We'll assess the situation.

I mean, look at these talks of my garbage.

I mean, that's just a Did you see those facts through there?

She was very upset about losing all of her cats.

Uh, she she called me up uh a few times in tears.

I need my photos.

I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see.

Getting where you need to go shouldn't be a struggle.

That's why Hillsborough County offers Sunshine Line, a transportation service for residents who need a little extra help.

If you have no mode of transportation, you may qualify for Sunshine Line's door-to-door service based on age, disability, or income.

For those who live in the heart service area, you may be eligible for an income-based bus pass program.

Sunshine Lines trained drivers provide safe shared rides, helping you to and from the vehicle and making sure you're secured every step of the way.

Scheduling is simple.

Just call 813-272-7272 to see if you qualify and start your application process today.

Sunshine Line is here to keep you moving safely, affordably, and with a smile.gov slash Sunshine Line to learn more and get started today.

Sunshine Line.

The Planning Commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play.

For more information about the Planning Commission, please call 813-272-5940.

Follow us on social media or visit our website at Planhillsboro.org.

Welcome everyone to the May 11th, 2026 regular meeting of the Hillsboro County City County Planning Commission.

We thank you for attending this meeting.

Your comments and participation are encouraged.

For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the at the reception desk and turn off any devices that may be a distraction.

Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking.

State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits.

If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org.

For action items, the meeting will be conducted as follows.

The agenda item will be introduced.

Staff will give their presentation with a 15 minute time limit.

The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit.

Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chair.

Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person.

The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal response.

Planning commissioners will ask questions.

Public comment will be closed.

Then upon a motion, a second and discussion of vote will be taken.

With that introduction, I'd like to ask Commissioner Kona to please lead us in the invocation and the pledge of allegiance.

You are able, please rise.

Heavenly Father, with sincere gratitude, we ask for your blessings on the mission of the planning commission, and that our meeting today we bring together our different perspectives together and make decisions that are in the best interest of our community.

Amen.

Please join me in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Kona.

That I'd like to ask the clerk's representative to please go ahead and call roll.

Yeah.

Cardinas.

Kona Jemison.

Here.

Kugler.

Here.

Lenkos.

Lauk.

Here.

Seaban.

Here.

Sink.

Orton.

Barry.

Here.

Chair Joseph.

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up is the approval of minutes for the following meetings.

First up, we have Hillsborough County Planning Commission regular meeting minutes for March 9th, 2026.

We have Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on City of Plant City Plan Amendments for March 9th, 2026.

We have Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on unincorporated Hillsborough County Plan Amendments March 9th, 2026.

And Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on City of Tampa redistricting March 9th, 2026.

Is there a motion?

Commissioner Brown.

I make a motion to approve the minutes.

All right.

Commissioner Lau.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion of approval.

Second by Commissioner Lauk.

Motion by Commissioner Bowden.

Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote?

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

That motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Next up, we have public input for items not scheduled for action on the agenda.

And we have one speaker who signed up in the public comment for that, and that would be Amanda Brown.

And they should be virtual.

HTV.

Amanda, go ahead.

Yes.

Yes, hi.

This is Amanda Brown.

I'm calling to voice my strong opposition to any dismantling of the urban service area.

Uh, what I heard at the April 15th BOCC meeting was quite alarming.

It sounds like discussion is being used or could be used to specifically do away with the USA.

We should not be opening this can of worms.

Uh, we need to adhere to the comprehensive plan we already have and just look at the process and overarching board policies.

Uh, just want to take a quick second to recall former county commissioner Stacey Casey White's tradition of opening land use meetings at a prayer that recognizes land as a finite resource.

Uh, you are stewards of that finite resource and your decisions have real consequences for those on the ground.

With this in mind, if the board moves forward with the actions regarding the USA, I think we can make some policy reforms without adjusting the comprehensive plan and redoing uh or doing away with the USA.

Um, I'll remind you that this is a plan we just spent significant public money to update.

And so here are my recommendations.

One, we need fair analysis of comp plan applications, staff reports and recommendations can and should clearly note or applications are both consistent and inconsistent with the comp plan to help you make better motions and decisions.

Two proper notification mandate signage and public outreach for all map and text amendments.

That is appalling that some items like the recent court or text amendments have happened without proper notice, like signs or public input.

Three, we need an expansion moratorium.

If a total USA overhaul is being considered, we must immediately suspend all current uh USA expansion studies.

Four, we need better public access to planning commissioners.

Um, at the very least, we need a contract form to ensure that you guys are accessible to the public.

It sounds like some of you meet with BOCT members regularly.

Uh, how can we gain similar access?

Five communication logs and conflict of interest protections.

Uh, we need a way to track meetings with uh developers and lobbyists by the members and staff and ensure that the board attorney and all consultants do not have ties to the development community that they are making decisions for.

And six, the biggest point better data analysis and matrix and metrics at Commissioner Collin has duly noted, we need to make decisions based on real on-the-ground data with analysis of the actual scene units and buildings, not just the aoretical future land use.

So, in summary, we have a growth management problem, and the solution to a perceived any perceived hasy gap is not to dismantle our boundary policies, but to better manage them.

I am concerned that the direction of recent four discussions reflect the shift away from planning principle, the public expects and leans instead toward the easy path of doing the away with the USA.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

That was the only public person signed up in the public comment for items not scheduled on the agenda.

So we will move right along to our briefings and presentations because we have no action items for this meeting.

And our first presentation is 3A, City of Temple Terrace, Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Section 12-827 easements, and the presenters are Krista Kelly and Kim Ford.

Good afternoon, Krista Kelly Planning Commission staff.

Um the item before you is a public and publicly initiated amendment to the Temple Terrace LDC land development code section 12.

Okay.

The item before you is a publicly initiated amendment to the Temple Terrace LDC section 12827 relating to easements.

Um action is required at this time.

I will turn this over to Mr.

Kim Ford with Temple Terraces Public Works Department, and he will present an overview of the proposed amendment.

Following Mr.

Ford's presentation, both of us will be available for questions.

There we go.

Good afternoon, Kim Ford, Temple Terrace Public Works.

Uh, here to present uh the code revisions for uh for easements and including drainage easements, uh provide guidance and clarification regarding these easements uh for the homeowner and for the city's benefit.

The city of Temple Terrace needs to do work in drainage easements to uh provide for drainage as some of the areas are subject to flooding.

Uh the designs that we do uh are going to be uh uh permanent uh construction and will be in the easements in the property owners' property, but we need access to them and agreements with them so that we can maintain them.

And the current code does not provide uh enough clarification for the owners to understand that we need access in and out to do the things that we need to do.

We have a lot on one page.

There's a little bit of redundancy.

The first paragraph is regarding getting permits for permanent structures that may be in an easement, such as uh a fence or uh it needs to be uh frangible uh and no non-frangible, and we need to make sure that it's not a fence or a shed that could be blocking the drainage that uh we're trying to provide a conveyance for the owners is responsible for mowing and maintaining uh the city is responsible for major repairs.

The city may access drainage easements at reasonable times without permission.

That's uh here in the center part of this code.

Uh easements are recorded and transferred to subject subsequent owners.

Uh just to go through some of the uh some of the uh new revisions that we have.

The drainage easements described uh is a legal right, and the owners are responsible for maintaining the easement area.

Uh the purpose it grants the right for the city to enter the property, allows for the inspections and maintenance of the pipes, culverts, and ditches.

It protects the property from flooding when we're able to maintain it adequately.

The owner of the land is responsible for maintenance.

This is uh in responsibilities and restrictions, uh permanent structures may be prohibited.

Uh the easement is recorded, removal of storage means that the owner needs to provide access for us.

This particular item was elaborated on by several people, and it's uh the next one is the owner shall allow.

That's the one that was added to many different kinds of things that go on in drainage easements that uh need to be cleared out of the way so that we can do our work.

Any questions?

All right, are there any questions from the planning commissioners on this item?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

Very much, sir.

Look forward to it coming back to us.

Next up, we have briefing B, PCCPA 26-01.

Comprehensive plan map amendment 103 and 107 Johnson Road, and the presenter is again Krista Kelly.

Uh thank you again, Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff.

Um, today I'm presenting PC CPA 2601.

The site is located at 103 and 107 Johnson Road.

Uh this is privately initiated and a small scale amendment.

The site is totals 2.25 acres approximately.

Um the site is pending approval of a voluntary annexation.

The applicate the applicant is requesting the change from Hillsborough County Residential One to Plant City Gateway District.

As you see on the location map, the site's located in the southern portion of Plant City.

It is set on the south side of Johnson Road, west of J James L.

Redmond Parkway, and east of Apostle Iris Way Road.

The site is approximately 2.7 miles north of State Road 60 and approximately five miles south of I-4.

Here you see the subject site outlined in pink.

Um as you can see, it is developed and it consists of two parcels.

Uh, the parcel on the to the west is developed with a single family home, and the parcel on the east is developed with a community church and facilities in the back.

Um, as you can see, this area is uh a mixture of uses to the north.

There are more intense uses directly to the north of the site, is uh parkway plaza.

Uh, this is a uh retail plaza with a grocery store bank, a medical facility.

Um, and to the northeast, you see more retail, it's just a mixture of car sales, veterinary services, that type of thing.

Um, to the west along Johnson Road, you'll see that the area is predominantly rural residential, homes on large tracts and agricultural uses directly to the south.

Um, is the first Baptist uh church campus?

It's approximately 50 acres in size, and in fact, the subject site is surplus property from this um the church that they're uh dispensing of.

As you see to the southwest, there is a suburban scale subdivision that has gone in gone in recently, and then to the east across uh James L.

Redmond, you see an open field, however, the the aerial is a little dated, and currently this area is developed developed with multiple multifamily um facilities.

Uh okay, here is the adoptive future land use map showing the site currently designated Hillsborough County Residential One.

Uh the blue line indicates the uh plant city city limits, and as you can see within the city limits, the area to the north, south, and east are designated uh gateway district in plant city.

This is a map showing the proposed change, and now the site showing as uh gateway district.

Uh this site uh buts again the church, which is also gateway district and is across the street from gateway district properties, generally encompassed by the uh parkway plaza.

Um currently the site would allow consideration for up to two dwelling units, um, although it is developed, and up to 24,502 square feet of non-residential uses.

Um if the proposed change to gateway district were approved, up to 32 dwelling units could be considered, and up to 34,303 square feet of non-residential use could be also considered.

Overall, the proposed amendment will allow an additional 30 units and increase the square footage for non-residential use to by 9,801 square feet.

That it concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

I have a quick question.

So it's it's jurisdictionally it's in Hillsborough County or it's in Plant City.

Currently it's in Hillsborough County.

They're concurrently processing a request for an annexation in the plan amendment.

Okay, all right.

Any other questions?

Not seeing any, but thank you for the information.

And we will move on to our next agenda item 3C, PCCPA 26 02, comprehensive plan map amendment, 302 Sparkman Road, and the presenter is again Krista Kelly.

Thank you.

Krista Kelly Planning Commission staff.

Um this is PC CPA 2602.

The site's located at 302 Sparkman Road.

Again, this is a privately initiated small scale amendment.

The site's approximately 33.9 acres in size, and it is also pending approval of a voluntary annexation, currently being in the county until this is approved.

The applicant's requesting a change from Hillsborough County Residential 1 and is requesting a change to Plant City Residential 6 and Residential 9.

The location map again shows it on the south side of uh Plant City.

Um as you might it's kind of hard to tell here, but it's it's essentially across the street from the amendment I just presented behind the multifamily housing I had pointed out on the aerial.

The site is on the north side of Sparkman's Road, east of James L.

Redmond Parkway, and west of Gerald Hall Road.

I-4 is approximately five miles north of the site, and State Road 60 is approximately 2.7 miles to the south of the site.

Again, the site's outlined in pink.

As you can see, it's used for agricultural purposes at this time.

Um to the west of the site, you see the open field, however, it is actually developed with multifamily uh complexes.

Um to the east, you see rural residential uses with and some agricultural uses.

To the north, it abuts commercial uses.

Again, those are the retail uses, car sales, veterinary service, restaurants, that type of thing.

And to the south, uh, the area reflects a agricultural setting.

This is the adopted future land use map showing the site designated Hillsborough County Residential One at this time.

As you see, the site abuts the gateway district in Plant City, which is delineated by the blue lines here.

Um butts lands designated gateway district to the north and west and south.

The proposed map shows that the site designated residential six on the eastern portion and residential nine on the western portion.

The idea behind this by the applicant was to provide a nice transition from the gateway district intensity between that and the agricultural uses to the east and south.

Currently, the site allows up to 33 dwelling units and approximate 369 square feet of non-residential uses.

If approved, up to 270 dwelling units could be considered, and as well as 467,616 square feet of non-residential use.

In summary, the proposed amendment would allow an additional 237 units and an increase of nine 98,445 square feet of non-residential uses.

And again, I conclude uh my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

Yes, Commissioner Kugluk.

Yeah, thank thank you.

Um I'm guessing that from from your talk that the res 69 is less intense, less dense than the gateway.

Yeah, the gateway allows up to 16 dwelling units per acre and also a higher floor area ratio.

Okay, thank you.

It's it's intended to be an urban gateway, uh, you know, a place where you know you're entering plant city and it's urbanizing.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

So any other questions from the commissioners?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

And move on to our next agenda item.

We have PCCPA 26-03, comprehensive plan map amendment south of the Nota Sassa Road, west of North Woodrow Wilson Street.

Krista Kelly.

Thank you.

Krista Kelly Planning Commission staff.

Uh PCCPA 2603 is a future land use map amendment.

It's located south of Thona Tassassa Road, west of North Woodrow Wilson Street.

It's privately initiated, and a small scale amendment, it's approximately 13.12 acres in size.

Currently, the site's designated Plant City Commercial and Residential 6, and the applicant is requesting the site to be entirely designated commercial.

As you see on the location map, it's on the western side of Plant City.

It's south of Sona Thona Tassassa Road and west of North Woodrow Wilson Street.

It's a quarter mile south of I-4, and it's adjacent to Baker Street to the south, which is also known as State Road 92.

The aerial shows the site outlined in pink.

As you can see, it's heavily wooded.

There are quite a bit of wetlands on this site.

The applicant has provided a delineation that will be addressed more at the zoning level.

As you see, the areas adjacent to the site to the west and south are also areas that are heavily wooded and contain wetlands.

However, to the north, running along Thunatassal Road, there's very intense commercial uses off the interchange of I-4 up here.

On this corner here, I want to point out is a bank, and that the bank property may be considered for access to the site.

As you notice, this site you can't see the sliver here, but that that there is a sliver between the site and the roadway, so the applicant is investigating how to obtain access through that site.

As you can see to the east, across Thona Tassassa Road, the area is predominantly residential.

Here's the future land use map as it's adopted today.

The bright yellow is residential six, and the red area is commercial.

As you can see, all the areas surrounding Thonatasassa Road is commercial.

The proposed map now shows the site entirely entirely designated commercial.

Currently up to 69 dwelling units or up to 156,510 square feet of non-residential uses can be considered.

If approved, um 41 dwelling units in 2002 square feet of non-residential uses could be considered.

Um in dwelling units and an increase of 43,725 square feet of non-residential uses.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one?

Not seeing anyone.

Well, thank you for the information.

Thank you.

Look forward to it coming back and move on to our next agenda item 3E.

City of Temple Terrace Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Section 12-40, definitions and section 12-81, reasonable accommodation procedures for recovery recovery residences.

And the presenters are Yunika Mills and Alyssa Livingstone.

Good afternoon, Unica Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to introduce Alyssa Livingstone.

She'll be briefing the recovery residences land development code amendment with you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Alyssa Livingstone, Senior Planner for the City of Templeteris.

I'm here to present proposed text amendments to or land development code regarding definitions, policies, and procedures that govern recovery residencies.

This update is designed to align the city's administrative procedures with Florida statutes and federal fair housing protections.

Specifically, the revisions focus on Section 1240 definitions and Section 1281, reasonable accommodation procedures.

The proposed amendment to section 1281, reasonable accommodation procedures implements the requirements of section 397.487.

Florida statutes by establishing a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any land development code regulation that may prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence.

In this section, a disabled individual is defined as someone who qualifies as disabled or handicapped under the FHA and or ADA and has a disability as defined by Section 760.22 Florida statutes.

These individuals may request reasonable accommodations regarding the city's LDC and procedures as provided by the Federal Fair Housing Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

To ensure administrative accountability, the community development department will date stamp completed applications upon receipt.

The city manager or the designee may request additional information within 30 days of the initial filing.

The applicant then has 30 days to provide the requested documentation.

Once an application is deemed complete, the city has 60 days to issue a final determination.

If a request is denied, the city must provide evidence-based reasons for the denial, identifying specific deficiencies or actions required for reconsideration.

To ensure predictable timelines, the code establishes the 60-day review period as a firm deadline.

Failure to meet this deadline results in a deemed approved status unless a written extension is mutually agreed upon by both parties.

These proposed amendments ensure that the city of Temple Terrace remains a compliant and inclusive community, fully aligned with federal fair housing protections.

By formalizing these procedures, we are providing certified recovery residences with a clear and consistent pathway for establishment under state mandated guidelines.

Staff recommends approval of these text amendments to ensure our land development code remains a precise and effective tool for the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Comments from the commissioners.

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

Look forward to this one coming back to us.

And we will move on to our final agenda item.

3F TTCPA 26-01 comprehensive plan map amendment.

Southeast Quadrant of Harney Road and U.S.

Highway 301, and the presenter is Yunika Mills.

Good afternoon again, Unica Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present TTCPA 2601 located at the Southeast Quadrant of U.S.

Highway 301 and Harney Road.

This is a privately initiated amendment small and scale to little over 12 acres.

And the applicant is requesting to change their future land use designation from Hillsborough County Community Mixed Use 12 to Temple Terrace Community Mixed Use 12.

The site is specifically located on the south side of Harney, east of U.S.

Highway 301.

It's just east of the Amazon Distribution Center, west of the Bypass Canal, as well as west of Interstate 75, and it also falls within Temple Terrace's designated future economic development area, which is intended to identify it as a community activity center, and it's intended to boost job growth.

Here's an area of the site outlined in pink.

Some of the uses in the area include again the Amazon Distribution Center, which is off to the west.

We have some single family located to the northwest.

On this corner, there is a church.

Just directly to the south of the site is a construction company.

And then along Bowls Road, we have some vacant as well as single family uh residential uses.

And this blue line dashed line uh designates the jurisdictional boundary between unincorporated Hillsburg County and Temple Terrace.

Currently, the site is designated under Hillsburg County as Community Mixed Use 12.

Um, as you can see, other future land use designations in the area.

We have a more presence of Hillsburg County Community Mixed Use 12 directly to the east, the south, the southwest.

We have a presence of urban mixed use 20 in the light purple to the northwest.

Uh, and then we have public quasi public and the light blue, uh, which is designated the Tampa Bypass Canal, and then we have a presence of residential four here in the light tan color, and then residential nine and the darker tan to the further northwest.

And the applicant is proposing to change the future land use designation to Temple Terraces Community Mixed Use 12.

Currently, under the um entitlements for the site, uh, up to 146 dwelling units could be um developed or uh 265,716 square feet of non-residential uses.

The potential would remain exactly the same as far as units as well as the non-residential potential for Temple Terraces Community Mixed Use 12.

That concludes my presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the commissioners?

Not seeing anyone.

Well, thank you for the information.

Look forward to it coming back and move on to our next agenda item, our number four executive director's report.

And the presenter is Melissa Zornita.

Good afternoon, Melissa Zornita, executive director.

Um, at your seats, you should have a copy of my report.

Um, just wanted to highlight a couple of things.

Um shortly after our last meeting, um, Chair Joseph and I had the opportunity to uh appear at the Board of County Commissioners regarding the letter that was sent from the Planning Commission on the urban service area.

Uh, they had a good discussion.

I shared with you all the video of the presentation that we made and the discussion that was had at the conclusion of that agenda item.

Commissioner Wistel indicated that he would bring back a follow-up agenda item for the board's action.

Um, and no action was requested or taken on April 15th.

So at the time of this meeting, there hasn't been any action taken.

Um, they've had some other big things on their plate that they're considering right now.

Um, but uh it's fully anticipate that that will be back in front of the board for some direction on their consideration uh in the near future.

Um we've had uh another round of the first round of meetings on the urban expansion area uh in the I-4 corridor that was in the middle of April.

Um then we've also been having a series of meetings on the Riverview Community Plan Update that we've been working on in conjunction with the Tampa Express, Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority, and they're looking at the extension of the Crosstown Expressway down to originally it was to Big Bend Road, now they're looking all the way down to um 674 uh in Sun City.

So we um have been have a survey out right now.

Um we have a number of surveys out.

I think we've got one in the I-4 corridor going on, and we've got one in the Riverview community going uh regarding feedback on the updated goals for that community plan.

And we're looking and working with THIA on the timing of the next phases of that update based on where they are headed and the timing of the PDE that they're looking at for the extension of the uh expressway because we don't want the community plan to get too far ahead of where they are.

Um, we want the that work to be very complementary with their uh with their study.

Um let's see.

Last week I had the opportunity to be a panelist at the West Shore Alliance Development Forum.

That was a great event.

Um a lot of energy around the West Shore area and it becoming uh more of a regional activity center with a lot of opportunity for residential growth in addition to the business growth.

They wanted to hear about how the Tampa Comprehensive Plan could be a part of that.

Um so that was great.

They're very supportive of the direction that the update of the Tampa plan was headed in.

Um so hopefully we can get the Tampa Comprehensive Plan uh adopted.

Um as an update on that, I sent you last week that we did send our responses to the Department of Commerce to each of their points on the policies that they identified as more restrictive and burdensome.

What they indicated when we spoke with them uh several weeks ago uh at the beginning of April, was that it could take several weeks to a month for them to review the our responses and additional data and analysis that was provided and get back to us about that.

So we have been trying to be proactive in scheduling a meeting with them and uh getting something on the calendar to kind of encourage them to move ahead.

Um, and uh, but we have not gotten something scheduled as of yet for later this month.

So um we are anxiously awaiting their review of what we've sent them.

And uh we'll continue to keep you all posted as we hear more from them.

Um I would highlight under the information items that we did hear back from a quorum of you all that you could attend the joint meeting with Temple Terrace City Council on August 17th.

So we went ahead and scheduled that from 4 to 5:30 that afternoon.

It will be held out in Temple Terrace as soon as we get all the the details around location, we'll send that out to you.

Um but that will be similar to the meeting that we held with jointly with Plant City.

Uh we've been working on their visioning and have a survey that is open and through I believe the beginning of July, and we'll have similar to what we did with Plant City those initial results from the survey to share with you all and the Temple Terrace City Council and some initial findings on themes for for their updated vision and comprehensive plan and want to get feedback from you all at that time.

So that's the intent of the meeting.

We found it to be very successful with Plant City to have that joint conversation and wanted to do that again with Temple Terrace.

Um with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Discussion items from the commissioners.

Not seeing much excitement.

Well, thank you for the information.

Thank you.

And move on with our agenda.

Next up, we have other business, chairs business.

I don't have any at this time.

Um business.

We do have some.

The recommendation to establish structured public comment time limits.

Yes.

So we wanted to continue the discussion on that and see if there were any direction we might want to give staff or anything we might want to get in motion going here.

We kind of pushed it from last meeting, Commissioner Kona, since you weren't here and make sure we get your input on this as we go forward.

So hopefully everyone got the email from Mr.

Robin on this and was able to look through it.

Thank you, Tracy, for that, giving us some obviously guardrails to keep us on the road, as you always usually say, keep us out of the ditches.

So anybody have any thoughts or comments, Commissioner Kona?

No, if you want might want to leave.

Yeah, thanks.

Um, I appreciate you uh bringing this back.

I do think that um looking at the uh information that staff sent and Tracy sent that we do have the ability to make changes if we wanted to.

I think the board does have that under its purview.

Um what I would kind of like to see, and I kind of stressed this the last time uh we had this discussion is that we had a time limit on the amount of public comment per agenda item.

So if we give the applicant fifteen minutes, we give staff 15 minutes.

I think giving public comment on per agenda item 15 to 30 minutes, depending on uh what we have, I think is is a good time limit.

And technically, if we have a room that's filled with people and the chair chooses to or the uh board chooses to extend public comment for a particular item that is, but I do think having some sort of structured time limit where this board can actually get to work on determining um you know land use for the people who are paying to be here.

So that's just my comment, but I'll open it up to any other feedback that you guys have.

All right.

Any other thoughts or comments on that?

Tracy, is that accurate?

I kind of I thought from the information you had sent that you had recommended we don't necessarily put a fixed determinate limit on the overall time.

You're correct, Mr.

Chair, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum.

Okay.

Yeah, and looking at the memorandum, when I looked at it, I mean I agree with you, Commissioner Kona, when I first we were first talking about it, I was like, I'm for that kind of capping it off.

But looking at the information Tracy sent to us on the state statutes and stuff, it didn't seem like that was necessarily the best way.

But going through the other information, the thing I did like that he spoke about was setting a number.

So like the first ten people get three minutes apiece, the next five people get two minutes apiece, and then after that everyone gets 90 seconds.

So that kind of controls how much time, you know what I mean.

And I think he also said we may be able to vote to have people stand up and signify which side they're on.

Obviously, we still have to offer people the opportunity to speak, but oftentimes that kind of once people raise their hand in mass and show themselves, it kind of gives them an opportunity to say that I'm on this side or that, which is what we're trying to get across in all this.

So I didn't know if you were or if there were any thoughts or comments from the commissioners on any of that or the stuff Tracy sent, or can I?

Yeah, Ms.

Ornita.

Because I guess I read Tracy's memo a little differently, maybe than you did.

Were you indicating that the time would get shorter at base so like the first 10 people would get three minutes, the next would get two minutes, like, or that based on the number of people who've signed up, we would shrink the time for everyone.

Well, there's that's how I read it.

So that's why I was curious.

No, I I actually did the the former, which was I believe what Orange County has been doing as an example.

I thought that was pretty creative on the part of their council was the example that I put in there of but you can do variations on theme, so to speak.

Okay.

You could, you know, it was that example was to get everybody thinking about it.

Um and you could you can kind of mix and match that and make that work.

Um regardless of the number.

Yeah, I think, and I'm sure you jumped in because it's sort of a task for staff to handle when you're trying to figure those things out, keep a track of it, and that's an important part of this also, you know.

And I mean it's staff's gonna kind of have to keep an eye on these sorts of things.

I mean, obviously I do it here on the roll from the chair, but I mean they they all go through staff in the public comment sign up.

So it breaking those things up kind of makes a little bit more work for them.

So, you know, I'm open to any sort of creativity, like Tracy said also.

Any ideas.

But I do again agree overall, like Commissioner Kona said, we need to do something because when we have a room full of people and they're kind of just saying the same thing over and over again, it can go kind of long, and we do have time limits on these meetings.

Once it gets to be 10 o'clock, you know, we've not we haven't had it happen before, but that point in time basically I call to you all and see if we want to take a vote to continue the meeting or whether we want to push the meeting.

So you're talking about pushing our business back and back and back based on how many people we have filled up the room.

So I think Commissioner Kona is very salient and saying we have to figure something out here, you know, some happy medium.

Commissioner Kona.

Well, I I appreciate their the recommendation, but even if you were I mean, how do you say you know the first 10 get 30 minutes if you're not actually setting a time limit, right?

There has to be some sort of time limit when you're dealing with, oh well, the first 10 get 30 uh three minutes, the next get two, like so until 10 o'clock or until you know we decide that we're just tired of hearing it.

I think a little bit of structure, I don't think there's anything in the in the law that says um we're not allowed to put a um a limit on the amount of time.

So I think it's in our purview to to do that.

And if we wanted to extend said time, we can.

Now obviously this happens probably in three out of ten of our of our work, but those those three potentially affect the rest of the people on the agenda and the rest of the people who are also paying to have their their case heard in a timely manner as well.

So um I I would be in favor of at least putting some sort of time structure that could be extended if it needed to be.

Okay.

Commissioner Lau.

At the risk of being a little contrarian here to the first two comments, uh, two things spring to mind.

One, I think we need to be careful not managing to the outlier.

And so five years on this body, I can think of maybe five or six times where we've been here really, really late, and it's been just candidly an egregious amount of time where we've had a lot of folks come to the podium.

Uh item two in my brain that kind of springs, I would want to over-index towards ensuring that we afford every opportunity to the public to come forward and voice their considerations.

So while I don't want to be here at 10 o'clock at night or 9 30 at night on the regular, I would be in favor of some sort of structured approach similar to what I've heard described that's happening in Orange County, but you know, maybe a 15-minute lock.

I'm not I'm not sure where my brain is on that.

It's food for thought.

Commissioner Seaban.

You know, another potential not to just throw out problems, but you know, another potential issue is is if a certain amount of people get three minutes, a certain amount of people get two minutes.

How do we determine who goes, you know, who gets what how many minutes?

That sounds like a logistical nightmare just from practicality standpoint.

I was hoping to dump that on staff.

Actually, just gonna make that Ms.

Ornita's problems.

Well, and honestly, I just had a staff member chat me and say, well, what if all the proponents sign up for the first 10 and then the opponents sign up later or vice versa, you know, so it becomes a who signs up first and fastest, like um so it would I don't know, almost be preferable to have some amount of time set aside for proponents and opponents or something like that, so that you at least know that they each get an equal share of time, or I I don't know.

You have the proponents come first and the or the opponents come first, or whichever, and the other side come secondly, so that you can do that.

But then how do you sort them out?

Some of the same problems.

Yeah.

How do you how do you sort out proponents from opponents?

You know.

Commissioner Coogle.

Maybe a seating area like at weddings.

Commissioner Snake.

Isn't there an example up here somewhere that if they had over 30, it went down to two minutes?

And then that kind of at least saves that.

So you know you're gonna save a half hour off if it goes from three minutes to two.

If we kind of have a system in place where like, okay, we can control it mathematically on the number of minutes based on the people who sign up, that might be a great way to equalize it too.

So maybe the three to two to one and a half or something, or even one towards the end, because we're gonna hear the same thing over and over and over.

So maybe uh as the number gets higher, the minutes get lower.

So we can kind of cap it.

Commissioner Wharton.

That's what I was going to bring up.

That's the school district that does that.

They get all of those that want to comment and they count them out.

If there's more than 30, they reduce everybody's time so they're two minutes instead of three minutes.

And they give them an hour and a half for the first 30.

But if there's you know, 35, it's gonna lessen the time anyway, because then you have two minutes for everyone, not just some people.

So it depends.

I mean, we don't get 30 people, but maybe we could change ours to, you know, after 20, then we'll reduce it to two minutes or something like that.

But that's what the school district does, and it seems to work great for them.

Commissioner Lincoln.

Um I was just thinking about sort of equity and and making sure everyone feels that they're treated equally, and then also um simplicity.

So and I really like this solution as just it's really easy to understand.

Uh there's a base, uh a clear line, everyone, you know, every case gets the same treatment, but we are adjusting for the time limit if we do have a lot.

So I'm in favor of a cutoff where there's after a certain number of folks, there's a more limited time.

Commissioner Lowe.

I'd be interested to hear Commissioner Incona's perspective on how that unfolded in uh application as a member of the school board.

I sounds great.

I think I would also be supportive of it, but just to hear kind of how it flows and and what it actually looks like in practice.

Yeah, I think the school district has a whole hour and 30 minutes that we had dedicated to public comment depending on the number of speakers that we had, we made that adjustment based on that.

Now, this is a little bit different because each agenda item is spoken to individually uh at the school district, it's all spoken to at one time during the public comment section.

So I do think that it's fair for the public to be able to accommodate each agenda item because I think that's really what they're coming for one agenda item most of the time.

So I think hearing them.

So I do think setting some sort of parameter uh would make it useful.

Um I do think people who are here in person should be heard first versus people who are online.

Um I think that you know, people who drive all the way down here to to be heard, I think um they should have the first priority to do so.

Um but I I'm for setting something.

Um I'm totally fine with if we have to extend it on certain occasions, uh, but in most cases we're we're dealing with um, you know, residents who uh are per are proponents of something that's on the agenda.

And I do think because of the way the amount of land in Hillsborough County is uh is is limited, uh the ones that we do have in the most recent have become a little bit more contentious and are taking a little bit more uh time.

And they're more complex for us to deal with as well.

So having us as a team uh look at these and and figuring out what's the best use of this land gives us the potential of not being you know worn out, and it doesn't serve the purpose of the rest of the folks who are on the agenda if we get wiped out in the first uh two hours of a meeting on one agenda item, it doesn't give the other uh uh applicants a fair shake, in my opinion.

So my thoughts.

All right, Commissioner Brown.

Yeah, I think another thing you have taken consideration, especially when we talk about a um complex uh amendment, because there's a the text amendment is also the map amendment when you get the same people that come up for the same three minutes.

So whether you give them a minute or three minutes is 30 people, it's gonna be 30 or 60 minutes just uh on one item.

So we're talking about you have to think about you're gonna move multiply that.

I do like the idea if it's over 30, we we curtail, you know, we shorten the time per person, then that way we we you know, so if it happens to be an hour for the text amendment, then we know it's gonna be an hour for the map amendment.

So that helps to versus three minutes, 30 people, just 90 minutes, so we're talking about 180 minutes, so you know there's a way to uh minimize the you know going too long.

Commissioner Seaban.

Is it against some sort of rule for in those sort of cases when there's a text amendment and a map amendment to just have the first comments apply for the same people who are commenting?

I know it's against our bylaws, but I don't know if it's against the state law, Tracy.

That'd be a question for you.

It's generally required to evaluate public hearings on the evidence that's brought to the to the board for each one of them.

So they stand alone separately.

Is the yeah, so the general rule is yes, you do them that way.

Okay.

Given that, I think maybe my suggestion would be if there are over 20 comments for the same item, everybody gets two minutes, just throwing something out there to to start this.

All right.

I'll Commissioner Lincoln.

I just wanted to build on on this conversation.

Um I know sometimes like the applicants present the different pieces um together.

So if there were some way to kind of seek a combined presentation and public comment on a text and a map amendment, I can't think of a single example of when we treated each of those differently.

I I understand that we'd have to come to a vote on them separately, but if we could potentially link those, I actually think it would provide clarity even to the public on in some instances.

I feel like many times the um folks don't know which one they signed up for and what that you know really means.

So if there were some way to explore that, I I do recognize it it may not be possible.

In in those relatively isolated circumstances where that's done, it's usually it's done at the request of the applicant and with the consent of the board.

So there's a both sides are agreeing on the same thing that can be done, yes.

It's a little more technical in terms of how we go about it, but yes, that's that could be accommodated.

And the only problem with that is we can accommodate it on the fly, like when the applicant comes up, I can have the conversation and we can agree to it as a board with the applicant, but then the public is already plan for the two, and so you're kind of so yeah, there's always some body out in the tripart dance.

So that's why I tend to not do that because you know it causes feelings on some parts somewhere.

So Commissioner Kugler.

Yes, I well, there's two sides, of course, to this.

One is we're trying to gather information and and the pulse of the community that's really important for our decision making.

But there's also the sense that the public wants to be heard.

And and I know at City Council in Tampa, they do have a um a little speech this read prior to the meetings about public comment and the decorum and the rules of it.

And maybe uh convincing or at least urging people to think of the idea that if we uh are not worn out by so much time spent at it, that we can make better decisions for everybody.

And and also that we'd like to hear generally uh as much as we can from both sides of the issue.

That might ease their discomfort with being limited in time, you know, c cut down in time.

Tracy, I have a question.

To Commissioner Kona's point, the fairness of you know, staff gives a 15-minute presentation, the applicant gives a 15-minute presentation, applicant has an extra three minutes for rebuttal, notwithstanding them using some of their leftover 15 minutes in that response time.

They have 18 minutes and then the public has like three hours to speak.

How why is that considered fair to the applicant and to the staff?

Like, shouldn't they all have sort of similar time limits?

Doesn't the law say anything about that or there's not any specific law that addresses this procedure?

Let's start there.

Um I I see it both ways as you do.

Um when you're dealing with somebody's the rights to the use their land, um the the notion is at least in in the in the starting point there that everybody that they should have a fair opportunity to an equal time to address the the their position and the and the the staff's position.

Public comments kind of a whole nother arena, if you will, that's layered on top of the process.

We we don't have what we call quasi-judicial matters in the planning commission.

Uh we did when I first started in the job, but the Supreme Court made that decision and said, no, plan amendments are not are legislative, they're not quasi judicial, like zonings.

Zoning hearings are conducted completely different.

The testimony is taken from the peop various people who want to speak uh and considered by the in the case of the county, for example, the hearing master who stands as a as a sort of a quasi judge to make the decision and write a detailed order that gets presented to the planning commission explaining the analysis and what was brought before them.

There's also the the record that's made.

Um public participation goes back to the whole notion of open government uh and having the public have the opportunity to comment within reason on anything that comes before the board or the various governmental boards.

Um to Commissioner Kona, the um I didn't I didn't say this in my memo, but and I didn't realize the perspective you were coming from when you had made those comments, but I would agree, I I certainly agree with what the school board is doing in the context of of this coming up in a general public comment setting where you you may have lots of people, but this is land use as a and and as I tried to explain, and I hope I maybe I didn't do as good a job as I had hoped I did.

Um, you know, under Florida statutes, with this body acting as the local planning agency as for its respective local governments, it stands in the position of staff really for those local governments.

It's not a general comment period, if you will, that distinguishing the two.

And my biggest concern as I began to dig into that was the fact that the agency should not be in in a position where it's inconsistent with the requirements of the of the particular local government whose hearing it's conducting.

So it just to help you a little bit understand where I was coming from and that distinction.

Um if we were talking about the comment period at the beginning of the meeting where folks can come in and speak about whatever's on the agenda or even I suppose what's on their mind, then certainly, you know, I capping of the time limit can I I would agree is appropriate.

All right.

Commissioner, I'm gonna go to Commissioner Sink first, and I'll come to you.

You just brought up something about about um state statute.

What impact could 180 be on this?

Being that if you reduce the amount of time for people to speak, it makes it easier or less burdensome for the applicant.

Would that then be irreversible for us to change down the road?

So like if we're like, oh, this didn't work, or because of making it less burdensome if we change it, would we be able to ever change it back?

I guess would be my question, because it would be less burdensome to the applicant at that point.

Well, this is a bylaws change, not a company.

Would it still the bylaws aren't ruled by 190, the comp plan is so weird the by bylaws are ruled by the state laws that are outside of you know the comp plan things?

Yeah, I don't think Senate Bill 180 would apply because it applies to comprehensive plans and land development regulations.

Okay, not the process itself.

Right, not the bylaws.

Okay, that's what I just curious.

I'm like, would it impact it?

The authority to to adopt bylaws is created in the Planning Commission special act.

Um and so that's what we look to for what the limitations are on that.

And it's for administer basically for administration of the planning commission's uh meetings and business.

Commissioner Connor.

Yeah, so um I think that we are within our um legal jurisdiction um to provide a time limit because we are giving people the opportunity to speak on every single agenda item, should they choose to, if they want, right?

So that's so that's more than you know, an hour and 30 minutes of time that we're allowing the public.

Um I do think if you were to put a 30 to even, I mean, you you can do 60 if you wanted to, but a 30-minute uh time limit on the amount of public comment we get on any one particular item, uh and you set it as a rule, I would say probably you know, maybe a handful of times we'd have to extend it based on the amount.

I think if you don't have a structure, we're gonna continue to have you know the same amount of um, you know, certain cases that'll that'll keep coming back and it'll be you know two hours of of public comment and we have a full agenda that day.

And um I think if you do it for one, you do it for everyone, and I think setting some sort of guidelines uh for each agenda item with you know at least 30 minutes of public comment, I don't think that really hurts.

Um and if we have to extend it in certain times we can, and that would be you know an outlier.

But I think having something is better than continuing on the same way.

It's just my opinion.

All right.

I have a question for you, Tracy.

Is that I read this and you didn't read you didn't really say no.

You said based on the gray area that you didn't recommend it.

Commissioner Kona contends that it's not necessarily illegal for us to set a hard time limit.

What's the what's the what where does that fall?

Is he right?

Is it not absolutely legal?

Is it illegal?

Is it gray area?

I mean, do we have do we have the authority to do it, but it's not necessarily recommended?

I mean, what's the we obviously want to be in within the law.

So I'm trying to understand how is it within the law, is it in gray area?

Is it it's not been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

There have there is a case that that does talk in great length about public participation, but it's not on all fours as we call it.

Um with the nature of this public hearing and the process, because you're a recommending body as rather than a final uh decision-making authority.

Um the language of the statute is not very clear.

But as I said in the memorandum, I can't reconcile the statutory requirements of 163 and the processes that are used by our local governments to to tell you that I think it's an appropriate statutory interpretation to say you can do either.

Okay.

So it is feasible possibility, depending on how far we want to push it.

So that's a fair statement.

Commissioner Lincoln.

I guess um my interpretation, and that's all it is of the spirit of the law is that everyone who would like to speak should be allowed to speak, but that is reasonable to manage the time limits um for all involved to be respected.

So I I would be more in favor of something where everyone gets the two minutes or what have you, if there's a certain cutoff rather than a strict time limit, because if someone were to walk away feeling like they weren't allowed to be heard, I think that could be that could be frustrating.

And I don't think that's the spirit of what public involvement is aiming for.

So I I do I'm totally sympathetic to the idea of managing the time frame so that everyone gets equal opportunities to um have their time respected and be part of the process, but I wouldn't want anyone to feel that they couldn't speak.

Commissioner Lau.

Concur with Commissioner Lincoln.

I think perhaps the best idea that's been floated out is scaling the amount of time each person gets relative to the number of public comment we're going to get that evening.

So if we have 10, 20, 30, there's a scale and it flexes from three minutes to two minutes to a minute and a half versus a hard cap.

And I think that solves the problem we're trying to address.

I think too, it might be good to flex it universally as opposed to you know that first, second, third group.

So if it hits 30, then everybody only gets a minute or and just keep it uniform so that way we don't have people arguing and fighting about who got in the queue first and those sorts of things.

Yeah, Commissioner Lope.

It may be difficult to mine the data for staff, but I would recommend I would be in favor of staff coming back to us and giving us specific examples where we've had long evenings.

Was that a function of 10 public comments, 20 public comments, 30 public comments, 30 is probably not the right number for our board?

Maybe it should be less since we are going on the case by case basis.

But I'd like to maybe base that in data before we Yeah, I was gonna say that, Miss Ornita.

I'd like to know how many past five years, what is the public comment been like?

Is it 30 people and we have those long nights?

Is it really you know, I think one night we were at like 50 something people or maybe something like that, maybe not, but yeah, knowing those numbers would be helpful.

We will do our best to find them.

I know in the last couple of years since we've had the electronic sign uh sign up, it's a little bit easier, but and um, but we will go back and see what we we have in terms of the sign-in sheets um and and count that uh and bring back next month some some data on what might be a good cutoff um to start reducing the time.

Because thinking about Commissioner Kona's idea of 30 minutes, you could do something like if it's more than 10, you you need to reduce it to two minutes, and that would be consistent with the 30 minutes.

Right.

Yeah.

Commissioner Cona.

Yeah, I'm I'm totally fine with adjusting the time limits and not setting a limit, but eventually there's gonna be a limit.

Right.

Um so I'm totally fine with that, and and making um an adjustment and that we say that initially, like for over, you know, 10 public comments on one agenda item.

This is what you get, this is what you get if there's 30 public comment.

I think having those guidelines set up initially would be very, very helpful.

Um, and as long as everyone knows the rules, then I think we're we're good.

It's when we start, you know, changing those rules that it gets complicated.

But I think having that this board and and obviously hopefully we start taking people that are in the room first and then um people who are online second.

I think that would be helpful as well.

I can do that.

Yeah.

All right.

Were there any other thoughts, comments?

You got good marching orders, Ms.

Ornita?

Yeah.

I think something to bring us back.

Okay.

All right, going once, going twice.

Any other thoughts, comments on this one?

All right, then we'll look forward to this coming back again for more discussion.

Ultimately, we're gonna have to make a motion and a change to the bylaws on this, right?

And that's gonna take us two meetings.

Yes, once you all have a solidified idea, we'll put that in a regular agenda item that will be on two agendas.

That way the public has two opportunities to come and speak to it.

Uh yes.

Sounds good.

All right.

And our on to our next agenda item 5C, new business.

Does anybody have any new business?

Not seeing any.

I'll move on to committee reports.

Are there any committee reports?

I have a committee report from the TPO.

TPO met last week.

We had a special meeting, and then we're meeting again on Wednesday, so it's a fun month for the TPO.

Um our last meeting, we discussed the merger, the regional merger.

Um I think we we got a first we had a presentation from Waymo on autonomous vehicles coming to this area.

That was a really good presentation.

Um might want to look into having Waymo come and talk to this board about that too, because there was some pretty interesting questions that came out of that.

Um, they're not running their open program just yet.

They're kind of just mapping out the county and the city, but we got some pretty good information out of them.

They're not running their open program just yet they're kind of just mapping out the county and the city but we got some pretty good information out of them and then we talked about the regional merger and we discussed a couple letters have been going back and forth between the counties there was a letter from Pinellas with some concerns about the voting apportionment concerns that Hillsboro County had a little bit too much power and uh they were floating some ideas on how to reapportion the voting of the merged MPO.

A lot of good ideas got kicked back and forth ultimately um and the disagreement centered on the port and the airport where those seats would come out of who would pay for them some some people wanted them to come out of Hillsborough County because they felt that Hillsboro County is where those authorities were and who rule those authorities even though they're you know state authorities but what we decided to send back to the transportation um merger group is uh basically Hillsboro County keeping it the way it is the way we've been discussing it is that the port and the airport come off the top we have 25 total so we decided the port and the airport should come out of that 25 and the 23 remaining should be apportioned based on population of the three counties once each county gets their population based apportionment they decide how they want it to lay it out in the different you know departments and entities within within the counties so we went back to that but Pinellas said that one thing that they would hope that we could do that would make them more amenable to the whole merger idea is that if Hillsboro County gave up one of its seats after apportionment to PASCO County because Pasco County's the low man on the totem pole that they would be more agreeable to doing the merger and going forward the merger so the Hillsboro County Board of Commissioners most of the county commissioners who were there were pretty much in agreement with that the mayors were also in agreement with that that it was good show of faith on the part of Hillsborough to say here Pasco you take one we talked about population growth PASCO has grown really fast and they're probably when we do the reapportionment again in a couple years they're probably going to earn that extra vote anyway so there was some back and forth on some other things but ultimately that's what we decided upon is to keep the two off the top split it by population and then Hillsboro County would give up one to Pasco County.

So the discussion goes on no final decisions have been made this was just direction to TPO staff on how to go into the negotiations and talk about it so we're still a long ways from uh approving anything final but that was the update for the special meeting of the TPO any other committee reports out there not seeing any at this time then we are done here we're behind our count for our next meeting our workshop meeting was supposed to start at three so I'm gonna have to take a five minute uh intermission here for people to leave the room and get out and for HTV to switch over to our workshop feed so we will be back at 320 for our workshop and at 316 p.m this meeting is adjourned