Good evening and welcome to the Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing.

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

The board will also consider an application for rezoning, which will be uh considered concurrently with the related applications for future land use amendments.

Uh before we get started uh this evening, we have two commissioners that will be participating uh virtually, uh Commissioner Bowles and Commissioner Wolstall uh submitted a letter saying uh Commissioner Willstill uh will attend the upcoming public hearing virtually due to the recent birth of his baby girl.

So both of them will be participating virtually this evening.

Uh but before we begin with the agenda, there's a request for the continuance of CPA twenty-five-thirty-eight to the May 14, 2026 comprehensive plan amendment public hearing at six p.m.

Can we have a motion and vote to continue?

So moved.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Cohen, second commissioner Myers, please record your vote on the continuance.

Commissioner Bowles.

Commissioner Wolstall.

Commissioner Wolfell is that in the meeting.

Okay.

Um those others that are considering speaking this evening.

I'll ask you to uh please stand um so the clerk can square you in.

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?

Thank you.

You may be seated.

Okay.

Uh board members, we've got over uh 40 individuals that have signed up to speak this evening, uh, consistent with previous action.

I'd ask for motion for each individual to be given two minutes.

Motion Commissioner Cohen, second Commissioner Myers, please record your vote.

Commissioner Bowles.

Yes.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

For the record, Melissa Linehard, Planning Commission staff.

Items B1 and B2 will be presented by Ms.

Gillian Massey.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh Gillian Massey with Planning Commission staff.

I'll be presenting first HC CPA 25-04, which is Lutz Lake Fern Road, the Urban Service Area Expansion Request.

This is a privately initiated large scale map amendment located on approximately 300 acres.

The board last held a public hearing on these two items on May 8, 2025, and approved the transmittal of the amendments to the state for further comment.

The location of the site is in the northwest portion of unincorporated county.

It's within the limits of the Keystone Odessa Community Plan and in the rural area.

This aerial photo shows the subject site outlined in pink.

The blue line represents the urban service area boundary.

The areas southeast of the blue line are currently within the urban service area border.

The surrounding development pattern is rural in nature with large lot single family residential to the west and south.

The smaller lot single family that you see to the east is due to clustering.

However, future land uses in the immediate area are at a rural scale density.

A portion of the site contains wetlands.

The site also contains significant wildlife habitat and is within the 100-year floodplain.

If approved, this amendment this request would expand the urban service area by approximately 300 acres and would also require connection to sewer and public water utilities.

The request was sent out for agency review, and you'll find those comments in your packet.

There were no formal objections.

However, the public utilities department mentioned that the existing potable water infrastructure may not have sufficient capacity to serve the development within the expansion area.

They also noted that the existing wastewater infrastructure does not have sufficient capacity to serve the development within the expansion area.

Conservation and environmental lands management raised the following concerns that the increase in density of structures allowed should the expansion be approved will would significantly increase the amount of wildland urban interface.

Their agency would have to mitigate to ensure public safety.

As mentioned earlier, both of the this expansion request and the land use change, which is the following amendment, were transmitted to the state for further review back in May of 2025.

Responses received were from the Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Protection, and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

When tasked with how the proposed amendments affect state resources, there were no objections from any of the state agencies.

The planning commission reviewed the proposal and found it to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Goal one and policy 1.1.9 of the future land use section speak to the urban expansion areas, ensuring that growth is supported by existing or planned public facilities and services, and that certain criteria must be met for an expansion.

The proposed request does not meet this goal and policies as there are not planned public facilities in the area, nor does it meet all of the seven criteria to expand the urban service area.

More specifically, it does not meet the criteria that states that an extension of the urban service area should be an extension of the existing development pattern and or has a functional relationship to the development pattern of the surrounding area of the proposed site while ensuring the review of adopted community plan guidance has occurred and addresses any conflicts.

Policies 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 speak to additional urban expansion areas that will be considered.

And they depict a need for an expansion to accommodate additional population or job growth during the time frame covered by the comprehensive plan.

Lastly, the request does not meet the vision of the Keystone Odessa community plan as the community envisions this area to remain rural in character.

And so based on those considerations, the planning commission found that the proposed map amendment is inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

So next I'll present the map amendment, which is the HC CPA 25-03.

This is associated with the previous item.

This is on Lutz Lake Fern Road.

Again, this is a privately initiated large-scale amendment on approximately 300 acres associated with CPA 25 03.

The request is to change the site from agricultural rural 1 to 5 to residential 4.

As previously shown, the subject sites in the northernmost part of the county, abutting Pascoe County.

The only difference with the map the map application for the land use change is that the majority of the sites in the rural area north of Lutz Lake Fern Road, and there's a piece on the southern side of Lutz Lake Fern Road that is approximately 13 acres, which is already part of the urban service area.

The aerial site is the aerial photos outlined in this proposed site is outlined here in pink.

As you can see, it's primarily vacant with forested wetlands covering most of the site, except for the northwest corner where you can see a borough pet operation.

The blue line again depicts the urban service area, runs along the Sun Sun Coast Parkway, and turns west along Lutz Lake Fern Road to take in a rural subdivision and then turns south again along the Sun Coast Parkway.

Lands to the west includes the subject site are in the rural area, and lands to the east are in the urban service area.

The areas surrounding the urban the rural area reflects an established rural community consisting of homes on large lots intermixed with agricultural uses and conservation lands.

There's an island of a suburban scale development northeast of the site, resulting from an earlier entitlement.

The upper Tampa Bay Trail and Brooker Creek Headwater Preserve is a conservation area located to the southwest of the site.

Looking east of the site is the Suncoast Parkway along Lutz Lake Fern Road.

The area reflects a mix of rural and suburban development where there's Steinbrenner High School, McKendrick Elementary School, and that are east of the parkway.

There's also planned communities such as Chaval and Villa Rosa that set a suburban tone of the area, and there's some retail and recreational uses intermixed, such as the golf course and equestrian center.

This aerial focuses on the subject site in Hillsborough County.

So this slide here will hone in on the site and its relationship with the adjacent area north in Pascoe County.

So it's more zoomed in on the northernmost portion of the site, and the development pattern is shown over the county line in Pasco County.

This red star shows the general location in Hillsborough County.

In contrast to the predominantly rural and agricultural development patterns surrounding the site, east of the Sun Coast Parkway, the lands abutting the site to the north in PASCO reflect a suburban residential development pattern where there's residential three immediately to the north.

Beyond this view, from the slide to the north, there's a approximately a mile and a half.

The Sun Coast Parkway intersects with State Road 54.

This area is urbanizing with a concentration of retail uses and apartments.

However, there's no local interconnected streets within unincorporated county to Pascoe County.

The only vehicular connection to Pasco County is Angel Lane, which is just under a mile west of the site.

This is the adopted future land use map showing the site outlined in black.

It's designated agricultural rural one to five.

This category allows for a maximum of one dwelling unit per five gross acres and neighborhood scale commercial up to 0.25 floor area ratio, subject to locational criteria to the west of the Sun Coast Parkway along Lutz Lake Fern Road are primarily designated as residential one and natural preservation with a scattering of properties that are agricultural rural one to five.

And the nature the natural preservation designation is recognizing the Brooker Creek Headwater Preserve.

Lands to the east of the parkway along reflect a mix of public, quasi public, recognizing the high school and elementary school, residential and one and residential two are also located to the east.

And there is an area to the south designated residential four, but this area is not in proximity to the site.

The proposal is to change the site to a residential four.

The proposed amendment will result in an increase of approximately 1,100 dwelling units and allow for suburban scale development.

The non-residential square footage would not change.

The Keystone Odessa community plan does not allow for the wetland density credit.

Therefore, at the rezoning stage, the numbers are calculated on upland acreage only.

So currently, under the future land use designation that exists, 61 dwelling units could be considered, and approximately 3.3 million square feet of non-residential development and under the potential, approximately 1,200 units could be considered, and then non-residential development does not change.

So the map amendment was distributed for agency review, and your responses are the responses are in your packet.

No objections were received, although a number of concerns were noted.

The public utilities administration stated that potable water and wastewater infrastructure may not have sufficient capacity to serve the development within the expansion area.

The school district stated that Hammond Elementary, Martinez Middle, and Steinbrenner High School are projected to be over capacity with the approved map with the approval of this map amendment.

However, the district stated in their response that this is not a school concurrency determination and that this determination is issued prior to preliminary plat of site plan approval.

Also, the environmental protection commission stated that the site may present considerable uh permitting challenges due to the amount of wetlands on the site.

The amount of wetlands and mitigation required would be determined and addressed at a later phase of review per the rezoning and site planning.

The planning commission reviewed the proposed land use change based on the site's location and local conditions and looked at the rural area related policies and the Keystone Odessa community plan and pre and found that the proposed change was inconsistent with the following policy direction in the future land use section as well as the community plan.

Under the rural area policies, uh policy 1.2.1 and 1.2.4 state that uh provide growth and development guidelines outside of the urban service area.

These guidelines state that new development shall reflect the character and scale similar to the established community within the rural area.

Uh densities shown on the future land use map will be no higher than one dwelling unit per five gross acres unless located within an area identified with higher density land use categories on the future land land use map, such as an suburban enclave, planned village, or a planned development.

The proposed amendment is inconsistent with these rural area guidelines by seeking to increase the density to a suburban scale that would allow for up to four units per gross acre.

This scale is not comparable to the established rural development pattern and the rural agricultural character of the area.

The proposed amendment is in direct conflict with the Keystone Odessa community plan by seeking residential four.

One of the main aspirations of the community plan is to prevent the intrusion of suburban style residential development by maintaining low density rural residential development of a minimum of one unit per five acres, consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The proposed amendment does not align with this vision and a number of strategies that are intended to preserve the rural character of the community.

Lastly, the policies relating to compatibility and neighborhood protection and neighborhood development provide guidance on determining compatibility.

These policies promote a strategy focused on introducing new uses that maintain the character, scale, and density of the existing community.

In contrast, the proposed amendment would introduce the potential of a major increase in density from one unit per five acres to four units per gross acre, which would be disruptive to the rural character of the surrounding area and does not reflect rural home sites on lots averaging one to five acres in size on average.

And so, based on those considerations, the planning commission found that the proposed map amendment is inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsboro County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your uh presentations.

This time the applicant team has a total of 15 minutes for both presentations.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman Commission.

Jim Porter with Ackerman 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa.

I'm here representing the applicant.

As part of the applicant's team, we have Todd Pressman, Attorney Don Hemke from Carlton Fields, Abby Naylor, our environmental expert, and Steve Henry, who is our traffic engineer.

I'll be very brief and turn it over to Todd.

But as staff said, this board considered this item on May 8th, uh 2025, and you voted to transmit this to the state for further comments.

Specifically, Commissioner Bowles was interested in what certain departments had to say.

Commissioner Cohen commented at that time that he was interested in seeing the companion rezoning application and the site plan.

So we have both of those before you today.

As staff said, the state agencies that reviewed this found no objections to either one of these plan amendments, and that's significant and needs to be part of your decision making.

You'll be seeing the companion zoning piece, but we have a binding site plan and conditions that give certainty to not only this board but the public and the immediate neighborhood.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr.

Pressman now for the presentation, and we will respectfully ask for your approval at the end of this.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Todd Pressman, 2002 South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

This is HCCPA 2503 and 2504.

Thank you, Ms.

Massey for ornating the board and their review.

So there's two issues density increase and continuation of the USA line.

We've had great response from the state from the Department of Economic Opportunity.

FTOT is noted no impact on important state resources.

Florida Commerce has indicated no comment on the proposed amendment.

Florida Fish and Wildlife, no objections, and importantly, the Department of Department of Environmental Protection, no adverse impacts.

That's a very important finding for your review.

Ms.

Massi has reviewed the location with you.

I think it's one important note that we are just barely inside the Keystone Odessa community plan area, just barely over the border and at one of the border lines.

The development or any activity will be around the water feature that you see here.

This is the general outline of the entire site, which again, the water feature would be the only area of development because, as shown here, development area, because the rest of it is a wetlands and significant wildlife habitat.

This is like an island, an isolated island that's secluded and sheltered and off on its own, which will provide tremendous buffering and screening.

Quite frankly, Commissioners, I don't attend, I don't attend all your meetings, but this was this is obviously a significant wetland screening and buffering area that I believe is very difficult compared to any other site that you've seen.

Areas you can see the intense forestation, uh buffering and screening from this view.

This is looking west.

Looking north, you can see some of the surrounding uh developments, which are uh very high density and berms as well as the tree line on the ground.

You can see the significant berms and tree lines.

Uh you can see uh in in relation a cow on the property, give you a good reference in terms of the height and density.

And again, this would be the current site where the development would be.

So looking at current development around the site is very important.

We're proposing our four level development.

To the north, abutting and pasco is three and four units per acre on water and sewer.

Directly to the east is Terramore, 243 homes, 4.3 units per acre.

To the south is Cheval at 6.2 units per acre.

And commissioners, this is a very important slide because this is this is a comparable of the density of what I just showed you.

We are at the far, far end of 1.38 units per acre compared to the higher densities that surround this site.

This is uh the high density of PASCO abutting the site, just a stone's throw from the site, as you can see here, Cheval homes on the south, Terramore homes on the east, and also Montreux subdivision, which is three units per acre.

Again, that density comparison, which we think is a critical point for you.

I do think it's important for you to note that we did look at the first 200 letters that have come in of opposition.

I think it's important for you to know that when we review when we when we review this, that 49 percent of the people who sent letters in live on one-third or acre less, which is tremendously less than what what the applicant is requesting.

78 percent were on one acre or less.

So, what we want you to to understand and accept with all due respect to the residents is that most a lot of the people who are in opposition seeking to keep the Keystone Odessa policies and character are not living on properties of that same nature.

They're asking the applicant to carry that on his back alone.

Bureau of Economic Business Research, and this is what's generating Hillsborough County and the site as well, is the tremendous increase in housing that we'll have.

We submitted an uh economic impact study from Mr.

Stephen Buckman uh that produces tremendous revenue for the county, 12,000 uh revenue to initial and initial and uh four excuse me, 12 million and four million on recurring revenue to the county.

We are just a stone throw, 500 feet from uh the Veterans Expressway, which carries 60,000 vehicles per day.

There are significant expansions and widening both by Florida Turnpike, Citrus County, and this is of course a major arterial that runs from Citrus County to the airport, provides access for employment entertainment, uh, and the port of Tampa.

Uh, this was an interchange that was approved by the legislature and the county.

It was a 12.5 million dollar interchange.

It was put in to address growth.

This is a perfect example of this particular growth and its ability to carry on the interstate at the uh at the veterans, and at this time, this at that time the civic group were in support of the interchange.

Loose Lake Fern Road, which is the access road, is a county arterial roadway and carries currently 7,900 vehicles per day.

Looking at the other issue, the urban service expansion, the project site abuts to the north for water and sewer and to the south on water and sewer, and it's just a stone's throw to the east to the urban service area.

When you look at it in a regional basis, all the red is water and sewer provided.

So this would be a part of the continued regional USA expansion, both to the north and already existing to the south.

One of the keystones of the Keystone Community Plan is water quality and quality goals, wetlands open space, lake and creek protection, and providing the water and sewer stops the leaching into the ground, which affects lakes and creeks.

In fact, there's been a warning by uh Hillsborough County about blue-green algae health alert in Keystone Lake.

This would be a known but that would apply to that.

And additionally, uh both this county, City of Tampa, and Swiftmud spend millions of dollars a year removing people from septic and wells, drawing directly out of our aquifer, and directly into the aquifer or close to the aquifer through septic tanks, which is the worst policy that we can have.

As a former member of the Swift Mud Governing Board, that is a main effort to improve our waterways, and again, one of the cornerstone of the Keystone Odessa plan.

You have an entire chapter on housing.

We could present dozens of policies in support of housing, which is which this uh application does.

We had our uh private planner, Ortiz Planning Solution look through this application who found that the area is of suburban character, portrayed with suburban density and small lots, and provides a rural S setting.

It's consistent with the abutting development to the north and within Pascoe County and necessary to preserve the substantial amounts of wetlands.

Uh the land use reclassification will result in a character that is compatible, it is consistent with the residential development in the existing area, and assume the cluster development pattern would be a positive in terms as I've shown you to keeping this project out of the wetlands, out of the wildlife habitat, and maintaining approximately 70 percent of the entire property as being wetland and wildlife habitat, roughly about 30 percent would be developed in in the uh residential area.

So, in summary, what we think is critical is recognition under the comp plan of the same densities or higher densities to the north, to the east, and to the south, and the low density that's proposed here because of the small area that will be developed around the water feature, uh, and leaving significant wetlands and wildlife.

We think it's important to have a perspective of with all due respect to residents who are bringing forward objections this request, and again, in regard to the surrounding urban service area, both to the north, to the south of budding, and to the east, which is just a stone's throw away, which is part of the regional view.

And again, final perspective is that this is a site that is really just at the initial beginning parts of the Keystone Desk plan.

It's not in the center, it doesn't, it doesn't find itself deep into that plan.

It's at a point where it's close to the interstate and high density of schools and commercial.

And again, final, uh the support from the state, which was uh no opposition for the many different departments.

I'd like to turn this over to Mr.

Henke or Attorney Hankley Henke for a few comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Good evening.

My name's Don Hempy H E M K E, and I'm attorney with Carlton Fields for Ben Lanyus for 47 years.

Uh Jeff Warren with uh his law firm, Bush Ross basically joined with me in addressing the issue here of whether there is an agricultural enclave.

Mr.

Dibbs, we concluded the Mr.

Dibbs property.

Uh, and I would ask if you could hand out the reports that we've done.

That Mr.

Dibbs property is an agricultural enclave.

You go through the statutes in the Florida statutes, and basically there's six criteria for them, and you will see in the handouts that all six of them are very clearly met, and there's an agricultural enclave.

As Mr.

Pressman indicated, it has been basically isolated.

It will be less than what's around yet.

The fact that it's in agricultural enclave, what does that mean?

What it means is that it's presumed that you should be able to develop consistently with the property around you, and here looking at his densities, it would be consistent with the properties around.

So that criteria is met.

And two is that if it's an agricultural enclave, you do not consider that part of an urban sparo area.

Basically, it's not to be considered.

It's exempt from that as a matter of state statute, basically.

And the agricultural enclave, not only is that how it now presently exists, but basically the legislature just this week has passed the agricultural enclave, and it should be on its way to the governor's office basically to strengthen the agricultural enclave.

So I'm conclusion that it's clearly an agricultural enclave, and that gives benefit in so far as development to the developer here, Mr.

Gibbs.

Questions.

Thank you.

I just briefly, Commissioners, again, Jim Porter for the record.

Um you heard a lot of commentary tonight, both from the planning commission and from Mr.

Pressman.

And I think it's the planning commission's job to look at these and look at the extreme that can happen.

And again, back to Commissioner Cohen's comments about having an accompanying rezoning and looking at a binding site plan and binding condition that addresses a lot of those concerns.

And it's significant to note that in our rezoning application, the planning commission actually found us consistent, and you'll hear that at the zoning stage of this.

One of the significant parts of that is under the extreme nature of this, there are 1,300 units that could be approved.

We're asking for 392, which shows that the zoning matters, and looking at this holistically is important, um, and not just looking at it uh piece by piece.

So with that, we will close and save any extra time for rebuttal.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Now we'll go into public comment.

Each person will be given uh two minutes.

I'll call three individuals at one time.

Uh the first speaker, Adam Holyfield, followed by Adrian Bishop, and then Barbara Adderhold.

Is Mr.

Holyfield here?

Please.

Then Adrian Bishop, Barbara Adderhold, and then Beth White.

If you could please be ready to come on down, good evening.

Evening.

My name is Adam Hollfield, and I live at 1992 1 Cypress Bridge Drive in Odessa.

I'm the vice president of the Terramore Homer Association and a lifelong resident of Northwest Hillsboro County.

Uh we oppose these comprehensive plan amendments due to the impacts on our local schools and the redistrict, the redistricting that would need to occur to accommodate this proposed density due to overcrowding.

Our schools are our crown jewel and our most important resource for our children.

Moving students to new schools to accommodate this increase in density and intensity would be extremely impactful to students, parents, and property values.

This board has a decades-long history of protecting this property from intense development.

Please continue this precedent today and deny these plan amendments as inconsistent inconsistent.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments.

Adrian Bishop.

No.

Okay, Barbara Adderhold, then Beth White, then Brendan McKesie, I believe.

I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh, Mr.

Bishop might be downstairs in the overflow room.

Okay.

Barbara Adderhold, P.O.

Box 272879, Tampa, Florida.

I live on more than two acres.

Um, at the May 25th hearing, the applicant's representative said that nothing is acceptable to the community.

No borrow pit, no residential.

This is not accurate.

The applicant has always been able to develop as residential, large lot homes, which are consistent with the Keystone community.

The community has never been opposed to that, but what we have been opposed to is R4 suburban style development, which as you heard tonight, the big ass could be 1,200 homes.

And let's not forget the 175,000 square feet of commercial on a small portion, nine-acre lot.

Um the applicant needed the rural service area for a borrow pit.

And now he wants to change our rural area to suburban by moving the uh urban service area to accommodate his desire for 392 homes and a hundred thousand square feet of commercial.

By the way, there's already 25,000 square feet of commercial just to the east of the property in Terramore.

Um, attorney Porter has and probably will argue that his client has the right to use his property.

His client has a reasonable use to use his property in a reasonable manner.

Well, the borrow pit has been permitted for up to 3.3 million cubic yards since 2008.

And while I might not call that reasonable, the applicant certainly has gotten reasonable use of his property.

This ask is wildly out of character with the Keystone uh community plan, and this ask is not much different from what was asked in 2016, which this board denied.

And as Commissioner Hagen said at the May 2025 meeting, nothing out here has changed.

So why are we letting one person change the character of our community?

I asked you that.

Please deny it.

Thank you, Ms.

Adderall.

Beth White, followed by uh Brendan, who's virtual Brittany Berry and then Gary Ingelhart.

I might need some technical assistant.

I made a little video.

Um I wanted to kind of, I'm sorry, Beth White, Keystone Odessa.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I took this, I skip out of work at noontime on Tuesday to take this video so you're not seeing the normal commander traffic.

So basically, I started on Barrie Road, which abuts Deb's property, then West went ahead and went west on uh Lutz Lake Fern into Keystone.

You drive fast.

Well, there's music.

I don't know why the music isn't playing.

I have engineers that that were really excited about making a video for me.

Um I didn't drive this fast.

So this is basically just to show you the two-lane road to show you uh that there's no uh rest for there's no density.

We're gonna end at Lutz Lake Fern and Gunn Highway, and when we do end, you're gonna see a giant field, uh, which is 80 acres, and you're gonna see a for sale sign.

Um that has actually been sold.

There's going to be 13 homesteads with well and septic because they're adhering to the Keystone Community Plan.

Now let's talk poop.

In 2024, Keystone was granted an exemption from the rural utility expansion.

We have well and septic.

The urban service area expansion in this application introduces county utilities for this property.

The existing wastewater infrastructure does not have sufficient capacity to serve this development.

The Van Dyke facility is either at or close to capacity.

We've never had any environmental issues with our septics in Keystone, which are regulated by the state of Florida.

Last month on February Thank you, Miss White.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Is Brendan on virtually Brandon was on just a moment ago, but he just signed off.

Okay, thank you.

You got Brittany Berry, followed by Gary Inglehart and James Stevens.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Brittany Berry.

I live on a 10-acre lot, a 19506 Barrie Acres Trail adjacent to the property in question.

My husband and I are raising two young daughters on this property with my in-laws Jim and Kathy Berry, the name the roads named after them.

They live there for 42 years.

The applicant's plans for increasing the density of res for will use our personal driveway as the entrance and exit to the proposed 1200 homes.

My husband and I operate and own a small business in the heart of City of Tampa in Ybor City.

However, we choose to live in Keystone, Odessa because of the community plan that respects one home to five acres and preserves the rural character of the special part of Hillsborough County.

Could I turn this?

Is this on by chance?

That's on.

Okay.

We make the drive every day to and from Ybor City, specifically to live where we choose to live.

The Keystone Odessa community plan is in place to protect the region's special nature when a challenge to land use is presented, such as this.

In the plan objective 1.2 supports this idea.

So like Beth was doing, and just going to show you a couple of pictures of the nature of our area.

In the Keystone Odessa area, there's no less than 15 horse stables, ranches with llamas and donkeys, students raising pigs and goats for ag and working farms similar to ours.

We raise a cow calf herb on our property along with donkeys, chickens, and ducks.

Ones that run riding lessons and summer camps for visitors.

And we built a coop together.

This kinds of hands-on agricultural experience connects children to the land.

Residents from across the Hillsborough County visit Keystone, Odessa because of the beautiful preserved nature of the Upper Tampa Bay Trail, and to visit nature experiences such as the Brooker Creek Preserve and McMickey's Farm.

Introducing 1,200 new homes and maybe even more commercial development along Lutz Lake Fern will destroy farmers' abilities to have working farms and deny community or Hellsborough County residents of the natural areas to explore.

The Keystone, Odessa area is special because of its rural nature.

And it's a gem in Hillsborough County for all residents to enjoy.

This proposal will destroy the natural elements of this area and endanger all who live and visit Keystone, Odessa.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Gary Engelhart, followed by James Stevens, and then James Berry.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

My name is Gary Engelhart.

My address is 19825 Angel Lane in Odessa.

I have 20 acres of property adjacent to the subject petition.

And my property is uh very uh much of a rectangle almost this county rectangle with hundreds of feet uh parallel and adjacent to the boundary of this petition.

I've been a land use planner in Hillsborough County for 40 years, and in fact, I served as a zoning administrator for Hillsford County for a number of years, followed by being the director of the gross management department for a number of years.

And so I'm familiar with the importance of urban service area area boundaries and the importance of land use compatibility, extremely important to the health and welfare of the community.

The map amendment before you request a change to residential for land use category.

You saw the map that was up here earlier on your screens.

The uh subject property currently zone AR, agricultural rural.

So this property uh immediate west where my home is located, AR transitions to residential one further to the west to the east residential one.

You saw the general pattern, and you can see where if this uh petition is approved, it would create this enclave, this intense area that is out of character with the rest of the surrounding uh land use pattern in the community.

Um the appling could have requested residential one.

I'm convinced of it.

My experience tells me you could have built a beautiful subdivision in there, you can with a lake and make it something really special.

But instead, no, that's not what he wants to do.

Mr.

Dibbs, I believe, has uh asked to go for an increase that would be five times what is there now, but that's not even sufficient.

He wants to leave Frog to 20.

20 times what he has instead of using what he can has at his hands.

Ask him for that much more.

The planning commission did a study, looked at changes that needed to be made.

Thank you, Mr.

Engelhart.

Appreciate your comments.

Thank you.

Got Jane my comments.

Yes, sir.

Got James Stevens.

Stevens here, followed by James Berry and Jane Whitehurst.

Good evening, sir.

Thank you.

I've lived on Angel Lane for 59 years, even before there was an Angel Lane directly across from this project.

Backups in the morning at rush hours, it's two or three hours.

I can't even get out of my driveway many mornings.

Afternoons are about the same.

Traffic jams north and south end on that road that all these neighbors have to deal with.

The additional traffic will add almost 6,600 trips daily on Luke's Lake Fern Road with additional 160 trips in the AM, 478 cars PM peak hour.

Luke's Lake Front is a two-lane road with no plans for widening the county's capital improvement plan.

The applicant's traffic analysis did not address how it will affect the volume of traffic, is currently on the Suncoast Parkway, which many times of the day is at a standstill.

It's also not evaluated the impact of this project on Angel Lane, which will surely bear the brunt of most of this traffic.

Is currently a major cut-through road for troll people trying to avoid the tolls on the expressway.

Policy 7.3 of the comprehensive plan aims to protect neighborhoods from cut-through traffic.

Approving this rezoning would increase cut-through traffic and inconsistent with this policy.

Did I get a B.

Nope.

50 seconds.

Okay.

In a past meeting here, one of these fellows right here mentioned all these letters, 476 of them that were sent were all the same, and they were just letters that were uh somebody signed off that somebody else wrote wrote.

I want to mention that there's a there was another form letter written in this country many years ago with only 56 signatures on it.

And it eventually changed America and it changed the world.

It's called the Declaration of Independence.

We expect no less here.

Sir, sir, will you please state your Sir Sir?

Please come back and state your name for the record.

James Stevens.

Stevens.

Okay, thank you, sir.

James Berry.

Followed by Jane Whitehurst and Janice Streetman.

Good evening.

James Berry, 19506, Barrie Acres Trail.

We live on the west side of this property directly on the west side.

First, I'd like to introduce to the record five policy items 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 4.4.1, and 4.4.8.

There's no time to read through all these, but they'd set rules and guidelines for intensities and densities as well as buffering from neighbor properties.

We've lived in Odessa for over 40 years.

My family and I live on Barry Acres Trail, named after the Barry family years ago.

Let's talk about Barry Acres Trail.

It's not a road, it's a one-lane drive, about 10 feet wide.

It's 2400 feet long, but it doesn't go anywhere.

There's just a few houses on there, and it's not maintained by the county.

We keep it up ourselves.

My granddaughters ride their bicycles on there.

Well, you they want to make a full-blown road out of Barry Acres Trail and put maybe even put a stoplight there.

You know, at least two lanes all the way down.

This is a perfect example of not fitting into the rural nature of our neighborhood.

Our houses face to the east, looking directly at the Dibbs property.

Our lot size is 10 acres.

All my neighbors on Barry Acres have large lots, rural type lots.

We raise cattle, ducks, and chickens.

We live in an outdoor rural lifestyle, and we have enjoyed agricultural nature of the community, which is consistent with how we have used our property.

This part proposed project is incompatible with all the properties which it abuts to the west.

The density of four units to the acre is just too high.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate the comments.

Please deny.

Okay, followed by Janice Streetman, Jerry and Tino.

Good evening.

Pause that hi, my name is Jane Whitehurst.

I'm the president of the Keystone Civic Association, and we are on behalf of the KCA.

We oppose 2503 and 2504.

Could everybody that opposes this behind me please stand up while I keep talking.

When I was 11 years old, I came to Camp Keystone, and I fell in love with it then, and that has not changed.

My first horse farm, however, was not in Keystone.

I tried, couldn't make it here.

I went to Manatee County, and it started off rural.

It was gorgeous, crops, citrus beef cow, dairy farms, everything.

But we got pinched out by development so bad, and we all know what it looks like south of the skyway now.

I did make it to Keystone 15 and a half years ago.

I bought a 10-acre farm and I did well.

So we sadly had a sell.

I mean, somewhere in Keystone, of course, but it was hard because I was used to 10 acres.

We found a wonderful place.

This is in a neighborhood.

It's an HOA.

It is 50 houses.

They are on septic and well.

And this is that's a picture.

Look at that.

This is this is not filtered.

That is God's light right there.

When we move, thank you, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

Janice Streetman.

Followed by Jerry Cosantino and John Zumwalt.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Janice Streetman, and I live at 16414 Lake Church Drive, which is within the Keystone Odessa community.

The plan amendment 2503 does not align with the vision and a number of strategies that are intended to preserve the rural character of the Keystone Odessa community.

My husband and I have lived at this address in Keystone for 28 years.

Our property is five acres, which includes our home, a barn, and pasture for our two horses, one of whom we've just rescued.

These pictures that you're looking at are showing you what rural character in Keystone looks like with one home on five acres.

Our property is very special to us, but let me share with you, it is not unique.

There are thousands of properties just like ours all throughout Keystone.

This is the fabric.

This is the heart of our community.

I, along with two other ladies, worked with the county to cut the horse trails in the Northwest Equestrian community.

I'd like to share the newspaper article from 1999, which details our journey and the impact the volunteer endeavor made in the life of our Keystone community.

I am the KCA liaison with the Bacchus Equestrian Organization.

Their mission is to provide therapeutic horseback riding for individuals with disabilities.

They are moving their operation to the Northwest Equestrian Park, and we welcome them into the Keystone community.

This is what Keystone and Rural Community is all about.

The current zoning on Mr.

Dibbs property is one home per five acres, the exact same zoning that is on my property and thousands of other people.

Thank you, Ms.

Treatman.

Appreciate the comments.

Jerry Cosantino.

Jerry here.

Followed by John Zumwalt and then Keith.

Good evening.

My name is Dr.

Jerry Cosantino, and I have lived at 18912 Cressert Road for nearly 38 years, about four miles away from this project.

I could say that our county commissioners, you're all intelligent people, and you have a very accurate assessment on what type of changes this would do to our rural community.

So I won't bore you with a bunch of facts.

For those city people, that means on your right and your left.

And if you continue on west, you'll eventually bump into Gunn Highway.

And for as far as you can see, you will see traffic from one end to the other.

As you could tell, I'm a senior senior citizen, and I have had the pleasure to live in Odessa for four decades.

I raised my family here.

At this stage in my life, you can understand that I'm not here for myself.

I do it for the people of this county that don't want to contend with these proposed amendment changes, which only result in outside entities that want to impose unwanted changes to the character of our community.

I do this also for these people in the overflow room, in the hallways, and at home watching this.

I do it for all our neighbors.

And I but most importantly, I do this for the generations to follow so they have an opportunity to enjoy the little piece of heaven that's on earth in Odessa, right here.

And I ask you to please unanimously vote against these changes.

Thank you, Dr.

Crumbs.

John Zumwalt, followed by Keith Mevre, and then Mark Hughes.

Good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.

I'm all old fashioned with some boards here, but I'm John Zumwalt.

Martha and I live at 10203 Tarpon Springs Road, but more importantly, we have a farm of 6930 Lutz Lake Fern Road, uh, right down the street from Angel Lane and across the street from Seed World, which is owned by the applicant.

Uh we also lease 40 40 acres adjacent to the project.

Uh Jim Barry Barry Acres Road separates us, but it's an active farm on both sides, and um we intend to keep it in a rural nature, but we also know the traffic out there from firsthand.

Uh several times a day I get to drive a farm tractor from one property to the other, short distance to uh Angel Lane.

And I gotta tell you, I take my life in danger every day.

And it's not the numbers that engineers are gonna quote and all that kind of stuff, it's the attitude of the drivers.

And I consistently see almost every day someone passing and coming within feet of a head-on collision because they can't wait another 30 seconds behind us.

Uh so you get this rural nature of this being uh set aside because of the amount of traffic, and it's not local traffic, it's flow-through traffic from other parts of the state, other parts of the uh of the continent.

But the uh the thing I want to emphasize most that there's as it's been said before, you don't need to hear it again.

There's a rural nature out here, but we also imported something from New Hampshire.

A barn that was built by General John Stark right after the Revolutionary War in Dunbarton, New Hampshire.

We uh came upon it, bought it, tore it down, and took it to O'Dis Odessa, and I was the crown jewel of our property, if you will.

Um, again, right across the street from where we've been talking about.

But we also are with announcing a uh Christian Day School.

Uh starting in October.

Appreciate the comments.

Keith Mevra, followed by Mark Hughes.

We got Nadia Combs, which is virtual, and then Regina Hernandez.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Keith Mapore.

I've lived in Keystone for about 12 years, and I'm the commander of the Sons of the American Legion Post 147.

My address is 7631 Lutes Lake Fern Road.

My father lives 7627 Lutz Lake Fern Road.

I own 7621 Lutz Lake Fern Road.

I own six acres on the road that is being um possibly desecrated by extra traffic.

Um I live a half a mile from the Up Patempa Day Trail.

Um I raised my family here.

My father lives here, my grandkids come here.

Um my house is the big yellow house on Lutes Lake Fern Road, or the Christmas house.

If you come by, just picture Norman Rockwell House, two-story yellow, white trim, white picket fence, is American as you can get.

Keystone to me is America.

Everything's done on a handshake.

I know my neighbors, they know me.

We help each other.

The character of our town, our enclave, is what makes it such a magical place.

And this the tale trying to wag the dog, one person's desire to expand their property beyond what they're allowed, just for possibly for monetary gain or just because it's just unsettling that somebody can come in and try to ruin and affect my way of life now and for the next who knows how many decades I'm blessed with life.

They didn't, there's no traffic surveys that have been truly done.

There's you know, there's um wild wild lands next to the proposed property.

If this these housing densities go, they might not be able to do prescribed wildfires.

I don't want to lose my houses to a wildfire that can't be controlled.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mark Hughes, followed by Nadia Combs, then Regina Hernandez and Richard Roseberry.

Good evening.

Hey, good evening.

My name is Mark Hughes.

My address is 8613 Miles Road, Odessa.

Tampa Native, 22-year Keystone resident.

Like so many, I brought and bought in the Keystone area for the rural nature and community schools and the protections they had in place to keep it that way.

The proposed comp plan amendments will fundamentally change the Keystone area and the way and the life we have all invested in.

We are agreeable to large lot, estate-type property developments as consistent with our community plan.

We have heard this is the fringe of the Keystone area and abutting USA's.

If approved the USA and R4 density, is brought that much further into Keystone for the next developer to say the USA and R4 is right there.

Why can't we have ours?

When do we draw the line?

This property is at the Booker Creek Headwaters Preserve, which are vital lands to the Eldred's wild well field that is managed by Tampa Bay Water and supports the productions of millions of gallons of drinking water daily.

Staff notes, USA page five.

The subject site is environmentally sensitive, containing wetlands, ELAP lands, and was within the potable water resource area one, allowing an urban service area expansion has the potential to adversely impact these areas, making the request inconsistent with objective 6.2.

Flooding per CPA 25-03.

This property does not align with the objectives outlined in the local mitigation strategy.

Part of this strategy is keeping new developments away from the flood-prone areas or wetlands to protect homes and natural buffers.

Both the Affordable Housing Review and Office of Emergency Management states this amendment does not align with objectives because of it.

It is located in a hundred-year floodplain and near a well-head protection zone for potable water.

Please vote no for these two amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Is school board member Nadia Combs on the line.

Nadia Combs is on the line.

Brandon Macasi has also rejoined if you would like to hear him as well.

I'll have to come back to him.

Is Ms.

Ms.

Combs on the line?

Yes, I am.

Good evening.

Hello, this is Naughty.

Hello.

My name is Nadia Comb, and I'm calling about my concerns for the Loops Lake Fern expansion for the RV park or for the building.

I have lived in Tampa for more than 30 years.

I lived in South Tampa.

I lived in Fisher's Park, and then I moved to the Keystone area because I wanted a rural life.

And it is very important that we keep with our Keystone Comprehension Plan.

Um I have a lot of concerns with this expansion.

One of my big concerns is all the schools in that area are 90% or higher in capacity, including Steinbrenner, which is 98% capacity.

I'm concerned with the RV park that there are thousands of new drivers who are driving in that area, and there's already been two fatalities in that area of young people.

So I'm concerned with the RV park coming in and out and all these new drivers.

Those roads are only two lanes.

It is very, very difficult for parents to come and go.

In addition, if we have all those homes, we do not have the capacity at those schools to be able to serve thousands and thousands of additional students.

That means students who are currently zoned in that area could be rezoned for other schools, and they bought into that area to make sure that they can go to those schools.

I think it's a real danger for the students.

I think it's very important that you know as voters in Keith Don't that we really feel that we want the rural life.

We want to make sure that our schools are still being able to be zoned by where we live, and this is a very big concern for us.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Regina Hernandez, followed by Richard Roseberry, and then Sam Albright.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Regina Hernandez.

I live at 8703 Lake Calm Lane, Odessa, Florida.

I have lived in Keystone area by Lake Calm since 1984.

Please deny the urban service area amendment and future land use amendment, which are not supported by the existing potable water infrastructure.

The staff reports explains that a large portion of the subject site is environmentally sensitive and is in within the portable water protection impact zone one, which contains wetlands and significant wildlife habitat.

It also explains the existing part of potable water infrastructure may not have sufficient capacity to serve development within the expansion area.

Significant off-site improvements may be required to provide adequate potable water service to future developments within the expansion area.

Therefore, the request for this expansion of the urban servant area would create an increased need for more public infrastructure, creating insufficient use of land to provide public services.

Your staff has recommended, has has recommended against this.

Thank you, Mr.

Menez.

Richard Roseberry.

Followed by Sam Albright.

And then Thomas Warner.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Rich Roseberry.

I live at 19406 Pine Valley Drive.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to us tonight.

This is not just about one project, but this is about a pattern.

There's a documented history of this applicant repeatedly challenging county authority, not only locally but through federally litigation and attempts to override established planning decisions.

This matters.

Your votes previously have mattered in changing and keeping this from going forward with Libalocal.

Because it shows not is not only is this a one or not as this is a one-time request or a misunderstanding as a consistent effort to push beyond established rules and then challenge those rules when they are standing the way.

We've already seen restricted truck drop hauling where activity on Leafs Lake Fern Road was limited, yet exceptions were pursued.

Environmental impacts, including documented disturbances to map wildlife habitat, legal challenges, including federal actions aimed at overriding local planning protections.

Taken together, this is not speculation, this is a pattern of behavior.

And today you are being asked again to make an exception.

But the comprehensive plan and the Keystone Odessa community plan exists for a reason to protect residents, to preserve environment integrity, and ensure compatibility responsible land use.

Approving this proposal would send a dangerous measure that repeated challenges, pressure, and escalation are an acceptable path to achieving developmental approval.

This is not how planning is supposed to work.

Commissioners, you have both the authority and the responsibility to uphold the standards that protect this community, and I urge you to take a look at this and vote no on this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Sam Albright, Virtual, then Thomas Warner, Tim.

I'm not gonna even try and pronounce your last name, and then Ward Netcher.

Is Sam Albright on the line?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um I heavily oppose this expansion.

Um this will uh surely cause uh an input of people, it will cause roads to be expanded, right out attaches.

Um if uh 400 uh almost 400 homes or RVs are put in.

This will uh especially if our RV um it will introduce the aspect of drugs and crime to the area, generators being run 24-7 serving the peace.

Uh there are schools east and west of this property, a new school going in uh west, by the way, uh, with kids.

Uh I don't think that sets a good example for the community.

Um it does not uh suffice the uh the uh um mission statement of Odessa.

Um the property was designated uh agriculture for a reason, and um I strongly feel that we should uh oppose this.

Um also uh I saw a lot of people stand up uh in a in opposition to this.

This you know, we elect our um our uh commissioners and this is uh we're still a an area you know uh designated by the people.

So I asked that you listen to the people and listen to the the credible ones that live in this area.

I live directly on Leaf Lake Fern Road on a property more than two acres, by the way.

So this will affect me directly, and our V park will be an eyesore and it will lower um the cost of my home and everybody else's around.

Um I think this proposal uh should be unanimously rejected.

I think it is clinically insane to even consider it and the aspect that it will cause.

It will always be cause and effect when you do something this big.

Um I I just wanted to close by uh saying uh congratulations to the uh uh commissioner on the Berkeley's in the thank you, sir.

Uh Thomas Thomas Warner and then Tim, your last name starts with an L and then Ward Netcher.

Good evening.

Hi, my name is Tom Werner.

I live off Gunn Highway, close to Van Dyke.

We moved here over 30 years ago.

First of all, I want to applaud the county commission and planning and growth management for having the orientation of looking forward 20 years in growth management.

It's a big task to manage all of these various interests in the present as you keep an eye on the long term.

After many years of meetings and negotiations, the Keystone Community Plan was adopted by the county.

I believe it was the first plan adopted in the county back in 2000, and such that time, over 20 other plans have been implemented.

The primary intent of the Keystone Plan was to preserve our rural lifestyle by slowing the flood of high density development.

The plan was built on three main pillars.

One, restricting density of new development to one unit per five acres, two, to not allow public water to be brought to the area, and three, to keep our roadways, especially gun highway, from being widened.

The adopters fully realize that lack zoning drives density, that density brings the public water, which in turn drives the density, which then drives the road expansion, which continues to drive the density, a vicious cycle.

This is why the plan was established to prevent this vicious cycle from taking route.

A good way to look at that at this is that we all built a dam to stop the flood of overdevelopment.

You were about to decide whether to strengthen our dam or to put a crack in it.

If you deny these amendments, you buttress our dam through precedent.

If you approve these amendments, the developer will have the right then to drill in and crack it with modifications.

The crack becomes a fissure.

Other developers then drill into that fissure, and before you know it, the dam is broken, and we are flooded with overdevelopment.

Please also keep in mind that your decision here tonight may have an impact on all those other plans that have been adopted throughout the county.

Appreciate your comments.

Tim is Tim L here.

Okay, followed by Ward Netcher, Carrie O'Donnell, and then Dean Girasi.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm Tim Lahamadu.

I'm the president of the Lakes of Keystone HOA.

It's a homeowners association which consists of 56 homeowners with a full acre or more lots.

I'd like to echo school board Nadia Combs' comments about the schools.

The approval of the urban service area expansion would put Hammond Elementary, Martinez Middle School, and Steinbrenner High School over capacity.

Per Florida Statute 163 3180.

It doesn't matter if there are no seats at local schools where a developer wants to put in a subdivision.

As long as there is a seat anywhere in the school district, the developer simply writes a check to the Hillsborough County School Board.

So our children who currently attend these schools will be forced to say goodbye to their friends, their classmates, their teachers, and their school activities to be sent to another school in Hillsborough County.

The residents of Lake Keystone moved or built houses here to raise their families, not only based on the schools, but because Keystone is a small rural community that values nature above development.

We chose Keystone to get away from the suburban and urban sprawl.

The proposed amendment conflicts with the vision outlined in the Keystone Odessa community plan, as many have also iterated.

On behalf of the 56 homeowners in Lakes Keystone, the more than 40 here, and the more than 75 down in the lobby and hallways, we ask that you veto and vote no on both these amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Ward Netcher is Ward here, followed by uh Carrie O'Donnell, Dean at Jossi.

My name is Ward Netcher.

My address is 18421 Gun Highway, a 30-acre family farm.

Good evening, Commissioners, staff, and the people who have come here in opposition to the proposed amendments.

We have uh never had any environmental issues with our septic systems in Keystone, which are regulated by the state of Florida.

Last month on February 15th at Northwest Regional Facility on South Mobley, a six-inch sledge line broke, releasing 4,500 gallons of waste.

Two days later in Plant City, there was an overflow causing 50,000 gallons of wastewater to enter a stream that connects to English Creek.

The same month, almost 11,000 gallons of sewage spilled in Temple Terrace and 12,000 gallons off Orient Road.

We want to keep our septics and wells in Keystone.

Overpumping has been a serious problem for years, causing saltwater intrusion, sinkholes, lower lake levels, increasing density will further amplify these problems.

It does not make sense to increase densities, especially since there are over 30 municipal wells in Keystone, Odessa.

The thousands of cubic yards of dissolved lime rock accumulates in municipal settling ponds.

This is evidence that the poorest lime rock, which filters our aquifer's water, is being washed away.

Larger and more frequent sinkholes will be a result of this overpumping.

It does not make sense to expand the need for water or the need for waste disposal.

Increased density means more traffic, which is already awful.

The Veterans Expressway backs all the way up to Keystone in the morning.

Expanding the urban service area will compound these problems.

Do we want more traffic?

No.

Do we want more sinkholes?

No.

Do we want our lakes going down?

No.

Do we want more sinkholes?

No.

Do we want our the proposed amendments to pass?

No.

Please vote no on the proposed amendment.

Thank you, sir.

Carrie O'Donnell.

Is Kerry here?

If not, Dean Jarasi.

Dean here, followed by Ethel Hammer and Jane Graham.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening.

My name is Dean Girachi.

I live in Reflection Boulevard in Villa Rosa, somewhat adjacent to the property.

I don't know if you can see this.

But uh it was put it was brought out earlier today.

If we use a different uh calculating density formula, section 2.3.2 of the of the plan where gross uh uh acreage is used basis.

Then we have in it in the adjacent uh plan developments uh for Villa Rosa 2.4 uh units per acre.

Uh uh one just adjacent is 0.85 and Cheval just below it is 0.19, and we've heard before that the others are uh uh equally as sparse.

However, if you put 1200 units on 300 acres, that is four units per acre.

And so uh uh uh what to paraphrase a prior interaction with the group or with the commission with Dibbs, it is uh that this these changes are incompatible with the established residential uses to the east, south, and west of the uh the property.

And so this density is going to be much greater than any of the nearby uh areas.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Uh Ethel Hammer, followed by Jane Graham and Judy Steinhouse.

Excuse me, sir.

I'm Carrie O'Donnell.

Oh, okay.

Oh, yes, yes, sir, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh again, my name is Carrie O'Donnell.

I live at 16127 Ivy Lake Drive in Odessa.

I'm resident of Ivyka States for 20 years.

I'm current HOA president, served on the board for over 10 years.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the 551 residents who overwhelmingly oppose the rezoning request as evidenced by the many letters that were submitted.

Ivorika States directly abuts the Dibbs property to the north.

We share a half-mile common boundary with 26 homes located an average of just 50 feet away from that property line.

That's the homes, not the property lines, their homes are 50 feet away from that property line.

Mr.

Dibbs is asking you to disregard the Keystone Odessa comprehensive plan that was in place, mind you, when he purchased the property.

Approving this request not only undermined the plan, but sets a troubling precedent.

More importantly, it allows for an RV park that would fundamentally change and harm our community.

An RV park brings increased traffic, noise, safety concerns, and a clear risk to property values.

This will be on the other side of a fence where residents would like to enjoy the serenity of their own backyard.

This impact, these impacts have not been adequately addressed.

What this represents to Mr.

Dibbs is a business opportunity, and what it represents for our residents is their home, their sanctuary, and the single largest investment.

Sorry, respectfully urge you to consider the real and lasting impact of this decision on the families who live here every day and deny this request.

Furthermore, I'd like to say the attorney for Mr.

Dibbs stated tonight that the committee found the change request to be compatible with the plan.

And I mean paraphrasing a little bit, but from what I understand that's true, but the committee was instructed to consider the rezoning request as if the amendments were approved.

And that is very confusing to if I was a committee member, I'd be very confused and probably come up with the same answer.

But that's not compatible.

Thank you, sir.

Ethel Hammer.

Followed by Jane Graham and then Judy Steinhouse, which is virtual.

Good evening.

Hi, good evening.

Um before I get started, we have one speaker whose name was called uh Adrian Bishop, and he was uh down in the lobby, so uh I would hope you would give him he's up here now.

I hope you would give him time to speak.

All right.

Good evening.

My name is Ethel Hammer.

I live at 125 uh Angel 19825 Angel Lane uh in Odessa.

My home directly abuts the property in question.

I'm a professional land use planner with over 35 years of experience in Hillsborough County.

I'm gonna we've had many passionate speakers before me, so I'm gonna talk about something a little bit more technical.

I want to get on the record that the data and analysis that they submitted for the urban service area boundary uh movement was insufficient and does not meet standards in the statute or in the comprehensive plan for uh consideration of movement of the line.

Policy 1.1.9 has specific criteria to be met.

Uh they did not meet policy 1.1.9.4, uh, which required a detailed analysis of the availability capacity and a fiscal analysis of public facilities and services to serve the development.

Um in addition, they were supposed to address deficiencies and suggest techniques to compensate for them, which was not done.

Uh, policy 1.1.9.6 required that data be provided to demonstrate a need for population and economic development within the planning horizon of the comprehensive plan.

That was not done.

Um I wanted to state for the record that uh please note that this application is not on the edge of the Keystone Odessa community plan.

So it would be an intrusion into the plan.

I also want to point out that the densities, I believe somebody else briefly talked about this.

The densities of the surrounding projects are wrong.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Jane Graham, followed by Judy Steinhouse, which is virtual, and then Nancy Schneider was virtual, and then Trish Lawton.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Jane Graham.

I'm an attorney at Sunshine City Law, speaking on behalf of the Keystone Civic Association.

My client respectfully asked you to deny these amendments tonight.

Last April, the planning commission unanimously voted to deny both amendments based on multiple inconsistencies.

Comprehensive plan amendments must be internally consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And as these two resolutions show, it fails on multiple counts.

Policies protecting rural areas that require density no higher than one unit per five acres.

Requirements for gradual transitions between density and intensity.

Here they're asking to change AR from one unit which had to five acres to four units on one acre.

That is an increase of 20-fold.

Future land use changes represent the ceiling or the maximum entitlement of what can be approved.

So they're going from 61 units to 1,235, or 40,000 square feet of commercial space up to 175,000 square feet.

The applicant is trying to confuse you by talking about some of the features of the rezoning that is the next element, the next item, but there's nothing legally binding about a companion, the site plan that you're looking at.

The state's review looks at state agencies' issues, but questions of compatibility and consistency are very much in the province of the county, and no one understands the vision and plan better than Hillsborough County.

And the area remains the same as you've heard from multiple testimony tonight.

Finally, the threat of agricultural enclave is hollow.

It must be consistent with future land use around it.

Thank you.

Is Judy Steinhouse on the line?

Good evening.

My name is Judy Steinhouse, and I live in this community on a horse farm that includes 19 acres of land.

I chose to move to a rural area with my horses and dogs to live out a quiet, peaceful life.

The proposed rezoning does not coincide with my reality of what it means to live in the country.

Our roads are already limited and getting more and more congested every day, making our road significantly more dangerous.

These roads were not designed to handle the additional amount of traffic that would come, let alone how this would affect our emergency services if this rezoning is approved.

I also have huge environmental concerns as well, including the constraints on our water supply.

More importantly, this proposal would forever change the character, landscape, and lifestyle that we all moved here for in the first place.

It would take it from a rural and agricultural community to a crowded suburbia without the proper infrastructure to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got Nancy Schneider virtual, followed by Trish Lawton and then Adrian Bishop.

Yes.

Hello, my name is Nancy Schneider at 11810 Blue Tick Drive in Odessa.

That's behind the Keystone Product Market off of Tarpon Springs Road.

Thank you for the time this evening.

These plan amendments are not minor adjustments.

This is a fundamental shift in land use policy.

In Keystone, we have a clear intent of low density development.

As noticed, noted on this call, one home per five acres.

To the first speaker representing the ditch property, Loose Lake Front Road is very much part of the Keystone area, and a road I travel frequently on.

You may call this the outskirt of Keystone.

I call this my home.

This proposal of a 20-fold increase in intensity of development.

It is not compatible with the existing character of Luth Lake Fern Road and the entire Odessa community.

Approximately 50 homes under current zoning should not be altered.

It allows for the reasonable growth that I know is important and is inevitable.

The surrounding road network, utilities, water system, fire rescue.

I've been discussed on this call.

It's not compatible with the level of commercial residential activity.

The traffic increased congestion safety rooks, safety risks should be weighed heavily.

Widening roads, adding lanes, turn light is not the answer for what the developers claim as keeping safety apart a priority.

This proposal will negatively impact the environment and the quality of life for all residents and for me personally, specifically living on a 19-acre horse farm in this beautiful area of Keith Don, and it's what I expect to remain as such.

Further, and extremely very importantly, expanding the urban service area sets a very dangerous precedent.

It is telling everyone that rolls brawl and incremental commercial development into agricultural areas should if not respected, and it should have the utmost respect and command protection.

And it should come it should carry tremendous weight in a position of the amendment.

Trish Trish Lawton.

Yeah, come on.

Oh no, I'm Lawton.

Trish Lawton, L A W T O N.

Yep, that's me.

Okay.

There you go.

Thank you.

Okay.

Trish Lawton, 8310, Jana Drive, Odessa, Florida.

Um, Mr.

Pressman uh said this evening that there are no environmental impacts.

Um, however, I would like to say that I live on the canary in the in the gold mined and and Keystone because we have 30 public wells in our area, and um right now we're in a drought, a drought that has told people that you can't even be served water at a restaurant.

You have to ask for it, they can't just give it to you.

Or the advice is find your favorite five-minute song and take a shower and finish before your favorite song is over.

So um sorry, just keep moving.

So I brought with me the water wars.

This is what Keystone has had to deal with.

Why do we have these water wars?

Because Pinellas County overdeveloped, they had too much density.

What happened as a result of that?

Salt watering incursion into their drinking water supply.

So Keystone is not immune from these same impacts that have already been result of that overdevelopment in Pinellas County.

So I brought this is my property.

My dock is 150 feet long.

Normally, my dock is underwater every September.

We are losing millions of gallons of water a day because I have three public wells within 500 feet of my property.

It is sucking the water out.

So, yes, this will have an environmental impact to those of us in Keystone.

This is a retention pond, not in Keystone.

Literally on the edge, right at uh Hutchison and the veterans on the edge, completely full of water.

Not a natural body of water.

My 114-acre lake.

Thank you, Miss Lawton.

Appreciate the comments.

Sorry.

Ma'am, you want to come, ma'am.

Do you want to come forward?

Uh I'm not sure of your name here.

Hello.

My name is Patricia Lawhead.

Okay.

I live at 19419 Pine Tree Road in Odessa.

I've um I am here on behalf of my neighbor, David Harrow.

He was unable to be here tonight.

He lives at 19415 Pine Tree Road.

He is a geologist.

Um we are about two blocks from the Dibbs property, and both of us have lived there probably more than 33 years.

Um I'm here to present a video that was prepared by Mr.

Harrow to stand for Keystone.

There's volume.

Thank you, ma'am.

Adrian Bishop.

I apologize.

There was audio that uh he spoke, but you didn't hear it.

Um we ask that you please deny these amendments.

All right, thank you.

Adrian Bishop.

And then Brendan McKessie that's virtual and Stephanie Fuller that's virtual.

Adrian Bishop, 1044 Tarpon Springs Road, Odessa, Florida, 33556.

Commissioners.

Tonight we'll be presenting a graphic to you that indicates lot size by color to show the large lot development pattern in our neighborhood.

I prepared this document using data from taken from the county's property appears or website.

I would like to point out that this is the same graphic that I used previously in 2017 to oppose Dibs in the zoning.

The only thing updated on this graphic is the date.

Everything is the same.

Nothing's changed in Keystone.

And that is a resounding testament as to how stable this neighborhood is.

On the graphic, Mr.

Dibbs property is shown in red.

Lots larger than five to ten acres are shown in green.

Lots in blue are between one and five acres, and lots of one acre are shown in yellow.

This graphic shows 790 acres of agriculture and rural land use within one mile to the Dibbs location.

Composed of large lot homes, equestrian facilities, plant nurseries, and cattle farms.

Most of the large properties that are immediately adjacent to Mr.

Dibbs property are five to ten acres in size and are within the agricultural rural land use category.

Although the terramore development is to the east, is a smaller lots.

The oil growth density of Terramore is one per one unit per acre, and again, much more or less in Mr.

Dibbs' request.

Furthermore, Terramore was approved in the 1990s prior to the adoption of the KCP and his grandfather in Chaval to the south was also established in 1990 and developed by the Lutz Community Plan, not the Keystone Plan.

Ivy Lakes, that's Pascoe County, developed using their USA planning requirements.

It has no relevance to what happens in Hillsborough County, especially on how the Keystone Plan has been operating for over 25 years in guarding and maintaining the stable and tranquil environment that is loved and cherished by its residents.

Again, I strongly oppose his proposal and respectfully ask that you deny this request.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Brandon McKessy's virtual, followed by Stephanie Fuller, virtual, then Janice Streetman and Keith Nolan.

Is Brendan on the phone?

Yes, thank you.

My name is Brendan Mackenzie, and I own and reside the property at 19027, Camille Drive, Luke, Florida, 33558, and Cheval West.

I object to the proposed future land use change on two primary grounds.

The first concerns traffic and the section concerns and compatibility with the surrounding area.

As for traffic concerns, I would tell me drive along with Lake Burn Road.

One of the two entrances to Shaval Web and the Budson Expressway.

It stands to reason that these traffic impacts are inconsistent with your comprehensive plan, particularly the mobility goal for which objective 107.2 mandates that adverse impact the residential and commercial neighborhoods and environmentally sensitive land to be minimized, and for which objective 4.1 requires a transportation network that improves interconnections between suburban neighborhoods and their surrounding uses.

As for incompatibility concerns, I live a few blocks from River Creek's Headwaters Nature Preserve, which I hike through regularly.

To enter or exit the preserve, I often access the upper Tampa Bay Trail, which runs along the preserves western perimeter and then just north of Lee's Lake Burn, quite literally on the subject's property.

Both the preserve and the subject property are very themic and feature abundant wetlands and wildlife.

You just don't find natural areas like the bay anymore.

Appreciate your comments.

We had Stephanie Fuller virtual, followed by Janice Streetman, Keith Nolan, and then Angela Cantrell is um Stephanie on the on the line.

Stephanie Fuller, I live at 1910 Marchmark Drive in Montreal.

Um I am a newer resident.

We lived here about five years ago.

And what made this area the must have was uh the school district, and we've heard concerns about what could happen to that.

Uh the trail and the conservation areas around here.

We were confident that we didn't have to worry about those conservation areas going away or being developed because of the Keystone Odessa community plan.

Um regarding some previous comments by I don't know if um they were attorneys from Mr.

Dibbs or or other representatives, but one kept pointing to what Pascoe County allowed, what Pascoe County had.

Uh they have their own rules.

We need to follow the Hillsborough Comprehensive Plan because we are in Hillsborough.

Um kind of the same with mentioning that this is just in the corner.

If we redraw the map, then we'll just have a new corner and a new corner until there's nothing left.

Compared neighborhoods like mine, Montreau and Chaval and the density there, but the Keystone Odessa Community Plan specifically recognizes that pre-existing urban scale subdivisions and commercial developments do not set a precedent for additional development of this density and design.

Well, we are not asking him to carry the rules on his own, as the gentleman stated earlier.

We're just asking him to abide by the rules that were clearly in place when he bought the land.

In 2023, he requested a zoning change to one of the found that incompatible with the plan that was not approved.

I went to a meeting in 2025.

Uh similar outcome.

Now he's asking for 392 RB uh.

So if 1828 is not compatible, then surely 392 is also not.

Um someone else mentioned that a point of contention is that some of the letters we send in are the same.

Uh I believe a gentleman named Keith talked about neighbors helping each other out there.

Uh I wrote one of the letters last year.

Uh Janice Streetman, is Janice here.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Keith Nolan.

Is Keith here?

And then Angela Cantrell and then Genie Holton.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh Keith Nolan, 1912, Larchmont Drive in Odessa, Florida.

I live in the Montrose subdivision.

In the interest of time, I'm just not going to present all the facts that have already uh been shared.

Uh the land today is rural, agriculture lots with daily life, providing a peaceful and connected living experience, which is one of the main reasons so many of us here in the room have chosen to call this home.

What's being proposed is not a tweak, it's a tidal wave of destruction to our way of life.

It literally lets the genie out of the bottle.

It directly conflicts with Keystone Odessa Community Plan, which exists to protect these rural areas and prevent exactly this kind of leapfrog development.

Extending urban services into rural services area also violates the community plans and sets a very dangerous precedent.

In conclusion, this is a very emotional issue and for good reason.

It adversely impacts thousands of families and our way of life.

We chose and live in Keystone for a reason.

Mr.

Dibbs did not simply make an investment.

He made a bet.

When he purchased this land, he was fully aware of the Keystone Odessa Community Plan and the Comprehensive P.

His bet was that an exception would be made, that these rules would be bent.

That is why we are here today.

But one man's greed should never be allowed to disrupt multiple communities' livelihood.

Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Thank you, sir.

Angela Cantrell.

Followed by Jeannie Holton and Janine Camp.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Angela Cantrell.

I live at 18026 Linda Wood Street, Odessa.

Thank you for allowing us the time to speak.

They're always pretty busy helping and rescuing, rehabilitating our animals.

At times they'll ask the Keystone Civic Association for grants, and we as members vote on that and are always in support of our community rescuers.

They give educational tours, educate others on the importance and vital each creature is for our ecosystem.

And an example would be Al's Nest, who I spoke to today, owner Chris Porter, who knows how truly dangerous, a higher density than we already have in Keystone is to our wildlife.

Before approving a rezoning, there's to be a wildlife survey done on the property.

I'm not thinking there was a good one done if there was.

I'll start with our protected gopher tortoise, which as we all know are protected and vital.

We have lots in Keystone.

I've helped two across the street of that property as well as someone else said the other day.

We have sandhill cranes, morning doves, ospreys, fox squirrels, indigo snakes, all that are protected in Florida, and I'm sure there are some on this property.

Unfortunately, when I did rescue the gopher, I did not take a picture document with it.

Sad I thought of it now, so didn't have to take a picture to document something already protected.

All the birds mentioned, um we have sandhill cranes, morning doves.

Um, like I said, they're protected under Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

If there are eggs hatchings, they cannot be messed with.

If they're flying in and out of their nests, such as Ospreys, they have to be protected for two months because they are still learning how to fish by their parents.

I would like to end with FLU 4.4.3 that states lot size and density of new and redeveloped residential projects shall reflect the character of the surrounding residential area and where appropriate shall reflect efforts to encourage a gopher tortoise and other significant wildlife habitat.

All right, thank you for the comments.

Jeannie Holton, followed by Janine Camp and then Angela Murphy Cantrell, or we just did that one, I think.

Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Jeannie Holton, and I live at 16318 McGlamory Road in Odessa.

Um I live across from five acres of blueberries and down the road from Donkeys, Horses, an alpaca, and tons of chickens.

And um I grew up, I was born in Tampa General Hospital.

I grew up in Hyde Park and Pomasia, and um I retired out to Keystone, and I guess I expected that the Keystone Community Plan would be respected.

I worked hard.

I used to be the president of Historic Hyde Park Neighborhood Association.

These kinds of plans take years to develop and lots of people working on them, and then we just hope they'll be upheld and um respected.

So we're hoping that's what happens in this situation.

I'm not going to name all the different reasons.

People have already said we don't have enough fire and emergency services.

The wildlife gets run off by a development and it doesn't come back.

And the water is a really important thing.

We're located right on top of the Brooker Creek watershed, among other watersheds.

People are telling us turn off the um faucet when you're brushing your teeth.

Well, that seems ridiculous when you build a huge housing development on top of the watershed, it's very inconsistent.

So I hope that we'll think about our water and think about how important it is to us.

We so much so much so that we have prison fencing around it.

If you drive out and take a look at it, it's important to us.

The water is very important, and I hope that people think about that when they are approving things that are so out of scale and so much more dense than what should be approved.

Uh, when I first moved out there, my son was a freshman at Jesuit, and he turns to me and he says, Mom, I think they were sending the wrong message by naming this road, race track road.

And that was 25 years ago.

As you can imagine how much worse it is now.

It's really the traffic sometimes takes 10 minutes to get out onto the road because there's so much now.

We just really don't have the infrastructure for that type of out of scale development.

Thank you very much for listening.

Janine Camp, followed by Landon Medendorp and Nathan Smith.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Janine Camp.

I live at 12708.

Um, sorry, Reflections Boulevard, and I'm nervous.

Um, I have listened to everyone.

We've lived there 28 years.

I realize we are not on a larger lot.

However, we were completely uh taken by the beauty of the area when we moved there because it was a rural area, and this is a huge concern because it no longer looks like that because of so much development already.

Our schools are so overcrowded.

It takes me so much time to get out of Villa Rosa area because of the traffic.

I have to make my appointments, schedule my appointments around the school hours so that I can even get out.

There are tons and tons of accidents daily.

I drive by.

People on the road, so many more cars are going to be there if that occurs.

Uh, the nature, the beauty of the nature in that area.

We have had uh otters, we have had so many beautiful ospreys.

We have cranes everywhere.

And when you get rid of an area like that, wetlands, you do so much damage to the entire area.

I do invite you all, commissioners to come out and drive on Lutz Lake Fern Road, that narrow road that has no place to go.

And that is a huge issue for all of us.

So the environmental factors are great.

Uh, the natural trees and less um more wild land really even helps on hurricane.

If you look at research regarding hurricane uh impact, areas that have more wetlands and nature are not nearly as hit, and we've all certainly experienced that recently.

So I'm asking you to vote against it.

I appreciate the comments.

Landon Mettendorp, then Nathan Smith, and Corinne Neville.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Landon Meendorp, and I'm a sophomore at Steinberg High School and a resident living right off Lutz Lake Front Road.

I drive past the D's property every single day on my way to and from school.

And I wanted to provide you with a student's perspective as to why you should vote no on the proposed significant changes.

My first concern is student safety.

Right now we have one single traffic light serving the entire three school complex of Kitchwick Elementary School, Martinez Middle School, and Steinberg High School.

And the traffic is already bad, especially during school hours.

Many times backing up to the other side of the Sun Coast Parkway.

This proposed project could add over 1,200 homes, which means thousands of new daily trips funneled toward that one light.

Furthermore, because of the two-mile walk zone seen in Florida Statute 1006.21, all the new potential students may be without buses, meaning they will be either forced to walk or bike to school or be driven by their parents, which adds to the traffic that's seen in that area.

With the new uptick in students and the anticipated overcrowding of these schools, it is to my understanding that the school board would require redistricting to handle this increase in density.

In our area, students grew up together.

This project doesn't just add houses, it risked breaking up a K to 12 community where many kids have been together for over a decade.

However, there is one more key factor that I must bring up the financial impact on all of our neighbors and residents.

Who pays for all the additional safety precautions needed to make sure students have a safe means to come and go from their school?

Who pays for the necessary expansion of our schools or the necessary redistricting that the school board anticipates?

Please don't prioritize one developer's profits over student safety and the stability of our schools.

As a student and a resident, I ask each of you to consider our futures and vote no on HC slash CPA 25-03 and 25-04.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nathan Smith.

Followed by Easton Heath.

And then looks like it's a Dominti Mystery, maybe something like that.

Sounds close.

Please get in line.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Nathan Smith.

I live at 19030 Blake Road in Odessa.

I'm a board member of the Keystone Civic Association.

My property is less than a mile west from the end point of Lutz Lake Fern Road at Gunn Highway.

I have a map to help give some perspective about where I live.

The arrow on the map points to Lutz Lake Fern and Gunn Intersection.

And my lot is outlined on the left, nestled among neighboring multi-acre residential lots, nature, open space, and agriculture.

In fact, about 45 acres of agriculture sits immediately south of my property.

These guys are literally right across my driveway.

I live here.

In regard to choices and decisions.

Objective three of the property rights element of the comprehensive plan states, people rely on the comprehensive plan and on zoning designations of properties when deciding how to use property.

Hillsborough County's decision making will be reliable and predictable to promote sound long-term investments in the community.

We all make our choices after evaluating known and fixed conditions.

These are not things foisted upon us after the fact.

We make these decisions based on investment-backed expectations of how our land and surrounding area will be.

And we are all expected to own the consequences of our decisions here, these known conditions.

Says the community will continue to be a rural community embracing its agricultural past.

Let's keep it that way.

I love living here.

We all love living here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Easton here, followed by please come forward.

Then uh gentlemen starts with Dom.

We call you Dom.

Dom's here.

And then Core Neville.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Easton Heath, and I live at 18262 Wayne Road.

I live on three acres, and we have dogs, cats, chickens, and one beloved hamster.

I have lived here since 2020, but we used to live in Cheval.

I am here today, not as a developer or an investor, but as someone who calls Odessa home.

And to the man behind this proposal, someone I may not know personally, but whose decision could permanently change this place.

I want to speak directly to you.

Odessa is not just land waiting to be developed.

It's an ecosystem, wetlands, trees, and open space that supports countless forms of life.

When you look at these 300 acres, you may see an opportunity.

But what we see is something irreplaceable.

That land is home to animals that cannot simply relocate.

Deer, birds, turtles, foxes, and many other smaller species depend on it to survive.

When the land is cleared, many of them die, and others are folk forced onto unsafe areas.

The trees, water, and open space all work together to keep this ecosystem balanced.

Thank you for your time.

Please vote against.

Thank you, buddy.

All right.

Then we got Corneville, and then I'm gonna give my best efforts here at Harali.

Good luck with that one.

Good evening.

Hello.

My name is Damien Dimistri, and I live in Hair Harbor off Lutz Lake Fern Road.

Um I do not want to repeat what a lot of speakers are already saying, but I would like to add that uh I'm opposed to this uh development.

I I'm not used to speaking in this kind of environment, uh this kind of setting, but I felt when I heard the RB park, I felt I had to say something, so I request you all to vote down on this.

Thank you for coming down this evening.

Appreciate it.

Cora and then Ad Harali and then the Karen.

My name is Angelina Lim.

How are you?

Good evening.

I am a resident also of Heritage Harbor, and I came here today because I have personal and uh bad experience with the Lutz Lake Fern Road.

In Heritage Harbor, they didn't have a light, and my daughter actually had a really, really bad accident over there.

So I totally voice the concerns of whoever spoke earlier.

I think she was from the school board.

There are a lot of kids in the neighborhood.

They just got the license, and this is a public safety problem.

And the problem is there's no money to improve Lutz Lake Front Road.

After my daughter had the accident, believe it or not, there was a light finally put on.

But that was after my kids were grown and out of college.

So I mean, we can't even fix the current problems that we have on Loots Lake Front Road.

And you're going to put in 500, 400, 400, whatever, close to 400.

Additional residents are gonna be there.

And it is a problem because the kids, you know, are not great drivers, and there are there's not enough infrastructure.

And not only that, and my voice, all the parents, I feel bad for the parents.

It's already a crowded school system.

It's 100% almost 100% capacity.

And my son had to go through that public school.

And it's just gonna get worse, and there's no solution to this other than restrict redistricting.

And it's unfair for the people who bought in the space thinking that they're gonna go to the school district.

So I urge everybody to vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Cora Neville, followed by Mike Insminger, and then Karen Stover.

Is Cora here?

How about Mike Insminger?

Come on down, buddy.

Then we got Karen Stover and then uh Vaughn Zumwalt, maybe doing uh Mike Insbinger, 17727 Lake E Drive.

Uh I'm a relative newcomer to the Keystone community, only been here for two years now.

Uh, do hope to represent the community for years to come as many of these people here have tonight, and I appreciate their their input.

Um I share many of the same concerns that they have.

Um when we moved here two years ago, we did so specifically because we were zoned for Steinburner High School.

Um being on the southern side of Keystone, our concern greatly right now is that my two children who are currently in Hammond Elementary School will get bumped out of that district, and that's a huge concern not only for property value, obviously, but for the education of my children with Steinbrenner being one of the top schools in Hillsborough County.

Um I've heard the applicant's representation say many times that uh he's allowed to develop his land.

Fair, fine.

You can develop your land all you want, but do it within the guidelines of the community when you bought it, uh, which he was he knew what they were when he bought it.

Um so if he wants to do it, build acre properties.

Um if you want urban sprawl and suburban hell, uh you can go anywhere else in Florida for that.

Uh but keep it out of Keystone and listen to your constituents.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Cora Neville, followed by Kieran Stover.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Hi.

Um I'm Karen Stover.

I live at 1019,001, sorry, um Blake Road in Odessa, Florida.

Um, my family's been here since the 1970s, and Nathan Smith um showed his alpacas.

I think they're my alpacas.

I live across from Alpacas.

We also have dogs and cats.

Um, and I'm I'm not gonna reiterate what everybody has said, but basically the beauty of Keystone is the rural character.

Um the wetlands, the trees, just driving through any part of Odessa is lovely.

Um and um I think one of the most important things.

Well, there's several important points that I like to make, but um there is no infrastructure.

I live near the corner of um Gun Highway and Tarbing Springs Road.

Um it's changed so much.

Um Gun Highway also uh just very congested area, and I think um I'd like to tag on to what Mr.

Stevens said about the traffic and also um Dr.

Cosentino talked about Crescent Road, how people cut through that area.

That's almost like a one-lane road, and I walk there sometimes and I've seen killed turtles and there's deer, it's just awful.

Um I think um I just asked you to vote um no, and I'm an opposition, of course, and to refer to um what the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, they they've recommended against this.

It is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um there is no there has been no significant change that would warrant um these amendments to go through.

Um also I I thought it was very interesting what um Miss Hammer said, the landhood um use professional.

So thank you for your time and for listening to all of us.

I really appreciate your your time and attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next three speakers.

Uh is there a John Zumwalt?

I think one Zumwalt might have already spoken, but if not, come forward.

All right.

Thank you.

Um James Pepe Pope.

Well Jason Lane and Adam Holyfield.

If you all could come forward, good evening.

My name is James Pepe.

I live in Cheval.

I would just like I would urge you to note one thing.

All the people behind me, they live in Keystone, they live in Lutz, they live in Odessa.

We are all unanimously opposed to this project.

There are just a few exceptions.

And those are these guys here in the suits who are paid by Mr.

Dibbs to come up here and cheerlead for a project.

They don't live in our communities, they don't live in our neighborhoods, they don't even live in our county.

They live in Jacksonville, they live in St.

Pete, and they have the nerve to come here and tell us what is good for our neighborhoods and our communities.

I would they don't have children who walk past, walk across Lutz Lake Fern Road twice each day, like my children do to go to school.

The traffic, the traffic around that school around McKittrick, Martinez, and Steinbrenner is terrible now as it is.

It's only going to get worse if this project goes through.

Nobody here is picking on Mr.

Dibs as has been pointed out.

He is free to continue doing on his property what he has been doing.

He is asking for the rules to be changed for one guy, one guy.

And he's paid these guys to come here and tell you that's a good idea.

I would ask you, please, listen to your neighbors.

We live in your county.

We are your constituents.

Please don't listen to the guys who are outside and are being paid a lot of money to talk about things they know nothing about.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Jason Lane.

Is Jason Lane or Adam Holyfield here?

Adam spoke.

Jason.

No, okay.

Um I've called every name, it's on all four lists that I have here.

So that uh closes the public comment, and the applicant has opportunity for a three-minute rebuttal.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Again, Jim Porter with A commitment for the record.

We would request the additional time given that there was over an hour and a half of public comment.

Typically, the board doesn't understand.

I just gave it to make that request.

Okay, thank you.

First of all, uh, Commissioner, I want to thank all the people for coming.

I understand their um their interest in this.

This is an important piece of property, and it's important to get it right.

I also underempatize with your position.

This is tough.

It's hard, but um there we are.

Um I but I'm going to ask you to take a step back from the emotion and let's look at this squarely on the ground of what we're talking about.

We're talking about an existing borrow pit surrounded by suburban residential units.

A lot of the people here objected to the continuation of the borrow pit.

And it's completely unrealistic to think this property is ever going to be developed with one unit to five acres.

That's just not realistic.

What you have is an opportunity to provide certainty about what is going to happen on this property with these compant amendments and the companion rezoning.

Mr.

Hemke testified that this is an agricultural enclave under Florida statutes and Florida law.

An agricultural enclave, if it develops, cannot be considered urban sprawl.

Really the concerns, and there were a lot of concerns, and again, I appreciate the passion, are distilled down into two real issues.

Transportation and compatibility.

And I'm going to ask um Mr.

Henry and Mr.

Pressman to speak about that.

But first, I want to go back to DOT who found that there they have no objection from a transportation standpoint.

From a compatibility standpoint, we have single family to the east and over 800 units to the south of us.

And again, because of the time, I'm going to turn it over to Mr.

Pressman and Mr.

Henry, and we're happy to answer any questions you have.

Ms.

Chairman and Commissioners, uh, again, want to have great respect for everyone who spoke here this evening.

They obviously have a lot of emotion and concern for their community.

That's well understood.

But the perspective here is what the planning commission has looked at, and which is their policy.

It's not a complaint.

They look at the extreme.

The most that could possibly happen.

And that's not realistically what's being proposed or will be proposed to you this evening.

You heard from a lot of people who live a large lots in the Keystone Odessa area.

And as we've shown you, this site is located at the very distant corner, 500 feet from a veterans expressway on a county arterial roadway, and is secluded and is isolated.

No one in Lutz Lake Fern Road will be able to see this site through acres and acres and acres of wildlife habitat and wetlands.

The screening of buffering is phenomenal.

Large lots exist throughout the heart of Keystone Odessa.

This is not the heart of the Keystone Odessa, nor what is proposed is extreme, as you will see in a few minutes.

But our request is supportable.

It is compatible, and we submitted quite a bit of evidence to support that.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

The votes on these two CPAs will occur after we hear the rezoning.

So this time staff need to introduce the resigning item.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Brian Grady Hills Mercury Development Services.

The next item is the concurrent uh rezoning item agenda item B3 is rezoning PD 25-0934 as noted.

This is a request to rezone the 316.66 acre parcel zone AR on the north side of Lutz Lake from Road to Plan Development.

The apping is requesting uh two development options.

The first development option would be for 392 single-family residential homes with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and plus 100,405 square feet of commercial general uses on uh approximately 9.2 acre upland area uh within the site in the southeast corner.

The second option would be for 392 RV spaces on a minimum of 2,000 square feet spaces and also including the 100,000 100,000 four hundred and five square square feet of commercial gender uses uh based on review of this uh based on the uh companion res for uh plan uh uh amendment and uh inclusion of this in the urban service area uh staff based on this based on those uh factors and the surrounding development pattern did find the request approval.

Uh Planning Commission also found it consistent in the hearing officer recommended approval, and we're available for any questions.

All right, thank you.

Applicant has 10 minutes for the presentation.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chairman Commission.

Jim Porter again, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa.

Um, with me with the team is Sam Sabelli, who's the project engineer, Todd Pressman, Steve Henry, and Abby Naylor.

Um we've worked closely with staff over a long period to get to this hearing tonight.

Um it's important to note as we go into this that we have three strong recommendations of approval from your staff, from the planning commission, and most importantly, from the hearing officer who recommended approval to you.

From a legal standpoint, it doesn't get any more significant than that.

This is a quasi-judicial process.

Your decision here tonight needs to be based on competent substantial evidence, and what those three recommendations of approval provide to you is competent substantial evidence and a clear path forward to approval.

A few points that are important to the consideration of this application.

All the wetlands on site are going to be preserved.

You will note in the record that we are not asking for any variances, that we're preserving the wetlands, which are over 182 acres.

It's important to recognize that we're uh approximately 500 feet from the interchange of the Veterans Expressway.

Um we are an agricultural enclave, which we've talked about earlier.

We'll be making roadway improvements, and the great majority of this large piece of property will not be developed.

It will be preserved with the beautiful existing lake.

We are asking for clustered development similar to our neighbors that will preserve a large piece of this property.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr.

Pressman to make the uh primary presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Mr.

Chairman Commissioners, again for the record, Todd Pressman, 2002 Avenue South No.

St.

Petersburg.

There you go.

Uh you've seen quite a number of aerials.

Uh as Jim has indicated, planning commission consistent development services supports transportation, kind transportation, no objection.

Also meets locational criteria, which as Jim is uh is indicated, uh no variations.

Uh rezoning from AR to PD for 392 single-family homes or RV units, 9.22 acres are commercial.

Uh this would be the PD plan.

Again, the water feature where the development would occur around, which is this area here, development area.

The rest would be no development, no development because it's wetland significant uh wildlife.

Uh development areas approximately 30 percent, uh minus the water feature, and no development area, approximately 70 percent.

So wetlands, certificate wetlands, this tremendous area remains pristine.

We've indicated the density 1.38 gross gross units, which we've shown you in terms of surrounding uh density is very low.

You've seen the aerials, the pristine nature of the site, which will be maintained.

Planning commission recommendation notes that existing natural forestation along the entire western, northern, and eastern boundaries.

The entire western, northern, eastern boundaries, the planning commissioner rights of the property will be preserved, providing significant buffering, screening, and adjacent from adjacent residential uses.

The site is secluded, it's barricaded, and it's sheltered.

Planning Commission recommendation notes the request is consistent with the objectives and policies of uh in the environmentally sensitive areas.

We're proposing clustering that allows us to keep development into a very tight area and preserve all the environmental areas.

This is an important slide because it shows you the site and how different it is to all the different acreages in the Keystone, Odessa area.

It is, as indicated, an enclave in the basis that's located adjacent to or a closely adjacent to a veterans expressway on an Ontario roadway, and is completely different than the various and many small acres and some large lakers in the uh uh acre properties in the Keystone Odessa area.

This shows the same thing in terms of septic wells versus public and water, which is a critical, critical environmental concern to protect the lakes, protect the water, and our aquifer.

And then when you look again at the disparity, this is single family existing land usage map.

You can see the the uh subject property is listed agriculture.

You can see that the vast majority of uses in the uh Keystone Odessa area is single family.

We're an outlier, we're different.

We're asking to be the same tonight.

We've shown you current development to the north, multifamily, same level that we're asking, immediately abutting to the east, higher density, and to the south, higher density, all on water and sewer.

We are only asking to be similar to what's around us, abutting on three sides, but yet the density is much, much, much, much less.

And we've shown you this as well that we are at the 1.38 units per acre, which is extremely low.

And looking at the tight density surrounding the site, which is existing, homogeneous, but again, homogeneous in terms of single family, but we would be a lower density, including Montrose subdivision down the road.

Planning Commission recommendation notes the proposed residual residential component is consistent.

The proposed small commercial component is consistent as its strategic location has been designed to ensure compatibility.

Planning Commission notes development is buffered from adjacent uses by substantial wetlands.

In addition, again, existing natural forestation along the entire western, northern, and eastern boundaries will be preserved, providing significant buffering and screening from adjacent residential uses.

Development services zoning department notes it is consistent with the existing residential character of the area as the development of the adjacent land uses or residential.

Development services zoning notes a small commercial component is proposed in the southeastern portion, adjacent to PD 90-0061, which also allows a limited commercial in the southern portion of the PD just north of Lake Fern Road.

Planning Commission recommendation notes the commercial component is integrated with the larger mixed-use development that satisfies the applicable criterias.

I've shown you or we've shown you that the USA abuts us on north and south and a stones throw to the east and it's part of the regional view.

Under water quality and quality goals for Keystone Odessa, a critical cornerstone is improving existing protection and understanding of water resources, like well fields, Lake Creek protection.

There is no better protection.

Jurisdictions have put tens of millions of dollars to change septic and sewer into water, excuse me, septic and wells into water and sewer.

And planning commission notes the proposal is consistent with the one water policy of 1.3.10.

Planning Commission notes supports the vision of the Keystone Odessa Community Plan.

That's a critical finding.

Pasco intends to Pasco MPO will widen Van Dyke to State Route 52.

The Florida Turnpike is going to widen the Dale Maber Spur.

Citrus County will also be providing an extension.

Lotes Lake Fern is a county arterial road, carries 7900 vehicles per day.

Planning Commission notes that the site design and proposed mitigation incorporate many of the standards that are within the rule design guidelines.

The proposed development would allow for development that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsboro County Comprehensive Plan.

And we did want to make sure you're aware that the development site is in the X flood zone.

We've shown you an economic impact, which would be a strong impact financially for the county, and that your housing chapter covers many, many dozens of policies in support.

The Odessa Keystone property differs tremendously from the Keystone areas located close to the expressway, the USA, a budding higher density residential, tremendous buffering, it's located at the border.

These are elements that separate the site that support it.

But again, as we've started to tell you, we've had great response from the state from the Florida Commerce Department, FDOT, critically the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission.

So again, we have consistency among your agencies and departments, and meet locational criteria.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioners.

With that, we'll close, and we appreciate your attention and great respect for the residents who have spoken this evening, and thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Anyone in support of the application?

All right, those in opposition.

You have a total of 10 minutes.

Uh you must be a person of record.

Uh seven individuals have signed up in advance, five of which are parties of record to hear that signed up.

So I'll call these two names first, Ethel Hammer and then Jane Graham.

Again, you have a total of ten minutes.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Jane Graham of Sunshine City Law.

I represent Keystone Civic Association.

We have already placed a document into the record that has information on Keystone's standing.

Um we object to the alternate site plans and the indefiniteness, it is not legal.

We also object to the statement that Florida Commerce reviewed the rezoning.

They did not, they reviewed the comprehensive plan amendments.

We also want to make it extremely clear that the recommendation of approvals by the land use hearing officer is expressly contingent on the approval of the two comprehensive plan amendments that you will be voting on.

And so while there is a potential path forward to approve it, if you approve the comprehensive plans, we have already explained why there are many numerous inconsistencies with these amendments.

And so it's really a non-starter that this rezoning is even here.

The applicant has unsuccessfully challenged the Keystone Odessa plan before in federal court on this exact piece of property over 10 years ago, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Keystone Plan, stating that it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or enforcement, did not deprive Mr.

Dibbs of due process.

It stated while not everyone in the area might agree with the decisions made by the planning commission or county commission, these are political issues.

A rezoning must be backed by competent substantial evidence.

And there is a lack of competent substantial evidence for the traffic analysis.

Also, during the hearing there was an inclusion of a new traffic light, and that was entered after the fact, which the um people who were objecting did not have a chance to look at.

We object to the continued confusion of the presentation by the applicant saying that this rezoning is going is what you're voting on in tandem with the land use amendment.

We want to make it clear that these are two very different things, and the rezoning is very much separate and apart.

The proposed 100,000 square feet of commercial sticks out in the residential and agricultural area.

The closest commercial property is Seed World, which is a plant nursery, which is composed of at most 16,000 square feet.

The Keystone Odessa Community Plan vision clearly states that it will continue to be a rural community.

This is the vision.

This is what they look to.

Oh, this discussion of agricultural enclave is much ado about nothing because the process requires that they have to apply for that, and they haven't applied for that.

And so that's again something that is not something you are looking at or voting on today.

Thank you very much.

Good evening again.

My name is Zephel Hammer.

I live at 19825 Angel Lane in Odessa.

Um I want to say as a land use planner, the location of a 394 unit RV park at this location is ridiculous.

I disagree with staff, the commercial portion of this project, the 100,000 square feet, does not meet locational criteria.

They have hung the recommendation on an exception, which says that the commercial must be integrated and connected with the rest of the project.

How is this integrated and connected when you have to drive out of the project, go down the road, make a left-hand turn into the commercial project?

You can't even get there by walking because there are no sidewalks.

That is not what I call integrated and connected.

Secondly, the land development code has specific standards for RV parks for the location.

The very first requirement says an RV park shall have immediate access to a collector or arterial street.

Now, this site plan, they're not showing an access on Delutes Lake Fern Road because the staff won't permit that.

They're showing their access, God forbid, on Barrie Acres Trail, that little 10-lane, 10-foot lane road that is a dead end.

But somehow, if you take the end of it and you widen it to the size of a collector, does that automatically make it a collector?

I think that's what staff waived the uh standard to allow.

And lastly, I find the conditions of approval particularly egregious.

They are the absolute minimum standards with respect to the neighborhood.

Five-foot setback for RVs next to our property boundaries.

Are you kidding me?

The same goes for all of the standards, minimum lot sizes, buffering, everything that Mr.

Dibbs asked for, they gave him.

So I am particularly insulted with the way the conditions were worded with respect to our neighborhood.

And I believe there's a couple other people that want to talk.

Okay, thank you.

We've got Carrie O'Donnell, Dean Drossi.

Are there one of you like to speak?

If not, uh Trish Lawton was the only other person that's of record.

We have a total of three minutes.

Hi, Trish Lawton, 8310, Jana Drive Odessa.

In regard to commercial property, we don't really have a need for commercial property in Keystone.

We have several properties currently for sale.

They've been for sale for quite some time.

Giant commercial property available, sitting there vacant years.

We have actual developed commercial property.

The Wind Dixie became an Aldi's.

Half of that, half of that property is sitting vacant right now.

The subway gone, vacant.

Why?

Because we don't want commercial in Keystone.

That road Lutz Lake Fern, they're saying, Oh, there's commercial property.

It's a golf course.

Golf course.

That's our commercial property on Lutz Lake Fern.

We do not want commercial in Keystone.

We are willing to drive to town for that if we so need it.

Please deny these applications.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

This time the applicant has uh opportunity for five-minute rebuttal.

Folks, they're respected.

You you please respect them.

We're almost done.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair and Board.

Uh, Jim Porter with Ackerman 41 East Jackson Street.

Uh, first of all, again, I want to start with you're dealing with through recommendations of approval from your staff, the plane commission hearing officer that constitutes constant uh competent substantial evidence, which you must base your decision on tonight.

Um, it's also important to note what the planning commission found about the Keystone Edessa plan on page seven of the Keystone of the Planning Commission's report, and this is a direct quote.

Overall, the proposed plan development rezoning is consistent with the guiding principle of the Keystone Odessa plan.

That's a very powerful statement from your planning commission.

Um, also as has been referred earlier, the ultimate density that would be allowed under the complan category is 1235 units.

We're asking for 392 units, which again is consistent with the surrounding area.

Um, one of the things that I think is important that we heard tonight, and we do want to be good neighbors, is a lot of umst about the idea of an RV park.

Um, and as you know, we've proposed uh alternate site plans, either an RV park or a subdivision.

At this point in the process, we would be willing to forego the RV park and ask for approval for just the residential piece of this.

Um, we would also ask that any impact fees be used on loots Lake Fern.

Um, and so that would be we would be willing to give up the RV park uh as a concession to the neighbors and request that you approve the alternate of 392 units on site.

Okay, and we'll rest our our case at this point and respectfully ask for your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Our planning commission.

Uh Jelly and Massie with Planning Commission staff.

Uh the approximately uh 316-acre subject sites in the rural area and within the limits of the Keystone Odessa Community Plan.

Comprehensive plan map amendment 25-03 is being processed concurrently with this rezoning request and proposes a change of future land use category from agricultural rural one to five to residential four.

In addition, the comprehensive plan map amendment 25-04 requests to expand the site's boundary into the urban service area.

Accordingly, the proposed plan development will be evaluated and analyzed based on the residential four future land use designation and the site's inclusion within the urban service area.

The residential four category permits a maximum density of four dwelling units per gross acre acres and a uh non-residential intensity of 0.25 floor area ratio.

Uh the subject site consists of a total of approximately 316 acres, of which 134 acres are upland.

As the Keystone Odessa community plan does not allow the use of wetland density credit.

Only the upland acreage is used in calculating allowable density and intensity.

The proposal is consistent with future land use section objectives 2.1 and 2.2, which outlines the maximum level of intensity or density in each future land use category.

The proposed development uh density is well below the maximum residential density permitted in the residential four.

Uh the proposal includes 392 units compared to the maximum potential of 500 units, resulting in an overall density of 1.38 units per gross acre.

Future land use section objective 3.1 states that all new developments should recognize the existing community and be designed in a way that is compatible.

The proposed residential component of the development is consistent with the existing residential character of the area, as a majority of the adjacent land uses are residential.

The commercial component is proposed in the southeastern portion of the site and is largely surrounded by the subject site's own residential uses and by non-residential uses to the south, including the adjacent golf course and wetland conservation areas.

Future land use section objective 4.4 requires new development to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed development incorporates buffering, screening, and strategic site development, which collectively provides an appropriate gradual transition of use between the denser residential development within the site and the lower density adjacent resident residential uses on adjacent properties.

Future land use section objective 4.7 outlines the policies associated with the commercial locational criteria.

While the site does not meet the 75% of its frontage being within 1,000 feet of an intersection of a collector and or arterial roadway, it is not also located on the brick fire type of context classification roadway.

One such criteria allows for neighborhood serving use neighborhoods serving commercial uses that are integrated and connected as a part of a larger mixed use development of at least 10 acres in size.

The proposed plan development exceeds 10 acres, has a mix of uses and provides connectivity to the northern residential area via the very acres trail that is within the site.

As such, the commercial component is integrated within the larger mixed use development and satisfies the applicable criteria of future land use section policy 4.7.3.

Future land use section objective 6.1 encourages growth that is both sustainable and resilient while protecting environmentally sensitive resources.

Objective 6.3 encourages clustering to ensure that development will occur in a manner that protects existing natural resources.

The proposed development preserves on-site wetlands in significant wildlife areas and is designed to cluster the residential component, therefore meeting the intent of the policies associated with growth in environmentally sensitive areas.

The sites within the limits of the Keystone Odessa community plan.

While the community seeks to maintain a predominantly rural pattern of development, the subject site is being evaluated under the concurrent uh urban service area expansion and residential for comprehensive plan amendment requests and is therefore analyzed as though those as though those amendments have been approved.

While not rural in definition, the site design and proposed mitigation measures incorporate many of the standards that are within the rural design guidelines.

And based on those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the uh comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the count uh development services department.

I thank you.

Hearing master zoning hearing master reviewed the rezoning request to plan development for two development options, single family detached homes and commercial land uses, or an RV park with commercial land uses, and found the proposal to be consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan pending the approval of the two comprehensive plan amendments to expand the urban service area boundary and change the future land use category from AR to residential four.

The zoning hearing master's recommendation was approval.

Okay, thank you.

We'll go into um board discussion.

I uh don't see them in the queue, so I'll I'll start off.

Um first of all, I want to thank everyone uh for taking time out of your busy schedules this evening uh to come here to express your uh concerns and um in opposition uh to this item.

Uh in addition to those came out here this evening.

I'm holding six pages of names from folks who submitted their concerns and opposition, and I gotta tell you I've been here a long time, and I in fact I went over and asked our um director and land use attorney because I've never recalled seeing a list so long in my time of folks and uh honestly I've I've represented Keystone and Odessa for a very long time, and it truly speaks volumes for your um your love and your passion uh for for your community.

Um I'm not gonna say a whole lot, but I I oppose these amendments at the transmittal phase, so it should not be surprised to anyone that I'm not gonna um support them tonight.

Um not only did the planning commission uh find both amendments inconsistent with a comprehensive plan, but I also want to point out that the planning commission board unanimously opposed both applications.

Uh this item or these items are inconsistent with a myriad of policies and objectives.

Many were shown tonight.

So I'm just gonna point out a couple.

Objective 3.1, it does not provide a reasonable transition of density and intensity.

The surrounding areas, primarily res one and one unit per five acres, and this would introduce urban or suburban uh development pattern into the rural area.

It does not meet the criteria under policy 1.19.

Uh, it's not a logical extension of the existing development pattern.

It's also inconsistent with objective 1.2, which is intended to protect the rural character of the area.

As mentioned this evening, um, this clearly conflicts with the Keystone um community plan.

And uh board members, I'm intimately familiar with Keystone, and I can tell you that these requests are out of character with the surrounding land uses, and in the event that you're not as familiar or that familiar with the area, we saw several examples here from the videos that the residents shown this this evening that surely reflect that.

And in the event that you're not as familiar or that familiar with the area, we saw several examples here from the videos that the residents shown this this evening that surely reflect that.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna oppose uh both items this evening.

Uh I see Commissioner Wolstool's hand up, so I'll recognize Commissioner Wolstall.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I apologize to everyone.

Um I've prided myself on never missing one meeting since being elected, but as you heard earlier, I have a one-week baby at home, so I was unable to attend this evening.

Um I actually um agree with many of the statements that the chair just said.

Um however, in my time here, I have learned that land use is um an old game theory model about the war of attrition.

And eventually, what I've seen, even on things that I've um meticulously opposed or worked around in recent years, the legislature has circumvented that, and I am very proud of this board unanimously voting to sue the state to um prevent heavy-handed developments that are outside of our control, and Hillsborough County Commissioners being the leader in the entire state of Florida to oppose such measures.

Um that being said, I while I really respect um attorney Graham and Sunshine City Law, I am concerned and I've discussed with staff.

Um, this law of the agricultural enclave correct, it is not in play tonight.

And um, and while and and on that note, I'll I'll point out that while Mr.

Porter uh did um choose very careful attorney language that the rezone is quasi-judicial, we are discussing the comprehensive plan, which is legislative and significantly debatable.

Um I am concerned that this is one of those situations where you lose control of the narrative and you lose control of what you can do.

I want to make everybody in the audience very aware of a letter that we're going to be discussing soon from the planning commission chair and in the planning commission themselves.

If you're not familiar with the chair, he's probably one of the most qualified people in the building, including the county attorneys, to speak to the comprehensive plan and future planning elements.

I'm just gonna give you a quick quote from the letter that we received that we're gonna be discussing either April 1st or 15th, likely at a motion from myself, which is that after several inquiries to the Planning Commission staff, the responses given to each of the inquiries and discussions that followed illuminated substantial gaps in agency knowledge relative to the origination of the 80-20 ratio of the urban service area, the measurable impacts of those ratios application, the empirical impacts to be expected from adjusting the 8 to 20 ratio.

Moreover, and this is the most important part, the planning commission staff expressed concerns relative to the agency's capacity available for immediately addressing the foregoing knowledge gaps of the urban service area.

Um you might also like to know that there were three different attempts this session to entirely dissolve urban service areas in the entire state of Florida because they no longer believe that they are working as intended.

I want I want everybody to be clear that this potentially, while I do agree um with the chair, and I voted against um, usually I vote my consciousness.

I've I've um honestly voted against some in Keystone that I still don't even know why I voted no for basic things like um out in the rural area, somebody wanted a variance for an eight-foot fence, which I thought, well, this is a rural area, this this shouldn't be um too combative, but it was, and and we denied that basic request.

Um so while I am sensitive to the area and have voted to protect it, I am concerned that um the tools that you have in place can go away and be thwarted, and then you might potentially end up with the RVs or more um without the offer that was on the table this evening.

Um Mr.

Gormley, and I'll and I will close.

I I was hoping not to um have to speak too much this evening because I don't like to do it over Zoom because it can be disruptive.

Um, but I heard nobody else was in the queue, so I just want to ask my um question, which is that while yes, right now not all of the lots meet all of the objectives of the agricultural enclave, the majority of them currently do.

Is that correct?

Uh Commissioner, yes, Adam Gormley.

Uh we did check with the property appraiser on what lots were granted Greenbelt to establish whether they were uh bona fide agricultural use, and out of the eight folios included, uh three of them did not have green belt, and five of them did.

Okay.

Um and and those are just some of my big points for the community to understand that this is one of those deals where you know you can you can fight aggressively, and then the result um could be a worse outcome.

And I'm I'm very concerned that this could be one of those situations.

Um I am opposed to um ushering in residential four all throughout Keystone.

I would tell you that this is there's no such thing as like a precedence.

You don't have to worry about anything.

We we change urban service area lines all the time.

It's just that the majority of them are in east and south county, and it's not a precedence, it's just a mat, it's a legislative matter of opinion on whether or not we think that's for good planning or not.

Um there's no arguments that they could come into a court and suggest that there's a precedence um to be had for that.

But um what I would say is that if there is a deed restriction for residential only, um, and I wanted to point out that um I believe Commissioner Um there was some selective language that quoted Commissioner Bowles in the previous um hearing by um attorney Porter.

Um he he seems to have forgot the other part of what Commissioner Bull says, which was that he quote heard that the applicant wanted to do RVs and he thought that was insane.

Um and and I think that that was intentionally left out of the quote because from a planning and legislative perspective, um the reality is is that many of us would never be able to come to that on this um north part of the county.

So if if the applicant were willing to provide Mr.

Gormley a voluntary um deed restriction for single family home residential on their application, what would be required for the board to accomplish that if they were willing to do so?

So, Commissioner, we we do not have a precedent for uh deed restrictions on um county enforced deed restrictions uh in relation to zoning matters.

Um have discussed this concept with the county attorney's office, and there are some concerns expressed about the administration and how that deed restriction would work in the context of um the county being a beneficiary of a deed restriction while at the same time being a regulator of land use.

Um at this time we don't have a path that I could suggest as to how that could be effectively accomplished or how that that would work.

Um that some other jurisdictions have um broached this this subject or topic, uh, but at this time we don't have a path we could describe tonight for how that that could work effectively uh and be a defensible um a tool for the county to use um so it couldn't even be accomplished through a remand.

It it if the board were were to were to want to continue or remand these applications, that's something that it could be explored further and more thoroughly.

Um I I would say couldn't tell you tonight that there's a path for how that could be accomplished or how that would work.

Okay, well, Mr.

Chair, I will yield my comments and hope that um maybe somebody else has some opinions to offer.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh I I will say that uh Commissioner Wilson's uh comments are well taken, and the fact that the state has severely restricted our ability to um protect our neighborhoods and communities.

I mean, thanks to his leadership, we're we filed litigation and uh what we already live, and that's ongoing, and I can only imagine or I can only expect that there'll be similar litigation when it comes to the agricultural enclaves as well.

Um I don't see any anyone else um in the queue, so I I'll I'll go I don't see anybody here.

So okay, well then Commissioner Murray, you're up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We have no equipment up here.

Um I have a couple of comments, and they may seem like they're all over the place, but I hope you'll bear with me.

Um first of all, I want to say thank you for taking the time to come out.

It's very clear that um this is a cohesive community.

Um I grew up in Landa Lakes.

Um, so I'm very familiar with your region.

Um it is as beautiful today, probably as it was 20, 30 years ago, and it's clear that you all have worked really hard to keep it that way.

So I'm appreciate you coming here tonight being respectful.

I hope you don't mind the several times I stepped out because you all were here, and I knew we were probably gonna be down one.

I wanted to make sure to be here so that um this could be heard tonight.

So um we can still hear you in the back, so I just wanted to make sure that it was not no disrespect intended at all.

Um, my second comment, I wanted to specifically call out um the two young folks.

I think it was Landon and Eason that both spoke.

Um, I love to see young folks getting involved.

Um, I grew up on a house where my parents had us get involved, and um it'll it'll serve you well.

You both spoke eloquently, and I appreciated your comments.

Um, I did want to answer the one question where he asked about um how safety issues are um paid for, it's actually by impact fees, so I can um sidebar with you on that afterwards if you're more interested in learning how to how how that works.

Um to Commissioner Wussel's points, um, the state has really put us in a difficult position, and I you know, unfortunately we cannot talk to one another um on certain issues because of sunshine laws, and I'm feeling very frustrated as um a person who sits up here and makes decisions that several times we've been forced with what we feel is the best decision right now based on an a law that may be coming to us.

And I don't know about the rest of you all, but it's really it's been super challenging.

So even tonight I'm struggling with what could be based on what you know would I make the same decision today if those laws were not bearing down on us, and it's very frustrating.

Um so maybe you all could activate because you're quite organized against those laws at the state level and support us in this.

Um and I I don't know what all that would look like, but um know that we really take these decisions um to heart, and we meet in briefings and we prepare and we try our best to come in here and and to listen to all of you all and to make what we believe is the best decision for the constituents that we represent.

Um I'm gonna yield right now to um the next comments before um I have anything else to say, but thank you again.

Commissioner Cameron Speeder.

Yes, um, thank you all for coming out tonight.

I would like to speak to both sides of the argument uh just briefly here.

So um Mr.

Pressman had an awesome um slideshow and amazing presentation.

I really did uh think it was really great.

Um however, it was for the RV RBs and uh with the RVs, I know there was an issue and a concern about the schools.

Well, if it were if it were an RV, what I was thinking at the time was that uh most likely they were not there would not be school children, you know, um if it's an RV park, and so that was uh one of the things I was thinking about there.

So most likely that would not affect the schools, however, it has been changed to the houses.

But with that being said, also um there were other concerns with the um roads being so narrow, and that was really a great video that someone showed about how narrow the roads were, and um also it was stated uh by one of the speakers he can't get out on his road at the time at this moment um daily as he's going out.

But also the other issue that uh was concerning to me was the water issues that they're already having right now, and so that was um some of the concerns that I had with the water levels at this time, and that um the planning commission said that they were concerned with that as well, that it uh may not have enough sufficient capacity for water.

So, I mean, there's really positive and negative things on both sides, so that's where I am with that at the moment.

Uh Commissioner Cohen.

Thank you very much.

And uh thank you to everyone that came out tonight.

Uh it was uh it was um very interesting to hear everyone's comments, and um it certainly you all did a wonderful job of describing what makes your community so special.

In the first hearing where we can where we considered the first uh the plan amendments only for the first round, we had two.

We had one related to the urban service area and one related to the um the actual uh proposal to change to res four.

And in the first hearing, I voted uh in favor of the change to the urban service area, but against the change to res four.

And I'm going to do the same thing tonight.

Uh I do think that if this development goes through and there is anything close to this amount of activity on this property, it should be hooked up to public utilities.

Everything around it is hooked up to public utilities and it is on the very end, the very end of the uh of the of the community um of the community boundary.

However, uh on the other one, on the on the density issue, I really felt that the res four was too much to ask for.

That if you're making the argument that this is a transition between the expressway and some of the heavier suburban development uh that that then moves and becomes more rural as you get into the heart of Keystone, it just seemed to me that the res four was too much for the transition, and that a res two or something a little lower would have been a more appropriate thing for that type of transition.

So for that reason, uh I'm I'm gonna be uh vo voting yes on one and no on the other.

And um that's what I did the last time, and uh I'm not I wasn't convinced tonight to change either of those uh in the uh in the other direction, although I will say that the testimony from the neighborhood related to the density definitely underscored for me at least why I voted uh against the res for the first time around.

Commissioner Myers.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

First, I'd like to uh thank everyone for taking time to come.

This has been really uh a very challenging and very difficult case because when I met with staff yesterday during my briefing, in when you look at what was being proposed for the singer family homes, it just appears like on the island, you know, even though you have to meet the EPC requirements and all, and then to come in and hear tonight all of the residents' um concerns and how you want your uh area to stay rural because you've been there, and that's one of the things we asked commissioners to hear when the first tenants move in, they okay.

Then when the second tenants move in, they don't want the first group don't want the second group to move in, and when the third group try to move in, they don't want that group uh to move in.

But yet we talk about so much is housing.

How do we make housing work for everyone here in this county?

And I know since I've been on this board, the deer project uh property has been an eye saw in Odessa area, and have I had the opportunity to visit the property a couple of years ago, and when you look at where the homes are, they're nowhere close to where he is talking about a building on this property, but at the same time, one thing this board has always said, and I believe in strongly, we listen to the district commissioner, they know the area better than anyone else.

And Commissioner Cohen, as I always refer to the institutional knowledge on this board because he's the um the longevity here, but I wish it was a way that we could work this out some kind of way because when you send up the plan to the state, and you get no concerns back from the state, but yet they are concerns here at the local level, and it just appears that we are just not on one accord as we should be.

I mean, one can find nothing and the other one says it's not consistent.

And I wish it was a way when we're reviewing cases that if they find something, we need to know as commissioners, and not send it back saying, okay, okay, okay.

And so I'm tone um that I wish there were, as Commissioner Walsh said that we could do something to to make this happen.

I know that's not what you all want to hear, but in fairness, um you look at both sides.

And I'm not asking many comments, I'm just saying what is fair.

Those are my comments.

Um Commission, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Wolfsol.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I just before we get into the rezone side, um, where, as Mr.

Porter so astutely pointed out, we are more restricted in our decision making.

The res for right now, I understand that this is over 308 acres, but in reality, Mr.

Gormley, they're only going to arrive um at about 300 plus single family homes, correct?

Yes, sir.

So the the total uplands for the for the site, and this is based on the site plan, the applicant site plan submitted with the rezoning has a little over 134 acres of upland.

That's the only land on which the density could be calculated.

Um under the current rezoning request, the requesting 392 uh under res four, they could potentially get a little bit more, and that would be um all including the land that's currently designated for or proposed to be designated for commercial purposes.

On the residential portion, it is 125 acres of upland.

So at res four, the most that could be considered would be 600 units um on that upland portion currently proposed for residential development.

Okay, I don't want to get too in two off the reservation here, but I've been through so many of these where you know this could become an ongoing lingering issue for the community, or we can we have everyone here tonight, and we don't want to make everybody have to try and come back and forth.

But is there not a way um that we can I understand that this is an applicant initiated process, but you know, I can kind of tell when something's gonna die on the vine and and then it's just gonna create ongoing headaches for everybody involved, and um I don't want that for anyone, not the applicant nor the community.

So is there not a way for us to um expand the urban service area, which is B1?

But then on B2, um if if this applicant, like Commissioner Cohen pointed out, um if if they were allowed to consider um like a a residential two and be able to get credits for some of the wetlands or whatever and still achieve similar single family homes, but it restricts a lot more of the other usage.

Is that not possible?

No.

Folks, please, folks, please respect we're in board discussion now.

Go ahead, Adam.

So um if the if the board were to so the request for the future land use map is res four, res two would be essentially uh a decre it a decrease in intensity without adding any additional uses to it.

So if it were the board's inclination to consider a request for res two, that that could be accomplished, however, it would um not be consistent with the zoning that's before the board today.

So the the the res two would be a possibility, however, the the the zoning proposed zoning could not be supported uh under res two and and there would take some adjustment to that plan.

Um I'm just thinking how to help, you know, hear commissioner um Cohen's concerns, which um I I I agree, I agree with it, it's challenging, and um I I don't know when we get to the point of this access being added onto that little side road, the Barry Um road, but that's a conversation.

I don't know if it's now or probably in the in the zoning, but that seems like something that would have to be changed if if this does move forward.

I don't see how we could put um all of these homes onto that tiny little road, just um just making that comment.

I don't know if that has to be answered now, but uh I'll yield, Mr.

Chair.

I I I will support um the expansion of the urban service area just because I it's um in my whole belief that those are gonna be going away sometime soon entirely anyways.

Um and I I'll just hear hopefully comments about what you can do.

Um Mr.

Commissioner Cohen, if you've got anything else for me.

I don't want to have to keep speaking um virtually, but um that that's the remainder of my comments, Mr.

Chair, and uh apologize again for for being remote.

I uh I don't I don't enjoy it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cohen.

Well, I'm just wondering from Mr.

Gormley, you the the zoning couldn't be considered if if let's say let's say that the the applicant wanted to to ask for a res two on the plan amendment.

The zoning could be continued to to adjust to adjust it.

Uh how would that work?

It would uh I would recommend a remand of the rezoning to remand of the rezoning.

If the res four is voted down and denied, then the rezoning which is dependent on that would be automatically withdrawn.

If the board were to if it were to be amended and and changed and approved at res two, the zoning would still need to be adjusted, and that could be that really should be done.

It would need to be done with a remand because it would it would take a recalibration of the plan and and the conditions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I don't see anyone else in the queue.

Um Commer Bowles, do you want to speak?

Yeah, I I'm just on my phone.

Uh my web ex wasn't working.

I'm sorry.

Um we're having all kinds of technological.

Not a problem.

Uh I'm not gonna everybody across the board, all of my all of you hit the points that uh I wanted to either make and for um uh you know to certainly drive home.

And thank you again.

I apologize for not being there, but there were some things I couldn't get out of doing today.

But uh I think if we go back to last year to some degree, one of the statements I did make was about possibly the consideration of res two and that you know that transition there.

But I think what one of the the hang-ups that I have, but take no one of the hangouts I have is that once we uh move this from that uh that ag setting to a res setting, it unlocks other potential for the sites.

And I think I appropriately uh talked about it before was that um appropriately um pointed out that the closest commercial properties to that was either off Harper Springs and Glen Highway or 54 veterans.

Um to the type of intensity that we're talking about.

We're talking a hundred thousand square feet of commercial property, and which could be 15 QSRs, it could be a rooms to go warehouse.

I mean, that is a huge amount of um commercial property that could be developed there on that small two-lane road.

And for that to happen, along with the other um the trip count being close to six thousand or so right off the very road.

And I know that the those are kind of interlocked with the zoning, but it's not for the res two or the res four, but or res one, whatever it may be, these other things don't unlock underneath it.

And then, of course, if it goes res forward, then we have a possibility of you know the LLA coming in there and creating issues for us because now you open it up to where you have the ability to have these other developers, builders to come in and do these things that we're finding again.

As it stands now, we have essentially built up a barrier, or there's a naturally built barrier that's there that prevents that from happening.

My concern is that you have Steinbrenner that's across, you have a natural barrier that acts from the the loot plan in the Odessa Keystone plan, and which is the veterans.

Um the urban service boundary.

I I agree with Commissioner Whistle.

That that's gonna be one of those things that it looks like the states, you know, again preempting local um local home rule and enforcing what they want upon us.

But we have to try to draw the line at some point, and I think my biggest hang up is that if we open it up to you the res two, res four, that it now provides that chunk of land there to turn it into a commercial property where there's none anywhere around there for miles or mile and a half, and it's in Pasco County.

Can't can't control what happens in PASCO, that it creates a problem for us.

So um, for that, uh while I could likely support the urban service, I can't support a res board.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm gonna I'm gonna pass the gavel, and I know there's a appears to be a divided board, so I don't know if anything will pass, but um I'm gonna pass the gavel and and make a motion to to deny CPCP 2504 because I'll second it.

Is there a second?

I'm sorry, I couldn't Commissioner Bowles.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Bowles.

I'm sorry, I have a cold, I couldn't hear him.

Um we have a motion by uh Chair Hagen and a second by Commissioner Bowles.

Commissioner Woolstone Commissioner Walsh.

This is just the urban service area expansion item, right?

Not the rest of it.

Okay, so I will vote.

I will vote no on that denial.

Please record your votes.

Yes.

Commissioner Capeta.

She said it needs to be.

I can take your vote orally.

Just verbally.

Verbally.

Just verbally.

No.

I'm sorry.

No.

Thank you.

Motion carried four to three.

Commissioner Cameron Cepeda, Cohen, and Woostal voted no.

Okay.

Now we need a motion for HC CPA 2503.

I'll vote to deny a motion to deny by Commissioner Cohen.

HC CPA 2503, second by Commissioner Miller.

I don't see anyone in the queue.

Please record your vote.

Oh, wait, I didn't know.

Sorry.

Commissioner Bowles.

Yes.

Motion carries six to one.

Commissioner Cameron Cepeta voted no.

Okay.

Since both items were denied, uh, the no need to take action on the rezoning.

Correct.

Okay.

Thanks for coming down.

Oh, we have more to do, don't we?

We're not done.

Not yet.

The books should be quick.

Folks, thanks again for coming down, but ple please try to keep it quiet.

We have a couple other applications.

Okay.

Happy to do so.

The next item is item C one, and that presentation will be done by Miss Victoria Durand.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Victoria Duran Planning Commission staff.

Today we'll be presenting HC CPA 25-26, a text amendment to the South Hillsboro County Plan, currently known as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

For some background information, the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan was originally adopted in September 2003 and updated in September 2015.

It was established to guide coordinated growth and development in South Hillsboro County by addressing transportation needs, environmental protection, cultural and historic preservation, and economic development.

This text amendment is a publicly initiated amendment directed by the Board of County Commissioners on July 22nd, 2025 to rename the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan to the South Hillsborough County Plan within the livable communities element of the unincorporated county unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

The map on the right shows the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan boundary highlighted in blue.

This plan also incorporates several community plans within it, which I will mention on the next slide.

As part of this text amendment, all sections and elements referencing community plans within the comprehensive plan were reviewed.

Affected policy was only found within the livable communities element.

Accordingly, the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan, the Ruskin Community Plan, the Riverview Community Plan, the Apollo Beach Community Plan, and the Gibson Ton Community Plan will be updated to reflect the new name and maintain alignment throughout the comprehensive plan.

Also, the proposed name change will not affect the intent of policy.

And before I move on, I would like to mention that there were no comments received from any of the reviewing agencies.

Planning Commission staff found the proposed amendment consistent with the objectives and policies found on this slide.

The amendment aligns with the future land use and intergovernmental coordination elements of the comprehensive plan by supporting community planning, coordination, and consistency across adopted plans.

It reinforces policies that emphasize the role of community plans as integral tools for guiding long-term livable development and ensuring coordination among the county planning commission and affected agencies.

Overall, the amendment facilitates a coordinated community plan name change that improves clarity and consistency without altering the plan's intent.

The planning commission recommends that the proposed text amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

This concludes my presentation, and I am available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone like to speak to the item?

All right, can we have a motion to transmit?

Move move to approve.

Motion Commissioner Mars and Commissioner Miller.

Please record your vote.

Yes.

Commissioner Bowles.

Yes.

Motion carry seven to zero.

Okay, final item.

This item will be presented by me from the dais.

Would someone mind sharing my presentation?

Thank you.

So this will cover item C2 on the agenda.

Um C CPA 25-29.

I'll start the background since we've been here a long time tonight.

Um, there has been a trend of planned amendments to the suburban mixed use six or SMU6 and Office Commercial 20 or OC20 future land use categories in the rural area over the last few years.

Um there have also been several amendments that have requested light industrial and light industrial planned.

And while those don't necessarily um they don't increase density, they do allow for a very urban scale floor area ratio.

Overall, those categories would allow for a density and or intensity that's not supported by adopted policy direction, and some policies that have been identified in past reports include our rural area policies, transition of use policies, um policies about the compatibility as well as conflicts with community plan visions.

You can go to slide two if you don't mind.

Um, based upon this trend at the August 14th meeting of last year, the Board of County Commissioners directed planning commission staff to create a new rural future land use category that would allow for the consideration of uses that are more intensive than neighborhood serving commercial, but not as intensive as heavy industrial uses.

So this would be a category that would try to meet the needs of what we're seeing from an applicant perspective while also balancing the policies of the comprehensive plan.

Next slide, please.

So this is a publicly initiated plan amendment to add a new future land use category called the rural light industrial category to the future land use section of the comprehensive plan, as well as add a definition of limited light industrial uses to the definition section of the plan.

Next slide, please.

Three research efforts were conducted in this for this plan amendment.

The first one was to identify if any nearby or similar counties in the state of Florida have future land use categories that address this trending issue of privately initiated amendments that may result in an excess of intensity or density in more rural areas.

The counties we researched included Manatee, Polk, Pasco, Osceola, and that was due to their proximity to and sharing similar characteristics with Hillsborough County.

Each of the counties researched are currently still developing.

They have a variety of available lifestyles and they're experiencing development pressures that are similar to ours.

The second research effort involves staff researching the number of privately initiated plan amendments from January 2020 to the July 2025 cycle of plan amendments that requested one of those four future land use categories.

In total, there were 18 plan amendments requesting one of those, which represents approximately 18% of the total plan amendments, showing a distinct trend.

And the third research effort involved making a distinction between uses that are allowed in the commercial intensive zoning district or CI zoning district, but not allowed in other commercial zoning districts of CN or CG, commercial neighborhood or commercial general, as outlined in the land development code.

This distinction is important in that residential future land use categories allow for the consideration of neighborhood serving commercial uses, but they do not allow for commercial intensive zoning district uses.

Next slide, please.

Regarding the impacts, based on the board direction and the research that I just presented, staff is proposing a new category that would have a 0.25 floor area ratio, which would be similar to the other rural future land use categories.

The category would allow for no residential development but for limited accessory retail.

I'm sorry, accessory residential, like an on-site security guard, and that's similar to the light industrial categories.

And the category would allow for the consideration of limited light industrial uses, which would be defined as uses that are compatible with rural residential development patterns and do not produce significant noise, dust, odor, smoke, or vibration as specified in the Hillsborough County Land Development Code.

Examples include small-scale manufacturing, assembly of refined products, as well as warehousing and wholesale operations.

And then in order to control for compatibility issues on things like scale, building placement, additional buffering and screening, a planned development rezoning would be required.

I also want to add that no properties are being changed to this category at this time.

This category, if adopted, would be an option for private applicants as they apply for amendments in the future.

Next slide, please.

This slide outlines some agency comments of note.

There were no objections.

To save some time, I'll let you all read that quickly.

Next slide, please.

While formatting our recommendation, planning commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request.

Though the request is related to several general policies related to agriculture, staff found six main areas of consistency.

Next slide, please.

By utilizing the floor area ratio maximum that's typical of rural future land use categories, such as AR 1 to 5 and residential one, the development potential of a site designated as rural light industrial would be similar to the development expected in the rural area, which is consistent with the rural area policies.

Because the creation of this category fits a need in the as identified in the market, it is also consistent with direction in the future land use section with regard to providing job creation and optimizing economic benefits within the county.

Next slide, please.

By limiting the range of uses, the development potential of sites within this category would complement the rural area and the expected development pattern, which is consistent with neighborhood protection policies.

In addition, this category would allow for the consideration of agricultural and agricultural related uses, which is consistent with policy direction outlining that agriculture and their support uses are per the preferred use in the rural areas.

And it is intended that this category be located in the rural area only, with the intention of development in this category to not connect to public water and sewer unless an exception is as outlined in under objective 4.3 in the one water chapter is met.

Next slide, please.

that agriculture and their support uses are for the preferred use in the rural areas and is intended that this category be located in the rural area only with the intention of development in this category to not connect to public water and sewer unless an exception is as outlined in um under objective 4.3 in the one water chapter is met uh this component of the proposed um new category is consistent with that objective and its modifying policies next slide please based on that analysis planning commission recommends that the proposed text amendment be found consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan that concludes my presentation I'm here for any questions thank you all right thank you this public hearing anyone like to speak to the item can we have a motion to approve motion commissioner cohen send commissioner myers please record your vote yes commissioner bowls yes motion carried seven is zero lastly can we have a motion or resolution to transmit the two items that were approved tonight move to approve motion commissioner myers and commissioner miller please record your vote to transmit yes yes motion carried seven to zero okay with that or adjourn thank you mr chair