Good evening and welcome to the May 14, 2026, Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing.

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

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

Before I get started, I want to read in the record from Commissioner Gwynn Myers.

Uh please ensure this memo regarding my late arrivals rendered the record due to another commitment.

So with that, um first item uh the applicant for CPA twenty six oh five and CPA twenty six oh six has requested a continuance to the June eleventh, two thousand twenty-six CPA public hearing at six PM.

Uh can we have a motion on that?

So motion commissioner bowls, second commissioner uh cohen.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried six to one or six to zero.

Okay.

Uh this time uh clerk to swear on anyone that's planning on speaking to tonight's rezoning applications, RZ twenty-six-ero zero seven zero and rz twenty-five- zero nine three nine.

Please stand and raise your right hand.

Do you swear our affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh, Planning Commission, please introduce first item.

Yes, good evening.

Item A one will be presented by Miss Victoria Durant.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Victoria Duran, Planning Commission staff.

Today we'll be presenting HCCPA twenty-five-26, a text amendment to the South Hillsboro County Plan, currently known as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

For some quick background, the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan was originally adopted in September of two thousand and three and updated in September of two thousand and fifteen.

As part of this text amendment, all sections and elements referencing community plans within the comprehensive plan were reviewed.

Affected policy was only found within the livable communities element, and the community plan shown on this slide will be updated to reflect the new name.

Also, the proposed name change will not affect the intent of policy.

Before I move on, I would like to mention that no comments were received from reviewing agencies or from any state agencies.

The planning commission found the proposed amendment consistent with the objectives and policies found on this slide.

The amendment aligns with the future land use and intergovernmental coordination elements of the comprehensive plan by supporting community planning, coordination, and consistency across adopted plans.

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

This concludes my presentation, and I am available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone like to speak to this item?

Seeing none, can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Second motion, Commissioner Cohen Send Commissioner Wolstool.

Please record your vote on A1.

Motion carries six to zero.

A two.

Thank you.

Item A2 will be presented by me.

For the record, Melissa Linehard Planning Commission staff.

Um this is HCCPA 25-29.

Um, regarding this item, which is the creation of a new future land use category.

Um, a little bit of a background.

There was a trend in plan amendments to suburban mixed use six and office commercial 20 future land use categories in the rural area over the last couple of years.

These categories would allow for a density and sometimes an intensity that's not supported by our adopted policies in the comprehensive plan.

Um, some of those policies include our rural area policies, the transition of use policies, um, compatibility issues, and also there were conflicts with some community plans.

Um, staff was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to look into this issue and try to find a solution.

Uh, this item is publicly initiated.

It is part of the October cycle of plan amendments.

Again, this is a text amendment to add a new future land use category called rural light commercial.

I'm sorry, rural light industrial, um, and also will add a definition of limited light industrial uses to the definition section.

There was research as part of this.

Um, three major efforts were undertaken by staff.

Effort one was a comparison of research with nearby and similar counties.

Um, effort two included an analysis of unincorporated Hillsborough County plan amendments requesting one of those four categories you see on the slide.

Um, effort three was an analysis of uses that are allowed in the commercial intensive zoning district, but not allowed in the neighborhood surveying categories of commercial neighborhood and commercial general.

So, as far as impacts are concerned, um, there is no category like this today in the plan.

We are proposing a.25 floor area ratio or 175,000 square feet, whichever is less intense.

No residential development would be permitted except for limited accessory residential, like an on-site security guard.

The limited light industrial uses definition that I mentioned from the second slide would be defined as uses that are compatible with rural residential development patterns and that do not produce significant noise, dust, odor, smoke, or vibration as specified in the land development code.

Examples include small-scale manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly of refined products, as well as warehousing or wholesale operations.

And then lastly, a plan development zoning district application would be required.

This item was sent out for agency review.

Um, in that transmittal, no objections were received.

However, there were some comments of note from the agencies listed on the slide.

The proposed amendment was found consistent with several policies and objectives and goals in the comprehensive plan, those related to the rural area and the preservation of this area, several compatibility policies, and then policies related to focusing development in certain areas, as well as our neighborhood and community development policies related to compatibility with the creation of this new category, the preservation of agricultural land, and then also policies related to utilities and where they should be expected.

This item was transmitted by you all back on March 26th of this year.

It was sent to the state.

No objections were received.

Um, and I'm here to you to present the planning commission recommendation of consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Uh one individual signed up to speak, Melissa Nordbeck.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

When the Lib Local Act was first signed into law, this board passed a resolution to exclude PD zonings with industrial uses.

Instead of agreeing to honor local government's intent, Tallahassee's answer to that was to close the loophole.

The result was 13 additional LIBE Local project applications filed in Hillsborough County.

In March, Hillsboro County filed a lawsuit to legally challenge the Lib Local Act.

This seems to have slowed down applications.

As this lawsuit makes its way through the courts, there are some other defense tactics the county can make to mitigate LIBE Local applications.

The easiest and most effective is to strictly enforce the existing comp plan and land development codes.

Leave the map as it is.

Introducing a new industrial zoning directly conflicts with your public position against LibLocal.

Lib local projects in the rural area will only amplify the financial burden and the strain on infrastructure that is the board's primary concern.

And you can be certain there will be new LIB local applications filed for this new industrial zoning because it will be tested by developers all the way to court because the rural area has available land.

Please also keep in mind the state's newest addition to the Lib Local Act that now allows inclusion of adjacent parcels for consideration, and you're creating an even bigger problem.

This comp plan amendment has been written with some development guardrails, like limiting FAR in an attempt to control density, and that rezoning requires a PD, which as I remind you, the state has already circumvented.

Who's to stay?

The state won't take this plan amendment and gut it.

Tallahassee has already shown they are all in on live local.

Introducing industrial zoning in the rural area is short-sighted when the erosion of home rule is the norm.

This comp plan amendment was introduced in August 2025 prior to filing the LIB Local lawsuit.

That should change the course of this amendment.

It should not proceed at this time.

Thank you.

And that closes public comment.

Commissioner Willstrom.

I just want to ask: does it have to have the PD requirement in there at the end?

Commissioner, I believe that the PD was was included in that to provide an extra layer of protection so that what development would be proposed in this new category would have definitive development standards and design.

But again, standard districts would so either way we're gonna get we've had so many of these requests, which was the impetus of this new zoning, and if they're requesting it in the original form, and we were saying yes, we would still be at risk of introducing live local elements.

This is just a more restrictive version.

I think that it's one of those you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I mean, no matter whether it's this code or a different code, right?

Correct.

Then be just because this is trying to mend one problem board, and it doesn't prevent the other issue, which is live local applications, whether we do this or not, because they're gonna continue to apply in like OC20, I think is like one of the things that we got on one of these um that we ended up being able to change to like SMU six at one point because the problem would still be there.

I'll I'll move for approval.

I just don't know how we can continue to operate if we don't.

Okay, I've got a motion approved.

Commissioner Wolfs will be over second.

Thank you, Commissioner Cohen.

Uh Melissa, do you want to make a comment?

I just wanted to add to the record that there's no land being designated this at this time.

This is now a new option.

If this does become effective, then an applicant would be able to apply for this, and then it would go through the process, and you all would see it.

And even if we moved PD, the other elements would still be exactly considered for LibLocal.

So it's you're handcuffed.

Thank you.

Okay, we've got a motion of second.

Please record your vote on A2.

Motion carried six to zero.

B1.

Item B1 will be presented by Miss Willow Mickey.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Will and Mickey with your planning commission staff.

I will be briefing HCCPA 25-23, which is located at 117 North Dover Road.

This request is a privately initiated small-scale map amendment.

It is made up of two parcels that total approximately 21.76 acres.

The request is to change the land use designation of these parcels from residential four to residential 20.

This plan amendment is located in the urban service area and is not within limits of a community plan.

The site is also located to the north of the energy innovation park.

Here is an aerial photo of the site.

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

The west of the line is the urban service area, including the site.

It is located north of State Road 60, east of Northover Road, and west of Sydney Washer Road.

Next, we have some pictures of the site from different angles.

The site is in the residential four lanes category.

Residential four allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects.

Surrounding lanes categories include res four to the northeast and south of the site.

Directly to the west is residential nine with office commercial 20 located further west.

Public quasi public is located to the north and further east, and the energy innovation park lies to the south.

The request is to change the site to residential 20, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments.

This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested change.

Currently under res four, the site can be considered for up to 87 dwelling units and 236,966 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential 20 would allow for the consideration of 435 dwelling units and 710,899 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment will result in a potential increase in development potential by allowing consideration of a higher residential density and a greater commercial intensity.

The proposal has been reviewed by the commenting agencies, and there were no formal objections received.

Planning commission staff reviewed the request and initially recommended a finding of inconsistency due to concerns with compatibility in gradual transition of use.

However, the planning commission voted in favor of consistency.

As a result, the final recommendation before you tonight is a recommendation of consistency.

This recommendation is supported by objectives and policies within the future land use section, including objective 1.1, policy 1.1.5, policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, and objective 4.1.

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

That concludes this presentation.

I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Good evening.

That's us.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Uh staff of the dias for the record, Michael Brooks, uh 400 North Tampa Street, uh suite 19 uh 01, uh Tampa 33602.

We will be uh brief this evening.

Um I will not use our entire time.

I want to uh introduce our development team uh first.

Uh have with me Isabel Albert uh from HAF, I believe you know ASCP uh planner, and uh Michael Yates is also here from Palm uh Palm Traffic.

Um I want to spend a minute just kind of setting the framework so you understand what are we doing.

Um the the subject property, the majority of it uh was approved in 2007 for um uh for a shopping center.

Uh there's an 80,000 square foot um center complex um with another 30,000 square foot and the and the out parcels.

Uh this was zoned, if you think about 2007, right before the market crash.

Um, Dr.

Henderson is uh is the owner of this, and um and it has not uh been developed as a result of just the fallout.

Uh but obviously there's a lot of change that has happened in the area.

Uh I want to point out though, in terms of what we're doing here.

We are not going the path of live local.

Uh so uh we are asking for REST uh 20, which is what we need for uh what will be uh a proposed future PD plan that will come before you.

This this application CPA was filed last summer.

Um we made a conscious decision to to uh to seek the CPA and an amendment to the PD again rather than live local.

Um the uh major changes that you'll see, the access configurations don't meet current standards, water management regulations have changed over time.

Uh, and um Mr.

Dr.

Henderson has also acquired an additional property to the east that'll be used for stormwater, and we frankly think will be a better buffer overall when that comes in front of you uh than the current approved PD.

Um the the real key will be that in the center uh of the shop, the shopping center piece is we'll be proposing two options.

One is for currently what's approved, and the second would be a mixed use development, similar to the project we brought before the board earlier this year on MLK.

Uh that one had a publics and some outparcels and a um an integrated uh walkable uh apartment project.

This will be very similar.

And um, so with that, um, I want to hand this over to uh Ms.

Albert.

Thank you.

Good evening, Isabel Albert for the record.

1000 North Ashley Drive.

Uh, this is just to give you an idea really what's surrounding the property.

Um, it is quite developed with uh as of mixed use development.

There's some single family, there's mobile homes, there's commercial all along State Road 60, which is where you you would find this, and um, and then to the northeast is the Hillsport County uh park, and we have the uh industrial park to the north or southeast.

And so you said the request is for a REST 20.

Uh is similar to what you'll see along that corridor.

There's a couple of uh Res 20 that you see to all the way to the west that were approved recently, and then you have obviously the um OC20 um east of us.

What's important to to also show is that the site is adjacent to the expansion area of um the I-4 corridor.

And the urban service area is in white, and the aerial there is that whole area being studied for the urban expansion area.

But it's also important to state that on the south uh east is the industrial um park, the energy industrial park, and it also plan for some mass transit uh stops at that location with anticipated future growth.

So, with that, when we presented to the planning commission board, they found all these objects objectives and policies that are supporting the request, and with that they found the request consistent uh with the comprehensive plan.

And this concludes my presentation from my part.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, this public hearing of three individuals have signed up this evening.

Uh, Deborah Holiday.

Deborah here, please come forward, and a Margaret McDeed.

And the third one is virtual Penny Martin.

Deborah, please come forward and then Margaret.

Good evening.

Oops.

It's really skinny.

I'm sorry for the small print.

It's the best I could do.

I'm Debbie Holliday from Dover, Florida.

Initially, this request was not approved by the planning commission staff.

The planning commissioners had mixed opinions of the proposal.

The final vote was four to three to move forward.

This area is a mixture of commercial, agricultural, and rural type residential properties with farms located to the northeast and south of this site.

There are other low density residential developments also bordering highway 60 along with the commercial.

Primary concerns mentioned by the planning commission was going to R20 from R4 is not compatible with the surrounding areas.

To the east is also the rural area.

The area should be trending down as you move toward rural areas.

All around this site are much lower density properties.

This complex would not integrate well with the surrounding area.

It will not be compatible or complement the area.

Additional concerns were approving this could increase the density for other commercial and residential projects, which would not blend well with existing developments.

434 units is a significant amount of units, quite an increase from what they were approved for before.

The EIP is also south of this site, and they are planning 1,200 more homes, plus more development along Highway 60.

I know that there are road improvements coming, but will it be able to support all the future development for this area?

North, south, east, and west, there are multiple residential areas with much smaller density.

I'm thinking that there are a lot of options for this site that would blend in better with the surrounding areas at R4.

I'm respectfully asking that you deny this request.

Keeping this at R4 makes this more in line with the other developments in the area.

I also have um, as you can see here, I don't know if you guys can see it, but if you notice around this, I'm sorry.

I'm so sorry.

Okay.

So if you look behind here, there's like an RSC2 lots back here over here across the street behind the fire station.

These are this right here is a little neighborhood.

It's res two.

These are actual farms down here that are AS1.

Um, this neighborhood is Tahoe Woods, and it's at a res 6.

Um, across the street from the site, there is uh some commercial development, but there's all there's also a strawberry farm there that's coated at AS1.

Um, and behind the little commercial development, there is a Dover Wood subdivision, and I think that's R6 or 9.

Across over here, there's a big mobile home park there, and that's Strawberry Ridge.

And um, I'm not sure what they are.

They're a plan development, but I look, their lots are quite large.

Um, over here it's uh AS1, um, and there's another AS1 lot right there.

So it's surrounded by lower density properties.

I also wanted to show you guys, ma'am.

Appreciate comments.

Um, Margaret McDeed.

Good evening.

Okay.

Debbie did a great job.

Um, I'm Margaret McDeed from Dover, Florida.

I moved to Dover 21 years ago because I love the rural the rural feel of the community and loves escaping traffic and congestion in other parts of the county.

Over the years, growth has gradually increased, but in the past several years, development in this county has become completely out of control.

The traffic has become so unbearable that I have been forced to work hybrid because commuting to to work daily is a nightmare.

Before this explosion of growth, our roads were maintained properly and repaved when necessary.

Now our roads are literally breaking apart with potholes everywhere.

They get patched temporarily, but the roads continue to deteriorate.

You continue approving development while doing a little to improve and maintain the infrastructure needed to support it.

Your constituents are angry.

We are angry because we feel like you are no longer looking out for our best interests.

Instead, it feels like you are prioritizing developers over people who actually live here.

Do we really need this level of exponential growth?

If we do not have the infrastructure to handle the traffic we already have, why are you continuing to approve thousands of additional homes and high density developments?

Why are you approving urban-style density in rural communities?

This type of development is not compatible in our with our community.

The applicant for CPA 2523 is seeking to increase density for from four homes per acre to 20 units per acre in order to build a 435 unit apartment complex.

When does this madness end?

Just because there are other apartment complexes nearby does not make this project compatible.

Many of us move here is specifically to preserve and enjoy what little lifestyle what little of the rural lifestyle remains in Hillsborough County.

We do not have to watch it just we have to we do not want to watch it disappear the piece by piece.

We are also currently experiencing a serious drought with watering restrictions already in place.

Yet somehow it is considered acceptable to continue approving development that places even more strain on our water resources and infrastructure.

And what about the wildlife?

Well, how much more wildlife needs to die because of unchecked growth and greed?

I'm sick of seeing dead animals on the road because their habitats continue to disappear.

Further down Dover Road, you've already approved approximately 1,200 homes despite ongoing concerns about traffic and potential health risks associated with the nearby Sydney Mine Sludge Pond Superfund site.

That land should not be disturbed until there is certainty regarding environmental and health risks involved, and that's a whole other story right there.

The community isn't outraged about that.

I am here representing thousands of residents that feel this board cares more about turning Hillsborough County into a concrete jungle filled with endless urban sprawl, and again, we are angry.

Growth is expected, but the comprehensive plan exists to ensure that growth occurs in the right places and at the right scale.

Please vote no on CPA 2523.

This proposal is not compatible with our community, and we'll only place additional strain on residents, infrastructure, natural resources, and our quality of life.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am.

Is uh Penny Morton on the line.

Good evening.

Penny Martin, Dover.

The planning staff originally identified that this request to allow REST 20 was not consistent in this rural area for got for five good reasons.

I'm asking you to not only deny this today, but also also to look at really where it's at.

I was also surprised how the applicant portrayed the site in the meeting on 413 26.

We do need to be fair and transparent.

I just want to make sure this area is represented correctly.

No one showed up to the last meeting because very few even knew that this is happening, including myself.

So I'm here tonight.

So picture this a handful of old farmhouses on large lots in a wooded area with neighbors so far apart you have to drive over to see them.

There are a public hiking trails and horse trails out there in the woods close by, also.

It's not a commercial area described.

Yes, there's a Westernware store and a few home supply companies right beside a huge strawberry farm that's been there for many dec generations.

There's one gas station, not several.

Having a mini city or commercial lot in a rural wooded area with a parking smack in the middle that is not compatible in this area.

There are no other apartments around these woods.

The heavy traffic and accident rates at high rate 60 in South Dover ranked as one of the top 20 most dangerous intersections in the Tampa Bay area.

4,000 new cars are estimated based on this request.

As the planning commissioners and presenters stated in the April 13th meeting, and I'll quote a few.

This is a very stark contrast that the change would not be appropriate.

Another staff had added this is a big jump in density.

You'll hear the chairman state the site planning is questionable, and another commissioner stated it looks semi-equivalent.

Commissioner Lincoln's made a good point, and I'll quote her also.

She said this is very tricky one to the east, it's all rural area.

When I pulled up on my computer here, it says farms, farms, farms, trails.

And then she stated this would be a shock to the system in this area.

They were all very skeptical, and should have been.

They understood the true picture of this, and I need you to also.

We cannot confuse the land use map with the zoning, which was mentioned many times also.

And finally, the planning staff original recommendation should be upheld.

Please leave the plan as is.

At the close of the hearing, the planning staff leader shared reasons it should be consistent, and a motion was made to change it.

However, the final ruling was four to three, and that says a lot because not everybody thinks this is a good plan.

And I encourage you to reconsider this case to follow the guidelines that we have in place.

Please deny this case today as the parking does not belong in this country area.

We appreciate your comments as you at this time.

Uh applicant has opportunity for rebuttal.

Mr.

Chairman, we'll be brief.

Um, there was a um uh at the planning commission, there was a gentleman who the abutting property owner who was in support.

I don't see him in the room today.

Um I just want to make sure we didn't miss him there.

Um I'm gonna ask Michael uh Yates to come up and talk about State Road 60.

Just again to reiterate.

Our goal is not to increase intensity on this site.

In fact, um the slides that I didn't highlight it that is a very important point is that the goal is to be trip neutral uh with regard to the approval versus what we would bring in front of you.

So we don't want to come in front of you with like additional trips when we will we rezone this property.

Um so with that, I'm gonna ask Michael Yates to come up and then um Elizabeth Albert is going to uh close.

Uh good evening, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic and I have been sworn.

Um I just want to kind of address uh real quickly on the state road 60 um capacity out there.

Um I know it was brought up that State Road 60 was at capacity or over capacity.

Um this is the FDOT generalized level of service tables for uh roadway capacity.

Uh it is classified as a C2 facility.

Um so that translates to the two-way peak hour capacity is 5,290 cars in the peak hour on St.

Road 60.

Um the data collection we had done out at the intersection of State Red 60 and Dover shows it just under 3,000 cars today, so just over half the capacity of the roadway.

So it is operating at an acceptable level of service with significant capacity available along State Road 60.

And be happy to answer any additional questions.

Okay, thank you.

We'll go on a board discussion.

Commissioner Wilson.

Oh boy.

Um I just wanted to briefly clear up the um the EIP statement.

Um EIP was approved in 2010, and um when we had the opportunity to redress it from a privately initiated change last year, this board voted to place the most extreme environmental oversight of any piece of property in the history of Hillsborough County uh when the ask for the change of the seven million pre-approved square feet of heavy industrial was approved.

We took that opportunity to put some very heavy-handed changes on the on that um piece of property, and I'm not even trying to throw it in the face of the land use attorney that's in the audience right now that we did that to.

It's just a it's just a reality.

Um I really appreciate the applicant.

I really personally like the applicant.

I think he's one of the most wonderful men I've ever met.

But um, I never really looked at the structure of the planning commission, and I'm gonna be bringing some serious questions and not realizing that we haven't had proper population growth representation um seats on the planning commission for unincorporated Hillsborough that I know of.

And I'm gonna need to understand why there's so many city of Tampa people, all of whom love density and voted yes on this, but unincorporated Hillsborough representatives voted nay on this.

So we're gonna have a big conversation about that because I didn't even really look at it holistically in that way, but I see now that that is a huge issue that we're gonna have to make some serious um changes on.

Um I disagree with the vote of the planning commission.

I side with planning commission staff on this one.

I believe that this introduces a non-gradual transition of intensity and density and directly violates policy 3.1.2.

I understand that the applicant already has res four on this lot.

I believe that this would create a new atmosphere into the area that's unexpected, just like the planning commissioner um had suggested.

I will say um to their team that in and I will quote former um county commissioner Michael Owen in his famous words of I'm getting sick and tired of people threatening live local, and I don't know why it was unnecessarily brought up three times this evening.

And honestly, um a step further, I found it kind of insulting to our intelligence that there would be a suggestion that there's not an increase of intensity when you are literally 5xing what's on the lot right now.

I and trying to water that down by suggesting there's a trip difference escapes me, and the community hears that and also probably feels very disrespected by it.

So I will not be voting up on this issue tonight.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cohen.

Well, my suggestion was gonna be that we hear this concurrent with the rezoning so that we could actually evaluate the proposal as it's going to be rather than imagining all the different things that might go there.

That that to me is is a um is a better option than to deny it.

It's to essentially hold it to be heard with something that's a little bit more definitive.

So I want to throw that out there as uh as a as an option.

Commissioner Cameron Tapeda.

Yes, my opinion is that it should be denied.

It's just too much traffic already, and um this is just really outrageous to continue, you know, putting more and more traffic like this when people already have such a difficult time to move, and you know, overpopulating is just not good idea, and I would like to uh move to deny it.

Okay, we have a motion uh to deny by Commissioner Cameron Tapeda, uh second by uh Commissioner Wolstool.

Don't see you and else in the queue.

Uh please record your vote.

Motion fails.

Three to three.

Commissioners Cohen, Hagen, and Bowles voted no.

Okay.

Um Adam.

Do you have any suggestions?

Commissioner Chairman Chair, it would take five affirmative votes to approve this.

So there could either be a vote to approve, which counting the votes doesn't seem likely.

There is also the option is suggested of continuing this uh to be heard concurrently with a with a rezoning so either one of those are viable options uh for the board.

Okay, if anyone is interested in making that motion, or I would support it.

Uh I'll make that motion.

Okay.

A motion to continue to hear to to such time as it could be heard with a companion rezoning.

If we were a motion there to have a second second, Commissioner Bowles.

Um the queue, so please record your vote.

Motion fails three to three.

Commissioners Miller, Cameron Capeta, and Wolstall voted no.

Okay.

Next item.

Thank you.

Our next item is um I'm sorry.

Lost my spot here, is item B2, which will be presented by Andrea Papindrew.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Andrea Papandrew, Planning Commission staff.

This is HCCPA 26-01, 15728 to 15806 West Lake Drive.

This is a publicly initiated map amendment.

It is small scale and approximately 15.04 acres.

The request is to go from the Wamama Village Residential 2 and residential four future land use categories to residential four.

In 2025, the Board of County Commissioners expanded the urban service area and changed all the rule WVR2, Wamama Village Residential 2, future land use category in Wamama to residential four, natural preservation and residential one.

For this amendment, these split parcels are within the urban service area and were not subject to previous board direction.

Staff have identified these parcels as the last properties with the WVR2 future land use category in Hillsborough County, and are recommending a change to res four to provide greater consistency with previous board direction.

The site is in the southern portion of the county in the urban service area.

It is within the Wamama Village Community Plan and the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

So this is an aerial of the subject site.

The site is east of Westlake Drive, southeast of Bill Tucker Road and 19th Avenue Northeast, and south of Florida Breeze Loop.

And then further west is U.S.

Highway 301 South.

The site is composed of three parcels.

The northernmost parcel is vacant, and the other two are single family.

Surrounding the site is a mixture of agricultural land, single family residential, HOA common property, and vacant land, and then further north, uh west, east, and south are public quasi public institutional uses.

Uh with to the east is the bomb road scrub and land owned by the Bullfrog Creek mitigation bank.

Property in the surrounding area was changed to res four by the board last year per HTCPA 24-44 and 24-45.

Additionally, there have been both public and private amendments in the surrounding area changed from WVR2 and RP2 to res four.

And a more zoomed out aerial is in your packets.

So this is looking um the amendment is composed of three properties.

This picture shows a northernmost site 15728.

It's currently vacant land.

Uh single family residential.

And this is the last parcel 15806, which is also single family residential.

And then this is a little on West Lake Drive looking north of the subject site.

The rest of the pictures is vegetation, and behind that is HOA common property and single family residential, which is the Valencia Lakes neighborhood.

And this is north of the northernmost parcel on the subject site.

North of the site is agricultural land owned by the Aston Strawberry Property Management LLC.

And then this is further south of the subject site.

Again, the right side is the vegetation with the HOA common property and single family behind it.

And then the left side is directly south, is vacant land and single family residential.

Further south is agricultural, public institutional land and vacant land.

And then lastly, this is looking west on Westlake Drive, which shows the vegetation and behind the HOA and single family property from the previous uh slides.

Three properties have adopted future land use, a residential four and Wamama Village, residential two.

Um surrounding the site and all sides is the residential four future land use category, and then further south is the natural preservation category in that blue boundary further south is the urban service area boundary.

Proposal days to go to the residential four future land use category.

Existing categories will allow approximately up to 43 units and up to 163,785 square feet.

However, it's important to note the site is not within the Wamama downtown East District where commercial office industrial uses may be considered.

So currently would only allow consideration of residential support uses.

Proposed change to residential four would increase density at 60 units with the same intensity for commercial, but it would be subject to meeting commercial locational criteria.

No formal objections were received.

However, there were two comments of note from the agencies that are listed on the screen.

All the agency comments can be found in your packets.

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

The change to residential four would remove the WBR2 designation from lands inside the urban service area and replace it with a suburban residential category consistent with objective 1.2 and policy 1.2.2.

Surrounding the site on all sides is the residential four future land use category.

The proposed category aligns to the low density residential pattern already present in the area, and it's consistent with the scale and intensity of surrounding land uses.

As noted earlier, there are other amendments in the surrounding area that have already changed to res four, and planning commission staff are recommending this change to provide greater consistency with previous board direction.

As these are the last WVR2 parcels in the county, if the amendment is adopted, there will be a future public amendment to remove the WVR2 language in the comprehensive plan.

And all these policies that are on the last two slides are on in your packets.

That concludes my presentation.

Available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This public hearing, I would know what to sign up to speak.

Uh can we have a motion?

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wolston.

Commissioner Cohen, please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Next item.

Item B3 will be presented by Lily Lenahan.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan, Planning Commission staff here to present HC CPA 2525, located at North Highway 301 and Williams Road.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 15.23 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential four to light industrial planned.

This is the general location map.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the Tenoda South Community Plan.

And is located south of North Highway 301 and west of Williams Road.

Here is an aerial of the site.

The site is outlined in pink.

The site is currently vacant, and there are single family residential uses to the east, south, and west of the site, and north across Highway 301.

There are some light and heavy commercial uses with mobile home parks.

And to the northeast of the site, there are some light industrial uses.

This is looking east of the subject site along U.S.

Highway 301.

This is looking west of the subject site from Highway 301.

And this is looking north across the subject site or north from the subject site across Highway 301.

And this is looking east of the subject site from Williams Road.

And this is looking north on Williams Road.

The subject site is on the left side of the road.

And it's looking south on Williams Road with the subject site to the right of the road.

This is looking north at the subject site from Ripley Road.

And this is looking west of the subject site from Ripley Road.

This is also looking south from the subject site on Ripley Road.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential four.

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

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

The site is surrounded by residential four on the east and west with suburban mixed use six to the north of the site and residential twelve to the south.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to light industrial planned.

The light industrial plan category does not allow for the consideration of residential uses and allows a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural light industrial uses, such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials as the predominant uses, including support offices, warehousing, and retail uses.

Under existing conditions with the residential four designation, the site can be considered for a maximum of 60 dwelling units or 165,854 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future land use designation of light industrial plan, the site can be considered for a maximum of zero dwelling units or 497,564 square feet of non-residential.

The proposed amendment would allow for the consideration of increased commercial and industrial intensity and eliminate the potential for residential development.

Planning commission staff had recommended the amount amendment be found inconsistent due to concerns with adverse impacts on the adjacent residential uses.

However, the planning commission board found it be to be consistent with compatibility policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and community planning objective 3.2 and policy 3.2.4.

Based on this, 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.

The applicant here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Good evening.

Jake Kramer with Barbas Kramer, 2002 West Cleveland Street.

Um Commissioners, I'll be brief.

Our our entire team is here if you have questions.

The property location is off of 301.

Uh one question you might ask is uh when you see the PD, you'll see that the PD is slightly smaller than our comp plan area.

The reason for that uh is is that the area we're not including in our PD has already uh is already in the process of transitioning to a to an industrial use we worked with the planning commission staff on this and ultimately the the planning commission I think agreed with us because this area is in transition.

And uh in fact, the planning commission, after they voted on our item, they voted to move forward with studying this corridor because it it it is it's a perfect area of the county for industrial and it's transitioning very quickly.

And so they voted to move forward and study that a little bit further.

301, as you probably know, is on a truck route.

What you may not know is that it's in an opportunity zone, which encourages uh private investment into this area.

And when we had our community meeting, uh the first thing the neighbors did is they grabbed us by the arm and said, let us show you around the neighborhood.

Um we we want investment, we want reinvestment into this neighborhood, and I think you'll hear that from some of them tonight.

Uh they asked us, uh they said they didn't want residential, uh, but they were very happy to have industrial because they knew that would mean clean up cleaning up the area.

They knew that would mean security features uh to deal with some of these issues that we're seeing in the area.

And this is what I mean when when I say it's a it's an area in transition.

Uh there are a number of commercial and industrial uses that have already been in plan, really surrounding this property.

Um I mean, there's there's a there's a a junk car facility right next door, right?

So this is gonna bring some reinvestment to the area that's supported by the neighborhood, and that was what we heard from the neighborhood when we had the community meeting.

Um we did get some letters of support as well.

And so with that, you know, we get again we we received uh uh approval recommendation approval from planning commission and then on the zoning, which we'll talk about uh a bit later.

We did uh receive uh recommendations of approval on that as well.

But I'll keep this short.

Our team is here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh this public hearing of one individual that signed up virtually, a sim Sarani.

Is he on the phone?

Uh he did not sign it, Chair.

Okay.

Uh with that, we'll hold off on uh the discussion adoption until after the oral argument has been completed.

So this time the staff need to introduce uh concurrent item.

Yes, Commissioner's the concurrent item is item B4 is rezoning PD 26-0070.

Uh this is a request uh to rezone a six point eight eight-acre parcel located at the northwest of the corner of Williams Road and Rip Ripley uh Avenue.

Uh, the app and is requesting a PD for 80,000 square square feet of warehousing distribution light manufacturing accessory open storage uses based on site plan uh with three provides for enhanced setbacks uh for for the building and open storage and operating hours and uh and uh the buffering screening that's offered uh is through as part of the conditions approval.

Uh staff did find this uh approval with conditions also subject to approval of the light industrial plan uh uh amendment.

Uh hearing officer also founded approval sub, but uh would note the planning commission did find it inconsistent.

And we're built for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Applicant come forward.

Thank you.

If we could go back to the presentation, Jay Kramer again with Barbara Scramer, 2002, West Cleveland.

Uh Commissioners, I don't want to be a dead horse, but I did just want to go to some of the compatibility and mitigation measures, and again, these were things we worked on with the neighbors.

So uh we did there were a couple of pinch points in the site plan based on truck circulation routes, uh but we worked on things such as gated access, hours of operation, uh, offense on Ripley Road, max height of the building.

Um so we really worked hard to make sure that uh this this operation is compatible and it's what the neighborhood is looking for.

Uh and and again, they're here, our team is here if you have questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh any uh proponent testimony.

Anyone in support?

Any opponent testimony.

Anyone opposed?

Okay, uh planning commission.

Hi, Lillian Lenahan Planning Commission.

The subject property is within the residential for land use, um, but is concurrent with HCCPA2525 to light industrial plan.

So the rezoning reserve reviewed as that was the approved land use.

It's in the urban service area and in the Tenotus Asset Community Plan.

Um policy 3.1.3 requires all new developments to be compatible with the surrounding area.

All the uses directly adjacent and surrounding the site are residential in nature, other than the vacant parcels directly north and west of the site.

Um there's some light industrial uses further north of the site at the intersection of Williams Road and Fort King Highway.

Um, and those uses to the north are limited in scope and consists of a tire and auto shop that is buffered by light commercial uses and a major roadway on most sides, but the residential development only to the south.

The proposed light industrial use would not be compatible with the adjacent land uses.

Um, and with a more intense use being proposed less to next to a less intense use, an increase in buffering is more appropriate and a necessity.

In this case, however, the request is seeking a reduction in required buffering.

The applicant has indicated that the requested buffer reductions are necessary to accommodate truck turning movements as well as landscape design and maintenance challenges.

However, the need for these buffer reductions suggests that the proposed building footprint and site layout may be oversized for the site when adequate buffering is provided.

Um in the second buffer variation pinch point is located on the west side of the site and the proposed building beginning immediately north of Ripley Road and extending approximately 220 feet to the north.

This portion of the site is proposed to be designated for the loading and unloading of the trucks on the site.

Um and planning commission staff does not support a reduced buffer in an area where these activities are proposed as they are likely to generate noise and visual impacts, although the parcel parcel directly adjacent to this area on the west is vacant.

Um the future land use category remains residential and existing residential development is located directly north of the reduction area.

So based upon those considerations, planning commission staff found the proposed plan development inconsistent with the comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by devote the development services department.

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the request and found the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan subject to the approval of the concurrent request uh for the comprehensive plan amendment to LIP.

The zoning hearing master also concluded that the request is consistent with the applicable requirements of the land development code.

The recommendation of the zoning hearing master was for approval.

All right, can we have a motion on HC CPA 25-25?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wills will send Commissioner Miller.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

I can have a motion for RZ26-0070.

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wolstool sign Commissioner Miller.

Please accord your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Yes, sir.

Item B5 will also be presented by Miss Lillian Lynn Man.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Lillian Lennihan Planning Commission staff here to present HC CPA 2538, located at 11017 East High East 92 Highway.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale, approximately 4.36 acres, and the applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential 9 to suburban mix use 6.

This is a general location map.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the South New York Mango community plan and is located south of East U.S.

Highway 92, east of Williams Road, and west of East Mobley Villa Drive.

Here's an area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink.

The site currently has a mobile home park, and there's some light commercial uses to the northeast west of the site and some heavy commercial uses to the west of the site.

There are single family uses located to the east, west, and south of the site, and there's some public, quasi-public, and institutional uses to the north and one educational use directly east of the site.

This is looking at the subject site from U.S.

Highway 92.

This is looking at the subject site also from U.S.

Highway 92.

This is looking east along U.S.

Highway 92 from the subject site.

And this is looking north across U.S.

Highway 92 from the subject site.

And this is looking into the property directly east of the subject site.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential nine.

The residential nine category allows nine dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.

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

Other future land use categories near the subject site include suburban mixed use six to the north, residential nine and community mixed use 12 to the east and west, and urban mixed use 20 to the west.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to suburban mixed use six.

The suburban mixed use six category allows for six dwelling units per gross acres and a maximum floor area air maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.

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

Currently, under the residential nine future land use, the site could be considered for a maximum of 39 dwelling units or 94,960 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future land use designation of suburban mix use six, the site could be considered for a maximum of 26 dwelling units or 94,960 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment would decrease residential density and would not increase the potential of commercial intensity.

The proposed request will increase the allowable range of uses to include light industrial uses.

Objective 7.1 that promotes uh appropriate job and housing balance where people can live near their workplace and that there are enough jobs in the area to support the local population.

Goals two and three of the Sephere Mango community plan, which seek to enhance community character and ensure quality residential and non-residential development and encourages commercial development to be directed to the US 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard corridors.

And lastly, with the one water policy 1.3.12, which states that no additional areas shall be designated with industrial land use plan categories within surface water protection areas.

And even though the suburban mixed use six category allows for the consideration of light industrial uses, it is considered a mixed-use future land use category rather than an industrial future land use category.

Based on this, 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.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Celia Carruthers with Oxford Engineering 4206 National Guard Drive Plant City, Florida, 33636.

The request before you today is to expand the SMU 6 area that's on site.

The proposed use for that rezoning is supported by the SMU 6 area.

So this expansion of the area would just allow that proposed use to be implementable.

I'm happy for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Uh one individual is signed up, Celia Carruthers.

Is she oh that was you?

Okay, all right.

Well, we're good.

Um, all right, we'll hold off on the CPA vote until after the concurrent item.

Um staff need to introduce it.

Commissioners, yes, the concurrent item is agenda item B6.

It's a rezoning PD 25-0939.

This is the request to rezone a uh 8.85 acre parcel on the south side of US 92, east of I 75.

Uh the request is zone from CG to PD to allow for uh 100 up to 100,000 square freedom manufacturing zoning district uses uh with the balance of the manufacturing list limited to towards the frontage along US 92 and is shown here and with the the rear of the property reserved for retention and and wetlands.

Uh staff did find this approval subject to conditions.

Uh planning commission found it consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Ms.

Carruthers, you need to add anything.

No, thank you.

Excellent.

Uh we have any proponent testimony, any opponent testimony.

Uh Planning Commission.

Yep, Lillian Lenihan with Planning Commission.

Um, subject property is located within the residential nine and suburban mix use six future land use categories and is concurrent with HC CPA 2538, which is to change a portion of the residential nine to suburban mixed use six.

It's in the urban service area and within the limits of the Cephon Mango community plan.

Um in the urban service area where uh objective point 1.1 of the future land use section, 80% of the county's growth is to be directed, and with policy 3.1.3 requiring all new developments to be compatible with the surrounding area.

Um the subject site is surrounded by the residential nine, suburban mixed use six, community mixed use twelve, and urban mixed use 20 future land use categories with a heavy mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses, um, with the commercial and industrial uses being oriented along U.S.

Highway 92.

The applicant intends to use the existing wetlands and man-made pond within the southern portion of the property to provide additional buffering and screening from the exist or existing residential uses to the south of the site, and along the eastern property line, the applicant is providing the required 30-foot type C buffer where the property above existing residential uses.

Um, given the existing character and uses of the commercial industrial, given the existing character and commercial industrial uses along East Highway 92 and the mitigation and buffering provided for the existing single family uses to the south.

The rezoning request is consistent with all flu's objections and policies related to compatibility and neighborhood protection.

Um additionally, it meets the goals of the South Normango community plan, specifically goal three, which encourages commercial development to be directed to the U.S.

Highway 92 and Martin Lynn Luther King Junior Boulevard corridors.

Um and since it's situated along U.S.

Highway 92 where the commercial development is encouraged, staff found it consistent.

Additionally, goal five seeks to ensure safety and mobility by supporting transportation improvements, including roadway improvements, transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian opportunities.

Um, specifically, this goal supports improvements to U.S.

92 and Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, and this uh rezoning will require the applicant to include approximately 56 feet of right-of-way dedication along U.S.

Highway 92 for improvements to the corridor.

So, based upon these considerations, planning commission staff found the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Zoning Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the requested plan development rezoning and found the rezoning request to be consistent with the comprehensive plan subject to approval of the concurrent plan amendment to SMU 6.

The zoning hearing master also concluded that the request is consistent with the land development code and the recommendation of the zoning hearing master was for approval.

All right, community of a motion for HC CPA 25 38.

So moved.

Commissioner Worldstall, second commissioner Cohen, please record your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

I'm coming a motion RZ 25-0939.

So moved.

Commissioner Cohen, please record your vote.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Next item.

Our final item of the evening is item C3, and that will be presented by Ms.

Katrina Corcoran.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Katrina Corcoran Planning Commission staff.

I'm here tonight to present HCCPA 2611.

This is a text amendment to the quarter preservation plan map.

Some background on this request.

This is publicly initiated.

The applicant is Hillsborough County's community and infrastructure planning department.

This is a text amendment that is adding an interchange, which is the Fort Hamer interchange to the adopted quarter preservation plan map.

Also, like to note that although this is a text amendment, there are no policy changes as part of this amendment.

This interchange is also a potential connection to the proposed Fort Hamer Road, which I'll give more detail on later on in this presentation.

This slide shows the mobility sections map series map one, which is the adopted quarter preservation plan map.

This map is utilized to protect future right-of-way from encroachment, provide connectivity, and ensure transportation quarters are adequate to serve plan growth and development patterns as defined in the future land use section.

The map identifies the number of additional lanes needed on existing corridors or for new roadway connections needed to serve future growth.

It also shows intersections and interchanges identified for either grade separation or reconfiguration.

You can see that with the uh red and blue circles on the map.

In coordination with the land development code, this map is utilized to establish setbacks for development and provide clarity about development potential within the future right of way.

In terms of the LDC, this map is utilized to enforce the section on transportation corridor management.

This slide gives further uh planning context to the uh proposed interchange.

The Little Manatee South Community Plan is shown here on the left.

This interchange would be within that community plan.

On the right hand side, you'll see the boundary of the urban expansion area, which is the UEA study in the uh LMS area, and again, that interchange is within that boundary.

This slide shows the quarter preservation plan map with the applicant's proposed changes.

You can see here on the uh southern part and southern Hillsborough County the proposed Fort Hamer interchange.

Again, this is uh within existing I-75 right-of-way, and the interchange is not currently constructed.

It is proposed in the area south of the Little Manatee River and north of the Manatee County line on I-75.

The quarter preservation plan map does not dictate the exact location of the interchange, and its location is yet to be determined and will be decided outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process.

Uh this slide shows just a slightly more zoomed-in look again at the interchange here.

Um it is a potential future connection to a proposed roadway, which is Fort Hamner Road.

You can see that here in orange, um, which connects from the Hillsborough County line to US 41.

Uh, this roadway is currently not constructed, and if this looks familiar, it's because it was a part of a separately uh separate privately initiated text amendment to the quarter preservation plan map, which you all approved uh back in January.

Uh in terms of agency review, I will not be going through all of the comments.

However, we have a couple of comments of note uh related to existing conditions and staff analysis.

Uh starting with the Transportation Planning Organization or TPO, I'd like to note that this interchange is a part of the Access 2050 long-range transportation plan or LRTP as a part of its unfunded needs.

You can see a screenshot here of the uh interchange information from the LRTP with the total cost estimate, noting again that it is a part of the unfunded projects, and again, here you can see the proposed interchange on a map from the LRTP.

The proposed interchange received a 7.5 million dollar legislative earmark in 2025 for a study to determine its alignment with final approval from the Florida Department of Transportation.

That study is separate and distinct from this plan amendment, which adds the interchange to the quarter preservation plan map for the county's setback and right-of-way planning needs.

Um, we received comments from the EPC, and this map shows wetlands near the proposed interchange to orient you.

This is the Hillsborough County line.

We have the Little Manatee River as well as I-75.

Uh, the EPC noted that wetlands are present near the proposed interchange and that a wetland delineation survey is necessary necessary to verify the avoidance of wetland um impacts for the proposed interchange.

They also noted that this must be approved prior to any permitting or construction.

Protecting, enhancing, and mitigating environmental impacts are important considerations noted throughout the plan.

Staff are noting these comments to explain existing environmental conditions in the area.

However, the EPC's comments and the plan's policies do not directly prohibit interchange construction.

Additionally, because the interchange is not currently constructed and no engineering or design of the final alignment has been completed.

It is staff's understanding that configuration could be shifted in line with EPC's comments and the LDC's transportation corridor management regulations without having to adjust uh the interchange again on the quarter preservation plan map.

Again, final engineering and approval of the construction and alignment of the proposed interchange would occur outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process.

Again, looking at existing environmental conditions in the area.

This slide shows existing significant wildlife habitat near the proposed interchange here near the river, as well as south closer to I-75.

The comp comprehensive plan states to minimize adverse impacts to environment environmentally sensitive land and avoid minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to significant wildlife habitats.

These issues again could be best addressed through the roadway engineering and design process.

Staff reviewed all policies within the comprehensive plan in evaluation of this amendment.

I have a few policies of note that are noted as other related in your packet in terms of environmental and environmental and sustainability section and the intergovernmental coordination section.

These policies relate to the previous comments provided by the EPC for wetland impacts and require coordination with the EPC.

In terms of the mobility section policies listed here, those also speak to environmental considerations.

Finally, the Little Manatee South Community Plan policies listed here support minimizing impacts on natural areas and encourage preservation of existing natural preservation areas and creeks.

With that, the proposed request is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.

Looking at the capital improvement section and the future land use section, the plan supports the provision of infrastructure needed for growth and development.

When looking at the mobility section, as noted previously, the proposed Fort Heimer interchange is within the long range transportation plan, and the comprehensive plan directs the quarter preservation plan map to be in alignment with the long range transportation plan.

Additionally, one of the policies listed encourages infrastructure planning within UEAs.

While this interchange is not being studied as a part of the UA UEA study specifically, the intent of this policy is to recognize that initial planning efforts may occur prior to the finalized recommendation of the UEA studies.

Finally, the Little Manatee South Community Plan has a vision statement that discusses specifically supporting regional connectivity to a potential future I 75 interchange.

It also discusses or anticipates growth through urban service expansion, which differentiates it from other rural community plants.

Finally, the community plan recognizes the importance of enhancing infrastructure.

With that, the planning commission found HCCPA 2611 consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

The plan's support of necessary infrastructure for growth, the recognition of potential urban services, and an interchange within a rural community plan support the addition of Fort Hamer interchange to the quarter preservation plan map.

The applicant is here this evening and available for questions, and I'm also available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

This public hearing or no one is signed up to speak, so we'll go into board discussion.

Please come forward.

You're not on the list.

Thank you.

Sorry, there was no sign up.

You get the guy here.

Amanda Brown.

Just calling because I had a uh came here just because I have a few issues with this uh proposal.

And number one was the lack of public engagement regarding uh this proposal.

There was no sign put up uh for the community.

Uh this is to put a specific circle on the map in a specific location next to an existing community, and uh this community had no idea that this proposal was coming forward.

Um sat in last night on the little Manatee South uh input meeting uh for the urban expansion study.

This wasn't mentioned, and uh the consultant told many of us that any changes coming out of that urban expansion study would be years and years and years away.

Um so I was hoping uh that this body would either vote to delay this item so that uh public input and public engagement could be done that make the uh communities uh specifically sundance aware of this item or just find this inconsistent based on the lack of community engagement.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone else?

Hi, Deborah Slow Recusso.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Deborah Slow Ruguzo.

I'm a resident of Sundance, a taxpayer and a registered nurse with 20 years of experience in hospitals.

My profession, we focus on the health of the entire system.

I'm here to formally oppose the high density rezoning and the Fort Hammer extension in the Little Manatee River buffer.

The construct constriction of our lungs.

As a healthcare professional, I see our natural environment as a system systematic buffer.

Sundance is currently shielded by a tree canopy in wetlands that do not exist in isolation.

They are biologically tied to the surround surrounding lands.

When you pave the surrounding buffer, you are constricting the living organ of this entire region.

The disease defense, biodiversity.

A healthy ecosystem is our primary line of defense against disease.

When you replace these habitats with sterile high density development, you remove natural predators, you are essentially inviting vermin and diseases they carry to into our backyards.

The illusion of lakefront living, furthermore, we must stop pretending that retention ponds are lakes to mark these as lakefront properties while destroying functional wetlands is environmental fraud.

These are not ecosystems, these are stagnant pits that invite alligators while failing to support healthy long-term bird life.

Simply aerating a pond does not replace the complex health benefits of a natural wetland.

These artificial environments are poor substitutes for the heritage we are losing.

In conclusion, I have bought brought a painting with me today titled Val Valroy Road, Wildlife and Witness.

This work was born directly from my own observations on that road.

It is a visual record of the biodiversity we are currently choosing to erase.

It is not just land, it is a habitat, a flood barrier, and a way of life.

Anyone else?

I was just gonna say I think this is the only road that's ever been pre-planned by the property owner before it was asked for since I've been here.

That was I thought that this was good planning if something is coming.

That's all, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

I just want to echo those comments.

Um this is exactly what the community's been crying out for us to do, and that's plan in advance.

Um, with that, I would move for approval.

Commissioner Myers, I don't see anyone else in the queue.

Please record your vote.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Madam, we got anything else?

No, sir, that concludes the agenda.

Okay, we're adjourned.