional trips generated by the flu.

So we have an inconsistency with established rural area, incompatibility with county planning and youth policies, traffic concerns, and water.

All this leads to a reasonable conclusion.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Tony Parker.

Followed by Danielle Kimbrell, and then Anthony Rossi.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Tony Parker.

I live on Old Welcome Road.

I'm here to share my thoughts about the traffic impact.

Currently, traffic volume on 39 in the peak times of the morning in the afternoon.

Backs traffic up from 39 and Lithia Pinecrust to Old Welcome Road, which is over a mile.

Point number one, October 13th, 25 agency review, provided that on page 28, 8500 cars a day with the impact of these houses, another 931.

Call it a thousand cars a day on an already busy road.

Page two of the uh report, chart 1.1 says potential impact of proposed change indicates that the zoning of RS1 could include neighborhood commercial office.

I asked deaf, what does that mean?

It means that the section illustrates the potential development could consider future land use of commercial.

In other words, we could have more residential houses and buildings there on an already busy road.

What was a strawberry field could be a big housing development and businesses.

The business aspect of it was not included in the traffic analysis, by the way.

Point number two, and the most important other landowners, large landowners down 39 are going to look at this and say, if they can do it, we should be able to do it too.

What's going to happen is there's going to be a Pandora's box open of rezoning that will cascade down Highway 39 on all landowners there of large proportion.

The traffic that we have now is nothing compared to what's going to happen.

Commissioners, we do not have a lot of money for expensive attorneys.

We are counting on you to protect the rural side of Lithia.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Danielle Kimbrell and Anthony Rossi and Josh Brune Doggy, I think.

Good evening.

Daniel Cambrill, 1215 West Risk Street, Plant City.

Between 2020 and 2023, developers flooded the state with ambitious projects.

This photo is of a development just 12 miles away from the property being examined this evening.

Rural and family lands protection program of Florida helps preserve agricultural lands and has successfully saved 225,000 acres for development to ensure the state's natural and rural landscapes remain intact for future generations.

Ron DeSantis said we're strengthening rural communities and economies by preserving the natural heritage that makes Florida a world-class destination.

The Strawberry Festival is one of the top festivals in the country.

It represents a piece of American history and continues to preserve and enhance the agricultural legacy of the Florida strawberry.

Sanford is no longer the salary capital of the world, and Lakeland even has a museum dedicated to the history of citrus in this state.

Plant City.

Plant City has been known as the winter strawberry capital of the world.

However, on Monday's Monday's city commissioners' meeting, it was said they have taken advantage of all developing opportunities in regional warehousing and more interested.

This photograph, you can see the line of white boxes are warehouses that were once strawberry fields and no longer forever.

Commissioner Sparkman said he is in favor of getting aggressive for affordable housing.

Now notice the name of that street underneath strawberry fields.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate your comments.

Anthony Rot.

That's what it looks like now.

Thank you.

Anthony Rossi.

How about a Josh?

Brune Doggy looks like, and then we have a Denise Martin that I believe is virtual.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns in opposition to HC CPA 2522.

My name's Anthony Rossi.

I'm a resident of Hawk Creek Reserve, which is the neighboring community adjacent to the proper property of interest.

I appreciate the thorough review by the planning commission staff who's already found this amendment to be inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan for rural lithia on essentially all fronts.

For those who don't live in borough Lithia, please allow me to elaborate.

Maybe you live in Brandon or Tampa, and dangerous roads and traffic congestion are assumed to be the norm and it become a way of life.

We choose to live in rural lithia, uh, in large part to avoid these these things.

Unfortunately, even those of us from rural lithia are no longer immune to these dangers and new on uh nuisances.

When we moved to Lithia ten years ago, there's essentially no traffic on County Road 39.

Uh there was a this was a major selling point for our family.

Peace, quiet, safety, ease of transportation, and a beautiful rural area to raise our kids.

Uh this is no longer the case.

My family's been involved in not one but two major car accidents at that intersection of 39 and Lithia Pinecrest.

We're blessed that our sons were not killed in either of these, uh, both of which occurred on their way to school early morning in traffic.

Um, again, previously non-existent, at an overcrowded intersection due to the massive influx of traffic in just the last three to five years.

Um Lithia Pinecrest Road, uh, west of County County Road 39 remains an ever worsening disaster due to traffic congestion.

Um at times uh the traffic is so bad trying to get out of our neighborhood during rush hour and get past Lithia Pinecross Road safely to respond to emergencies for my for myself uh at the hospital where I work becomes a major issue.

Within the last five years, uh the number of vehicles has increased exponentially.

Unfortunately, the the traffic report that was cited earlier, um, I think tremendously uh underestimates the uh the amount of cars that come down our road.

It was done for several days in July uh when no school is in, and we notice a huge change when school is in and out in our traffic patterns.

So changing thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Josh and Denise Martin was virtual, and then we'll have Paula Frazier and Michael Frazier.

Good evening.

Thanks.

I'll make sure I get the correct it's Josh Brundage, uh, not doggy, but thank you for attempting it.

So I live at uh 16044 South County Road 39.

Uh my wife has actually lived on that property since she was born.

I won't say how long, but it's been a long time that she's been on.

We've been living in Lithia.

Uh you heard a lot about emergency services, traffic, thank you.

Uh character, wildlife of the area.

I just want to touch on two additional points.

Um I think it was mentioned that there are schools close by.

That's true.

They are close by, but the county's report on the schools, Newsom High School is already over capacity at 102%.

This amendment would put Newsom High School at 103%, and that is also not taking into account an additional report from the county uh for another land use amendment that would put Newsom at 102% independently.

So there's not even a study to include what those two together would do to the local schools.

Uh I live just south of this proposed amendment, and my teen son would be going to Waimama for high school uh because Newsom is overcrowded, and we live very close by, but that's how far we'd have to go for high school.

So that there are schools close by, but not adequate ones.

The second thing I want to address that it's been talked about is is the wells and septic in the area.

This, as we've stated earlier, this lies outside of the ASU, so every new development is part of this amendment would require its own well and its own septic tank.

There are four major reports from Swift Mud, Tampa Bay Water that outline the desire to rely less on groundwater from the South County area due to inconsistencies due to wells having to be redrilled and water quality coming out of those wells.

So the county has moved to use more surface water sources in this area of of our county because of well issues, and this amendment would allow a significant amount of additional wells and septic to an already stressed environment.

So please, as everyone else has stated, uh we are not in favor of this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Is uh Denise Martin is Denise Martin on the line.

Denise is not she is not tripped in.

Okay, thank you.

We have Paula Frasier, Paula here, Michael Frasier.

Okay, it looks like we have the um Ethington family here, Paul, Carly, Luke, and Julia.

Any of them?

Okay, Carl Bailey.

Mr.

Bailey, Todd Randolph.

Okay, that's the last one that I've have on the sign-up sheet here.

Did anyone else want to speak to this item?

Okay, if you could just line up so we know exactly how many that we have, please.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Gordon Dawson.

I've lived in the area for 43 years.

I've seen Dr.

Henderson's farm go from an orange grove to the strawberry field now, whichever is the most profitable, I'm sure.

The biggest thing I can say on my way here this morning or today, this afternoon, I left my house at 4 30.

I live a mile and two tenths south of on 39, exactly on 39 from Lithia Pinecrest.

It took me 20 minutes to get to the light to turn to go to Morand.

Every afternoon, it backs up past Old Welcome Road, as was already previously stated, past my house.

And I just watch it every day as it gets worse and worse.

The traffic is horrible.

More houses out there is going to make it worse.

Like I say, the water county's not going to do anything about bringing any water to us.

They're going to take it down to Wamama, where it's over things already built.

I think hope you vote for the people that are put you in the office and appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next please come forward.

Good evening.

Good evening, uh Karen Mahalski, Temple Terrace, Florida.

Um everyone is here because uh, as the one lady, Ms.

Coggan said, is that um they believed they believed what the county, what you your documents say, and your documents say that this area is rule.

So they chose to be there because they expected going all the way to 2050 that this is rule.

That is why the planning commission uh staff said that this was inconsistent because it didn't meet these requirements.

You can say, oh, here this is neighbors, this is neighbors, but it's rule.

And why is um rule being important?

As the one lady said, it's agriculture that needs to be protected, but also right next to it is a wildlife corridor.

So this land, if the county so choose, and if the family wanted to sell, ELAP could purchase it because it would link right up to an existing county property, a preserve, Cheeto Preserve, uh, which is a swift mud property.

So there are possibilities if a family wants to sell.

They might not get as much money for it, but if they are environmentally inclined, if they are you know dedicated to the community, they could.

Another uh important part is that again, this is supposed to be rule.

It's in the up to the 2050 land future land use of being rural.

The idea is it's outside of the urban service area, there's no sewer.

And again, why is the sewer, as the previous gentleman stated, is that this is next to a preserve, it's next to wetlands.

I got 30 seconds.

It's next to wetlands.

We don't want contamination.

And what is important, critical for a septic system?

Dry.

You have to have dry soil.

So what's gonna happen when we get our floods when we get hurricanes?

It's gonna be contamination.

We're gonna have sewage all over.

And then how many phone calls are you guys gonna receive saying remember we asked you not to, and what's gonna be that detrimental effect and the cost?

Thank you so much.

Thank you, the um the planning commission staff, their dedication to protecting the rule and our comprehensive plan.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate it.

Next speaker.

Anyone else?

Please come forward if you're gonna speak.

Good evening.

Good evening, thank you, Commissioners, for your time.

My name is Donna Holt.

Um, and I am here to support um my fellow community who has already spoken.

Um, but I ask you to take note of my opposition to the CPA 2522.

Uh the planning staff has already determined this amendment to be inconsistent with the unincorporated uh Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

And then while I was sitting here, I did note that I heard the applicant's attorney, uh, Mr.

Brooks, um, try to give a history of the property to kind of justify their request, saying that the zoning was changed without notice to property owners in 98.

However, the Henderson family didn't own the property in 1998.

Um they got that in like 2001, and so when they bought it, they bought it with the land use um already knowledged and acknowledged of one to five.

So um I just ask that um you consider the fact that everyone has already spoken about the saturated infrastructure, the school overcrowding, the emergency service strain um that we've seen this past week with the fire, the increased runoff and flooding, um, and you know, the fact that this is gonna destroy our rural landscape.

I was um personally, I was born um in Plant City.

And I just pray and hope that you would support um support uh sustainable and smart growth and find CPA 2522 to be inconsistent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good evening.

Hello, my name is Beth Yankle.

My husband and I moved from Riverview out to Lithia back in May.

One of the main reasons we moved from Riverview was because of all of the congestion that occurred in the 10 years that we lived in Riverview.

I would not like to see 39 turn into 301 if you've driven down that way.

So I'm just asking to not have to move again further out to get away from the noise and the congestion.

You really could not go out and travel in that area.

McMullen 301 be you had to go out between 11 and 2, and you needed to be home because the traffic was horrendous.

So I'm begging you to please not approve any more traffic, etc.

in our community.

And I agree with the folks that were talking about the well and the septic issues and the stream uh stormwater damage and all of those issues as well.

So thank you for listening.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next evening.

Hello, can you hear me?

Oh, that's loud.

Um, I'm Gabriel Holt.

Um, and I would like to ask um a question.

Have you guys heard about like all the people complaining about the water shortages and whatnot?

Well okay.

Um sorry.

Uh sorry.

Uh if this land use change gets approved, that will mean that five times more people than the original amount will be added if they decide to develop the land.

Uh that will mean five times more people that would be added than if they uh needing water, which means more water shortages that will affect the rest of the community.

That is one of the reasons why I think you should um find this inconsistent with the um plan for the community um sorry.

Um you're doing fine.

Thank you.

Um another reason is that that will add more traffic as has been said.

Um that will make it harder for people to like in the early mornings or later at night to get places that they need to be, such as work or school.

And um, yes.

I'm just asking that you agree with the staff's findings and find this inconsistent.

Thank you.

Nice job, young man.

Okay, that closes uh the public hearing at this time.

The advocate has an opportunity for three-minute rebuttal.

Chairman, we do have Aaron Watten still on the line virtually.

I believe this is the item she signed up to speak to.

Hold off, Mr.

Brooks.

Okay, the the last speaker, please go, please come um go forward, um, Aaron.

Hi, my name is Aaron Watchman.

I'm a native um Lithuanian is what I call it.

Um, I grew up on the river first top you would see long to Modern Ford Park.

I was there before Fish Hog Boulevard would be on a road or a sparkle in a development charts.

I um I was supposed to go to Turk um Durant and Turkey Creek, ended up getting redistrict um to Randall and Newsom with a bunch of other um transplants and five people that I grew up with and have my whole world turned upside down.

And I still kind of wonder to this day what it would be like if I were to like have gone where I was supposed to go with the rest of the people I grew up with all through elementary school, but I digress.

Um elementary school I went to with Pinecrest Elementary, right there next to where the development is going to be happening.

Um people have talked a lot about the traffic data at that intersection alone, the um annual average um daily traffic count going from lithia pine crest towards Bishop in 2020 with 6,600 people now 9,300.

And on 39, it went from 9,600 people in 2020 to 12,700 in 2024.

Um a lot of people mentioned that they were in septic not even a year ago, last September, the Falconburg Brandon wastewater plant overflowed.

It didn't fill from the storm, it overflowed because it reached capacity um for four days, filling three 32 million million gallons into surrounding stormwater drainage ditches and wetland.

Where you guys are talking about turning into a residential community is also a prime habitat for gopher tortoises, which are a key subspecies in Florida that's critically endangered, and if they're wiped out, they will affect 2003 other species.

We appreciate your comments.

Okay, Mr.

Books, you're up Mr.

Chairman, I would if I could use a moment for uh procedural issue.

I I believe that in the initial presentation that that we had prepared for 15 minutes, and that's what we understood um particular Ms.

Lungren to be in our communication with with your office, and I do have probably about three or four minutes, and then I want uh Dr.

Henderson wants to come up and address the board.

So you were given 15 minutes on the for your initial presentation, and then now you've got three minutes.

So please stick to the three minutes here.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

The one thing I then I wanted to take time to point out here is what has not been said, uh, particularly in the planning commission report, is that essentially all of if you take all of those comments, they're boiled down to really one kind of key assumption, and that is that this is an impermissible expansion of the res one land use category into the AR.

And of course, I've already given you the history of that.

But what you don't see is what I've got on the screen right now, and there are two provisions that are in the preamble to the rural area.

The first one talks about kind of definitional.

It talks about what is a suburban enclave, what is a rural community, and essentially it is the basis by which back in 19, at least this provision I know confirmed was in the plan in 94.

This is why you had residential areas, or you had res one areas in the rural service area, is because there was a recognition of the existing development pattern uh within a bound area.

And the subject properties, as you've heard us tell you, was in that area.

It was taken out.

That's an equitable point.

More specifically on the technical is that the second arrow there says that new development similar to the established community will be permitted to infill in a limited manner.

That's the first part.

Second part is it won't be permitted to expand into areas designated with lower densities.

I will tell you and concede the comp plan, the future land use element does not provide a lot of guidance as to what is limited infill and what is an expansion.

Planning commission report, you'll note, doesn't use the word infill one time anywhere in it.

And that is our argument is that this is permissible in fill.

And and um secondarily, the reason that we say it is it is limited in fill is because without a definition, then we're looking for okay.

How do we how do we identify what um what that limited is?

The applicant's position is the request is permissible because it was in the rural community at one time.

And the point is in like layman's terms is that when you take part of a hole out and remove it, and then you put it back in, that effectively defines the limits of what is limited in fill uh from the original hole, and that's not an expansion.

The logical extension otherwise is that every time you make a land use change, you can't put it back.

And this board makes land use changes all the time in the rural area.

And so we just don't think that that is a um legitimate issue.

Thank you, Mr.

Bruce.

I'm sorry, we would be able to do that.

I know that I know I love Dr.

Henderson, but we're we've we gotta stick by the rules here.

That concludes the rebuttal.

We'll go into board discussion of remind board members this is for transmittal, this is not for final adoption.

Uh Commissioner Wolstall.

Yeah, thank you.

Um that's what I was gonna point out is that we're not making a decision tonight.

That that's we talked earlier items about how complicated this process is.

In comp plan amendments over 50 acres, it has to be a transmittal to the state's um body for them to give comments, and then it comes back to us, and that's when the board ultimately makes its decision.

That's not what's happening tonight.

This is just for us to send it to the state.

Um I did want to talk about a couple of issues.

Um the conversion from citrus to strawberry.

Well, that's that's because citrus greening has devastated citrus in the state of Florida, um, which is just one of the many reasons that we are losing agriculture um, not only in the county but in the entire state.

Many of our large agriculture producers and ranchers are already actively moving out of the county.

They have plans because it's easier for them to just buy three times the amount of acreage a couple counties over and continue their agricultural production there.

Um ELAP is actually that was mentioned, is expired this year, and all of those funds are ultimately expended or dedicated to other projects.

The FDAX rule and family land management program.

I there is one clause in that.

I'm very familiar and supportive of it, that might apply to this property, but ultimately the rule and family lands protection program targets really large areas of land.

Um so I I will say though, that a very concerning part of this item when it does come back to the board if it proceeds tonight, um, is the fact of capacity of transportation on that intersection.

I've been um fighting to get that improvement done for almost three years.

I know that um after Commissioner Miller was elected, she's now also jumped on the same issue.

I was actually told something different from our development, not our development services, our public works and engineering staff that I thought that intersection was way further along than it actually is, but um recently there's now been a change to where they're gonna do some temporary shortcur um short-term improvements to add some turn lanes in there that have been desperately needed for years.

Um I just don't know how we overcome now.

Um Mr.

Gormley, I asked a question um when I was going two miles per hour on 275 on the way here.

Um, because I also we also fight traffic from the northwest area of Hillsborough.

Um if this was allowed to proceed forward, is there a way, is it legal for the board to put in a clause that says that even if the future land use um category is approved, that there would be a timing requirement or a restriction that says that it cannot move forward until the CIP improvement is completed on that intersection.

So, Commissioner, I think that that concept would be related to the effective date of the ordinance uh if the board were adopt the ordinance to amend the the plan.

Um the board does have latitude on a early a later effective date than what the statute prescribes.

Uh just suggest we might take a little bit of time to to just confirm um the structure of that effective date, but the board does have latitude to um uh address the effective date of of an ordinance adopting a comprehensive plan amendment.

Okay, I would just say that for me personally, if that was not able to be put in there after this comes back to the state if it moves forward tonight, there's no way I could approve um this change without that restriction being in there because that is just lithia pinecrest is absolutely one of the worst roads in the county.

The community might not know this, but this board worked very hard um for about a nine ten month debate period to make sure that our two of our most major road improvements, um, Commissioner Hagan championed um Van Dyke, which is up in the north part of the county, and lithia pinecrust, which by the time it actually gets done is likely going to be around a 300 million dollar project because proper corridor preservation wasn't done for the past two decades on that route.

So that is a fully funded project that I believe the whole board is very proud of getting done, and we do need to make sure that we're managing what new impacts we put on there, knowing that there's going to be delays and getting that major improvement done.

I I we always in my in my time here, we always give the courtesy for the state to give um their opinions back because it's just a matter of right.

Like I said, that's we're not approving the item tonight.

We're just saying, hey, we'll transmit it to the state for their opinions and feedback, and then we make the ultimate decision at the next board meeting.

But um, without that restriction in there, I just don't know how I could move forward.

Now, I will close on this, Mr.

Chair, it's late.

I'm trying to be respectful of everyone's time.

And thank you, Mr.

Chair, for allowing the other speakers who were not signed up on this item to go ahead and speak.

Um, I will warn you all.

Um, I many of the speakers um are at least my elder, if not my same age, and you probably are familiar with the term don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

And a residential one on this lot is pretty charitable for what you see going around in different areas.

Um there is a bill right now that was ran last year in the state and got pulled.

It is already running through this year and almost is certainly going to pass called an agricultural enclave bill.

Has a variety of requirements, and I I'm not gonna go through the rigomerand to just decide if this specific lot is eligible under that definition, but that agricultural enlave bill is going to just completely override the local comprehensive plan and say that if a certain property meets a certain amount of requirements, they're going to be automatically entitled to that equal amount of entitlement that's surrounding that property.

Now, on page 20 of 55 of this backup, there is a adopted future land use, and it looks to me like almost the supermajority of this immediately surrounding area to this property is agricultural one, residential one, res one, which is exactly what they're asking for.

So this is one of those situations where you can have your voice heard and we can have our opinions on what what and when this item can move forward, or by July, potentially, if these both pass, well, we're not going to give our opinion about the future of this property either way, and and that is a risk um that this board is going to have to objectively look at going forward.

So for the purposes of allowing this to go to the state, like we do for all of the items, which is just a transmittal for their agencies.

I'm gonna be supportive.

Um, but again, when it comes back for the actual decision time, I want to have staff fully prepared about what we can do on the timing issue of that the the applicant themselves pointed to the intersection improvement CIP.

Um, so I believe that that that makes it very reasonable for us to have a conversation for it at the actual hearing.

I'll I'll digress, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Miller.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I will not repeat everything that um Commissioner Wistel said I would not be as eloquent at it as he was.

Um, but I did want to take the opportunity to say thank you to all of the folks that came out to speak.

Um, I think my uh fellow colleagues would um agree that it was the most respectful and prepared group um that I think has ever come before us.

Um I don't there was something in the air today that the the folks that came to speak to us were were quite special, and we do appreciate um the efforts that you put in.

Um I hope that you understand and respect as we go out, and of course, I I follow many of you on social media, that we have a job to do here, and as he stated, we're simply just transmitting it to the state for them to bring information back to us, and um that we get to make a decision at a later time.

Um, directly related to that intersection, when I tell you that that fight for your intersection has been a long, hard fought one.

Um, I took over uh following Commissioner Owen who fought for that intersection, it got bumped because you know, when there isn't a champion, I was like, Oh, hold on, no, I want that intersection.

We fought hard for it.

I know um my colleagues have um we've we fought hard with staff to get um an interim project done there until it can be completed, but I would not be supporting anything until we can get folks through that intersection safely um on a regular basis, which is not happening right now.

So thank you.

Okay, with that, I'll pass the gobble to uh the vice chair and I'll move transmittal.