Show up and adopt today.

For more information, visit HCFL.gov slash.

Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing.

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

The board will also consider an application for rezoning, which will be considered concurrently with the related application for a future land use map amendment.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Myers.

I'm sorry.

Regarding CPA twenty five thirty-seven, the application, uh, the applicant has requested a continuance until the July twenty twenty six amendment cycle.

Can we have a motion for continuance?

Second.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion carried six to zero.

I will now request the planning commission staff introduce the first item on this evening's agenda.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Melissa Leinhard Planning Commission staff.

The items B1 and B2 will be presented by Miss Lily Ann Lineah.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff here to present HCCPA 2527 located at 5008 to 5044 Saffold Road.

This is a publicly initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 19.94 acres.

The applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area.

This amendment is associated with HCCPA 2528, which is a request to change the future land use category from agricultural rule 1 to 5 to residential 4.

This is the general location map.

As mentioned in the last slide, this is associated with HCCPA 2528.

It is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan and Wymama Village Plan.

It is located north of Saffold Road and west of County Road 579.

Here is an area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink, and the blue line indicates the existing urban service area boundary.

This was approved in applications HCCPA 2519 and 2020 2520 by the board on January 15th, 2026.

However, all the maps in this presentation and the one for 2528 won't reflect that change as these maps were done before those were approved.

The proposed amendment would bring approximately 19.94 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer.

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

The proposal meets the intent of Flu's Objective 1.1 and FLU's policy 1.1.9, which directs 80% of the population growth into the urban service area and establishes criteria for publicly and privately initiated urban service area amendments.

In this case, the subject site is adjacent and contiguous to the established urban service area.

The site is also adjacent to publicly initiated amendments that were directed by the Board of County Commissioners.

The request meets all of the criteria listed in Flu's Policy 1.1.9 according to FLU's objective 3.1 and policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 compatibility and gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses shall be provided for as new development is proposed.

The residential four future land use designation surrounds the site, and there are low density residential developments on all sides.

The transition to residential four on the subject site with an urban service area expansion would allow for density and intensity as compatible with the existing existing area.

Food's objective 4.4 and its associated policies seek to protect existing neighborhoods and communities, and those that will emerge in the future.

South of Saffold, there are mainly public, quasi-public, and institutional uses, and the pros proposed request complements the existing community character and existing development pattern.

Lastly, the proposal meets goal five of the Wai Mama Village Community Plan.

Goal five of the plan seeks to encourage housing to accommodate a diverse population and range of income levels.

The expansion of the urban service area and change of the future land use designation increases the type of housing allowed on the subject site as well as allows for housing on a smaller lot size, which can be more affordable for the residents in the Wimama village area.

The planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

This concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

We can move on to the uh HCCPA 2528.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff here to present HC CPA 2528, located at 5008 to 5044 Saffold Road.

This is a publicly initiated map amendment that is small on scale and approximately 19.94 acres.

The request is to change the future land use designation from agricultural rule one to five to residential four.

And as previously mentioned, this amendment is associated with the previously shown HCCPA 2527, which is a request to expand the urban service area.

This is the general location map.

It is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan and Wimama Village Plan, located north of Saffold Road and west of County Road 579.

Again, here is an area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink, and the blue line indicates the existing urban service area boundary.

Currently, the future land use designation is agricultural rule one to five.

The agricultural rule one to five category allows for one dwelling unit per five gross acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

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

Other future land use categories present in this map include natural preservation and residential four.

This amendment proposes to amend the future land use category to residential four.

I do want to point out that those two parcels that are green are actually residential four, as I mentioned in the last presentation.

Those were previously approved.

The residential four category allows for four dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural residential neighborhood commercial office uses and multi-purpose projects.

Currently, under the agricultural rule one to five future land use, the site could consider three dwelling units and a maximum of 217,146 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future of land use designation of residential four, the site could consider a maximum of 79 dwelling units or 217,146 square feet of non-residential uses.

Proposed amendment would allow for the consideration of increased residential density and will not increase the potential of commercial intensity.

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

It meets the intent of FLU's objective 1.1, which directs 80% of the population growth into the urban service area.

In this case, the subject site is um adjacent, contiguous to the established urban service area, and the request is also accompanied by an urban service area expansion.

According to FLU's objective 3.1 and policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.

Compatibility and gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses shall be provided for as new development is proposed.

Residential four land use designation surrounds the site, and there are low designity residential developments on all sides.

The transition to residential four on the subject site with the urban service area expansion would allow for density intensity that is compatible with the existing area.

The proposal meets the cultural historic and economic development goals of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

These goals seek to promote promote sustainable growth and development that is clustered and well planned to preserve the area's environment, cultural identity, and livability, and to analyze, identify, and market lands that are available for economic development, including residential, commercial, office, industrial, and agricultural uses.

The amendment is consistent with these goals as the proposed change will cluster potential development to the north side of Saffold Road while preserving the existing agricultural and natural uses to the south of Saffold and further to the east and west of the site, and also targets areas suitable for potential residential economic development.

Lastly, the proposal meets goal five of the Wymama Village Community Plan.

Goal five of the plan seeks to encourage housing to accommodate a diverse population and range of income levels.

The expansion of the urban service area and change of the future land use designation to residential four increases the type of housing allowed on the subject site, as well as allows for housing on smaller lot sizes, which can be more affordable for the residents of the Waimama village area.

The planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you very much.

At this time, the applicant has uh 15 minutes to present on both amendments.

Uh it was public and publicly initiated, so there's no applicant.

We are the applicant.

Oh, got it.

Okay, so we move on to public hearing.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um this is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak on HCCPA 2527 or HCCPA 2528, please come forward.

No, okay.

Need a motion.

Anyone in the queue?

Move approval.

Second.

So we're move for approval.

We have to have two votes, yes.

So 2527.

Um Commissioner Cohen motioned, uh, second by Commissioner Wussel on HCCPA 2527.

Please record your votes.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh what's the pleasure on HCCPA to move approval second?

We have a first.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Oh, my bad.

Um, 2528.

We have a motion by Commissioner Cohen, second by Commissioner Wussel.

Please record your vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Thank you.

Okay, at this time, uh, next item, please.

Yes, our next item is item B3, and that will be presented by Willow McCyke.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Willow Mickey with Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 25-34, located at 840 West Waters Avenue.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 41.92 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use category from residential 9 to residential 16.

Here we have a general location map.

The site is in the urban service area and within the limits of the town and country community plan.

Here's a photo of an aerial of the site.

That site is outlined here in pink.

It is located north of Westwaters Avenue, west of Pinehurst Drive, and east of Sheldon Road.

Next we have some site photos.

The site is in the Res 9 future land use category.

This category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

Surrounding land use categories include the Res 9 category located to the east and west of the subject site, with Res 12 further to the west.

To the east beyond the Res 9 are office commercial 20 and residential 20 categories.

Residential 6 surrounds the site to the north, northeast, and northwest, while residential 4 and residential 2 are located south of the site.

The request is to change the site to residential 16, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

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

Currently under Res 9, the site can be considered for up to 377 dwelling units and 913,017 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential 16 would allow for the consideration of 670 dwelling units and 913,017 square feet of non-residential uses.

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

This proposal has been reviewed by commenting agencies.

There were no objections.

However, the Hillsborough County Fire Rescue Department commented that this amendment would have a significant impact on HCFR responses.

The community infrastructure planning department commented that based on the traffic analysis, there will not be adequate capacity on most of the analyzed roadway segments.

And the offices of emergency management commented that the amendment raises concerns regarding additional residents in the area.

Future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.3 relate to the urban service area and encourage medium and high density residential and mixed use development within the urban service area to be located along designated centers and connections, which the site is partially within.

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

The proposed uses for the site aligned with the res 12 category and is consistent with these policies.

Objective 2.4 and 2.5, along with their associated policies, outline the centers and connections section.

The proposal meets these by encouraging higher residential density within these areas and providing diverse housing types.

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

The proposed res 16 feature land use category is compatible with the current development pattern that is seen within the vicinity of the site and would formally recognize the residential use that currently exists on the site.

Objective 4.4 emphasizes the importance of enhancing and preserving the existing neighborhoods and communities.

The uses that are permitted within the res 16 category would complement and appropriately integrate with the established residential character of the adjacent land uses.

And then finally, the housing section supports a range of housing options to affordably meet the needs of current and future residents.

Specifically manufactured and mobile homes shall be acknowledged as a viable means to provide affordable housing.

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

That concludes my presentation.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you very much.

The applicant has 15 minutes.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Nicole McKinnon is Barbis Kramer Law Firm.

I'm here today representing the property owner in connection with this comprehensive plan amendment application.

Staff did a great job, so I won't go through everything, but it's a 41.92 acre property within the county.

It's currently in the Res 9 future land use, and we are requesting the Res 16 category.

A bit about this property.

It was originally developed as a mobile home park back in 1970.

It's gone through multiple iterations of this mobile home park and was eventually converted a portion of it to an ALF facility.

The ALF facility was on the property for several years, and then unfortunately, due to COVID 19, a lot of facilities like that went under.

When that occurred, it changed how the density calculations are for residential homes on the property.

And so we are here today to bring this property into compliance with current county code and comprehensive plan.

We are not proposing to change the uses on the property.

We are not proposing redevelopment.

It is just to allow what is out there today to remain.

Here are some aerial photos.

This site has been developed as it's currently as it currently sits for several years.

You can see going back all the way to 1975.

There was quite a bit of development on this site.

And I'm gonna turn it over to David Smith to walk through the existing and future uh future land use.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

David Smith, Stearns Weaver Miller, Director of Development and Zoning.

Again, staff's done a great job setting the table for what the request is.

And so we are Res 9.

We're requesting to go to REST 16.

There was a companion companion zoning, which actually sucks the structure to recognize the existing uses and achieve the goal of what we're uh trying to achieve is that keep the people there uh ability to stay where they're living.

Um again, the request is to go from res 9 to res 916.

Um result that the ALF.

The density calculation uh that was in the place for ALFs is that five individuals or five residents equals one dwelling unit.

Uh, that is what caused the issue with the density.

We require roughly 669 uh residents out there.

The comprehensive plan amendment basically right sizes the project.

Uh, again, this has been uh in this basic configuration uh since the 70s, and it's just that the uses change within the boundaries of the property.

Um identified by the planning commission and us as well.

We're consistent with the comprehensive policies relative to urban service area, encouraging center and connections to have additional density increases, and uh therefore we recommend respectfully record uh request approval.

Also, I'd like to note the agency comments that were reflected.

Um I did a public records request in five years that have only been 25 public service um police or fire uh visits to this site.

So there's not going to be any uh any increase.

There's no change in actual occupants or density out there, uh, so this is not going to be a high demand facility.

Additionally, the from a traffic standpoint, uh the resident trips are on the road today for equivalent of 669 dwelling units, and that's what's anticipated to be there in the after uh situation.

Um with that, I'll turn it back over to uh Nicole.

We did go through extensive community engagement on this property.

We had a community meeting at a nearby facility.

We also set up a phone number and an email where residents could reach out to us to ask any questions about the project and what we were doing.

Um we did not have any opposition to what um the proposal was.

Residents want to stay in their homes, they don't want to see anything change out there.

Um so we've had no opposition.

We have staff recommendations of approval from planning commission staff as well as the planning commission for the comprehensive plan.

Um, walked through several of those goals, objectives, and policies.

Um there was a concern brought up about the potential for this site in the future to be redeveloped for some other type of use.

Um, we are amenable to entering into a private declaration to restrict the use of the property to prevent a traditional multi-family type development on this site if the commission is interested in that uh declaration.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, anyone wishing to speak to HCCPA 2534, please come forward.

No, okay.

Um the vote for the adoption of CPA 2534 will occur after or argument has been held on M260216.

Um, could I please have the clerk's office um administer the oath to all personality?

Commissioner in the queue.

Are you in the case?

Oh, okay.

All right.

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

All right, thank you.

You may be seated.

Thank you.

At this time, um, development services.

Commissioners, uh, the next item is related to item B4.

Uh, this is major mod application 26-216.

As noted, this is a request for a major modification to the uh existing 45.46 acre PD that's located on the north side of uh Waters Avenue uh east of uh Sheldon Road.

The request is to uh modify the the uh allowances that PD is currently approved for uh 19 191 resident um uh community residential home in the format where the majority of the sites are mobile homes.

Uh this request would allow for for conversion of this facility to the balance of 669 units for that existing mobile home park and also allow for an option in in the area identified at parcel B an existing building to convert the that building to for some multi-family via the conversion of some of the mobile home units to multifamily.

Uh based on the surrounding development pattern and development history of the site, uh staff uh based on the uh proposed res 16 uh comprehensive plan uh amendment uh does find this uh request approval with conditions uh planning commission found it consistent and the hearing officer also recommended approval and we're able for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, um we go back to the applicant.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Nicole McKinnonis, Barbis Kramer Law Firm, 2002 US Cleveland Street for the record.

Um here for the companion uh major modification application.

I won't go through all of this again, but again, it's a existing mobile home park and modular unit park that we are looking to keep the people who live out there in their homes.

Um I'm gonna turn it over to David Smith to walk a little bit more in detail through the site plan uh before we close.

Thank you.

Thank you again, David Smith, the director of development zoning Stern Juirumeller.

Yeah, this uh PD development that was already a PD that was PD'd in uh 2013.

Uh essentially the request is a major modification to change the uses allowed.

Uh the uses allowed are essentially to create a mobile home park and a rental um modular uh unit development uh for maximum 669 units.

Um essentially the footprint is remaining the same.

Uh the ALF building on parcel B is the only building on site that has uh that exists that has the opportunity to be converted uh for residential use, but in no situation uh will there be more than 669 dwelling units on it.

Uh conditions of approval establish a trade-off mechanism to create that so that we do not exceed that amount.

Um access to the park actually has been more restricted than it was originally.

There were about four access points.

Uh those have been restricted uh limited to two, uh one main access to Waters Avenue and a restricted access uh to majestic lane, which is on goes through a residential neighborhood immediately to our west, and that's to continue the protection of that neighborhood from uh development traffic.

Uh in looking at the site as indicated, traffic's essentially are gonna remain the same.

There are no out off-site improvements required.

Transit is available immediately in front of the facility, and uh we are consistent with comprehensive plan uh in the proposed uh residential uh 16 development.

Uh the connectivity policy centers and connections really is the driving force for consistency.

Uh this increase in density is consistent with that policy as Waters Avenue has been identified as a connection.

Took in consistent with the comp plan, consistent with town and country plan, uh recommended for approval by the ZHM, uh, which I think Joanne is gonna say that, um, but also uh recommended uh for approval subject conditions by staff and found consistent with comprehensive plan uh by the planning commission.

Uh again, I mentioned earlier the daily trips, even though this is a calculation that has to be done for review purposes, it's not gonna change.

There's no increase directly related to uh this PD amendment.

Um we're here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

At this time, I do have to ask for any proponent testimony.

Are there any opponent testimony?

Planning commission staff.

The site is in the urban service area and within the town and country community plan.

A portion of the site is in the coastal high hazard area.

The site is designated as res 9 on the future land use map.

However, there is a pending comprehensive plan map amendment, HCCP 25-34 to change a portion of the site's designation to residential 16.

The requested major modification is concurrent with and dependent upon the approval of that amendment.

The RES 16 category permits a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum intensity of a 0.54 area ratio.

With 41.55 acres in the res 16, the site could be considered for up to 644 dwelling units, and with 3.08 acres being within the res 9 category, 27 dwelling units can be considered, totaling the maximum density to be up to 691 dwelling units.

The request for 669 units is within the allowable density and does not propose any additional units or physical expansion beyond the existing development, which is consistent with development expected in these categories.

While Res 16 permits a higher density than adjacent residential four and residential six and residential nine future land use categories, all surrounding properties are residential in character, creating a logical transition among residential density categories.

Thank you very much.

The zoning hearing master recommended approval.

Thank you very much.

We'll now go into board discussion.

Uh Commissioner Wistel, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

I I was the one who asked for the restrictive covenant just as a protection mechanism because of density bonuses that they could come in, and then all of a sudden it's res 20, and it's not what we expected.

And I think 10 years is a pretty fair amount of time.

I mean, nothing's gonna stay exactly the same forever, and I'm cognizant of that.

But I've I've always found the applicant to be um very kind and credible, and um I'm I'm happy that they brought this forward, and I'm happy to hear that they're making efforts to not displace the current ref um residents.

So I will move for approval with the addition of the um protective covenant that was offered by the applicant.

Second thank you very much.

We have a motion by Commissioner Wistel and second by Commissioner Cohen.

Um I see uh Commissioner, you were in the queue.

Yeah, I just want I agree with you.

I think that was very uh intelligent that you did that.

Um I I also uh think that at the end of the day, this application being approved means that we will really safeguard the homesteads of uh a very large number of people who live in this neighborhood and don't want to live under the uncertainty of being in something that is non-conforming.

So I'm really happy to support it, and I'm glad that uh the status quo will be able to be maintained for everyone that lives there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cameron Sabeta.

Yes, thank you.

Um, Planning Commission, um, did you say there were issues or concerns with fire rescue?

Did you say there were um so the agencies look at the future land use category and maybe aren't looking at the exact proposal?

So there's no additional development or increase in um density, and so those wouldn't really be an issue in this particular case.

So you're saying there were no concerns with fire rescue?

Um well the fire rescue department did write that in their agency comments um as but I think they were looking as at it as if it's an increase increase in density, um and although the feature land use category is technically an increase in density, um, there is no um density increase as far as the development.

Okay, and there were no concerns with infrastructure in that area.

No.

And um emergency management had no concerns.

I think the same thing could be said for emergency management.

Um let me see what their exact comment was.

Commented that the amendment raises concerns regarding the placement of hundreds of additional residents in an area with highly vulnerable to storm surge.

However, the amount of residents are is going to stay the same.

If I may, if you don't mind.

Um, what Ms.

Um Mickey is trying to say, or what she is saying, is that agency comments are recognizing a change from residential nine to residential 16, but there's a nuance in this case in that the units are already there and they're recognizing that with the plan amendment.

So the comments are based on a jump from nine units an acre to 16 units an acre, but the 16 units an acre are already there.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wistel.

You're good.

You understand that the amount of units aren't changing and the impacts aren't changing.

Okay, cool.

Cool.

Seeing no one else in the queue.

Um I have a motion by Commissioner Wistel, a second by Commissioner Cohen on CPA 2534 with the additional um proposed change amendment.

Please record your vote.

Yep.

Yes.

Motion carried seven to zero.

What's the pleasure on MM 260216?

Move approval.

Second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Cohen, a second by Commissioner Wussel.

Please record your vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion carried seven to zero.

With that, we have no other items, and we are adjourned.