OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Hillsborough County BOCC Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing - July 16, 2026

Hillsborough County Archive View PageThursday, July 16, 2026
BodyHillsborough County, Florida
SessionHillsborough County Archive View Page
DateThursday, July 16, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:11:42

Transcript — Verbatim
2:08

Good evening, welcome to the July 16, 2026 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing.

2:16

Before we get started this evening, I want to read into the record from Commissioner Miller.

2:20

Please be advised that due to previously planned travel to manage county business in New Orleans at the NACO annual conference.

2:26

I'll not be able to attend the July 16th current planning meeting.

2:29

If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly.

2:35

This evening, the board will consider the adoption of a large scale amendment of the comprehensive plan.

2:40

Additionally, the board will consider the adoption of small scale amendments to the future land use map of the plan as well as a related application for rezoning, which will be considered concurrently.

2:50

So this time would planning commission like to introduce the first item.

2:54

Good evening.

2:55

This is Gillian Massey with Planning Commission staff.

5:03

This slide just shows a slightly more zoomed-in look on that interchange.

5:07

You can see that it intersects with the proposed Fort Hamner Road, which again is currently not constructed.

5:14

Do you have a couple of agency review comments related to staff analysis that I'd like to go through briefly?

5:22

We have the TPO's Access 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan or LRTP.

5:26

This interchange is in the LRTP within the unfunded needs.

5:31

I'd also like to note that the proposed interchange received a $7.5 million legislative yearmark in 2025 for a study to determine its alignment with final approval from the Florida Department of Transportation.

5:41

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

5:52

There are wetlands near the general location of the proposed interchange.

5:56

EPC's comments noted that a wetland delineation survey is necessary to verify the avoidance of wetland impacts for the proposed interchange.

6:04

This must be approved prior to any permitting or construction.

6:08

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

6:14

The EPC's comments and the plan's policies do not directly prohibit interchange construction in this area.

6:20

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

6:28

This slide shows that there is also significant wildlife habitat near the proposed interchange.

6:32

The comprehensive plan states to minimize adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive land and to wildlife habitats.

6:40

Again, these issues would best be addressed through the roadway engineering and design process outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process.

6:47

When staff review for consistency with the comprehensive plan, we review the entire plan.

6:53

So we have a couple of policies that I'd like to point out to you here.

6:56

The environmental sustainability section as well as the intergovernmental coordination section lists policies that relate to the previous comments provided by the EPC for wetland impacts and they require coordination with the EPC.

7:06

The mobility section policies here speak to environmental considerations.

7:10

Finally, the Little Manatee South community plan policies here support minimizing impacts on natural areas and encourage preservation of natural areas and creeks.

7:20

In terms of consistency, the amendment is consistent with the objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan that are listed here.

7:27

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

7:33

Looking at the mobility section, the proposed Fort Heimer Interchange is within the long-range transportation plan, as I noted previously.

7:40

And the comp plan directs the quarter preservation plan map and the LRTP to be in alignment.

7:46

Additionally, one of the policies within the mobility section encourages infrastructure planning for UEA specifically.

7:52

Finally, within the Little Manatee South Community Plan, that community plan has a vision statement that specifically supports regional connectivity to a potential future I-75 interchange.

8:03

While an objective of the community plan is to maintain conservation areas, it also anticipates growth through urban service expansion.

8:10

And this is a unique consideration that differentiates it from other rural community plans.

8:15

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

8:21

With that, the planning commission found HCCPA 2611 consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

8:27

This item was transmitted to the state for a state and regional agency review.

8:32

They had no objections to this amendment, and this item is for your consideration for adoption this evening.

8:37

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have along with staff from community and infrastructure planning.

8:41

Thank you.

8:42

Thank you for the presentation.

8:43

We'll go into the public hearing.

8:46

Each person will be given three minutes.

8:48

The first three speakers this evening are Amanda Brown, followed by Aaron Morrison, and then Samantha Rhimes, who's virtual.

9:02

Good evening.

9:04

Good evening.

9:04

Amanda Brown.

9:26

Unfortunately, this item did not include any of those availabilities to us.

9:33

This is a frightening item, and frankly, it is a slap in the face to those of us who have taken the time to participate in the ongoing little manatee study.

9:42

This is a study that we're being told gives us the opportunity to weigh in on how this area will look.

9:47

The study won't be complete until the end of the year.

9:50

So what is so urgent that this item could not wait until that study was finished so that we have an opportunity to have real true public engagement?

10:00

Why did this have to be a publicly initiated item?

10:02

Why did our county staff have to be the one to apply for this text amendment when we do not own the land immediately adjacent to it?

10:09

And thirdly, why did the county not engage the public for an item regarding such a massive project as this will be?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning██████████████████████████████████34%
Environmental Protection███████████████15%
Engineering And Infrastructure███████████████15%
Public Engagement██████████████14%
Transportation Safety████████████12%
Community Engagement███████7%
Procedural███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing - July 16, 2026

On July 16, 2026, the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider adoption of a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment (HCCPA 2611) adding a proposed I-75 interchange at Fort Hamer Road to the corridor preservation map, and a combined small-scale plan amendment and rezoning (HCCPA 25-35, 25-36, and major modification 26-340) for a 34-acre site at 6210 County Road 579 (Lazy Days RV). The meeting featured extensive public testimony, board deliberation, and votes on all items.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • HCCPA 2611 (Fort Hamer Interchange): Multiple speakers opposed the amendment. Amanda Brown argued the county-initiated amendment lacked public engagement and urged deferral until the Little Manatee South Urban Expansion Area study is complete. Aaron Morrison questioned the decision framework, noting that community plan conditions for urbanization have not been met. Dr. Corey Campbell (Sundance resident) described the area's wildlife and equestrian character, submitting a petition and wildlife corridor documentation; she urged a no vote. Joel Witten (fifth-generation Floridian, Sundance resident) highlighted increased deer strikes and warned of environmental destruction. Mark Vandery (Manatee County resident) argued the interchange would harm wetlands and the Little Manatee River, an Outstanding Florida Waterway. Cheryl Whitden (Sundance resident) raised concerns about well water impacts and flooding. Noelle LaCour called the amendment developer-initiated and urged recusal of commissioners who accepted campaign contributions from developers. Carl Bailey requested a continuance, citing ambiguity and the need for the ongoing urban service area study. Amy Tanzius and Deb Ragusso suggested moving the interchange to Buckeye Road as a compromise. Christian Cavallero asked for deferral until additional analysis is completed. One speaker (Joshua Briggs) criticized the comprehensive plan process generally.
  • HCCPA 25-35/25-36 (Lazy Days RV): Joshua Briggs again criticized the comprehensive plan process. Dennis Apgar, a geographer, opposed the urban service area expansion, advocating for no-build and form-based codes. No other public speakers appeared for or against these items.

Discussion Items

  • HCCPA 2611: Commissioner Woolstool emphasized that corridor preservation is a planning tool, not a development commitment, and cited past failures to preserve rights-of-way (e.g., Lithia Pinecrest). Commissioner Gowen clarified that the amendment only adds the interchange to the corridor preservation map, with no funding or construction commitment; future FDOT and public engagement would occur. Commissioner Bowles confirmed that approval creates no financial obligation or entitlement; the interchange can be removed if future studies show no need. Commissioner Myers moved to approve, noting the item was transmitted to the state with no objections. The board voted 5-1 to adopt, with Commissioner Cameron voting no.
  • HCCPA 25-35/25-36 & Rezoning 26-340: The applicant (Jake Kramer, Barbara Scramer) explained that the 34-acre site is currently a mobile home park (Lazy Days RV) and the amendment would allow future transition to industrial uses, consistent with the Tonoda Sassa Community Plan and existing industrial corridor along CR 579. The applicant held a community meeting and incorporated feedback on buffering and traffic. Planning Commission staff found the rezoning inconsistent with the comprehensive plan due to compatibility concerns, but the Zoning Hearing Master recommended approval pending the concurrent plan amendments. Commissioner Woolstool noted Hillsborough County leads in wildlife corridor preservation. The board voted unanimously (6-0) to approve both the urban service area expansion, the future land use map amendment, and the rezoning.

Key Outcomes

  • HCCPA 2611: Adopted by a vote of 5-1. The amendment adds the proposed Fort Hamer Road interchange at I-75 to the corridor preservation map, as a planning tool to protect right-of-way. No funding or construction commitment is made. The amendment is concurrent with the ongoing FDOT feasibility study (expected winter 2027) and the Little Manatee South Urban Expansion Area study (expected end of 2026).
  • HCCPA 25-35: Adopted 6-0. Expands the urban service area by 34 acres at 6210 County Road 579.
  • HCCPA 25-36: Adopted 6-0. Changes the future land use category from Residential 4 to Suburban Mixed Use 6 on the same 34 acres.
  • Major Modification 26-340: Adopted 6-0. Approves a major modification to the planned development zoning to allow Option 2: manufacturing, warehousing, and accessory outdoor storage up to 750,000 square feet, while retaining Option 1 for the existing mobile home park.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, welcome to the July 16, 2026 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing. Before we get started this evening, I want to read into the record from Commissioner Miller. Please be advised that due to previously planned travel to manage county business in New Orleans at the NACO annual conference. I'll not be able to attend the July 16th current planning meeting. If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly. This evening, the board will consider the adoption of a large scale amendment of the comprehensive plan. Additionally, the board will consider the adoption of small scale amendments to the future land use map of the plan as well as a related application for rezoning, which will be considered concurrently. So this time would planning commission like to introduce the first item. Good evening. This is Gillian Massey with Planning Commission staff. This slide just shows a slightly more zoomed-in look on that interchange. You can see that it intersects with the proposed Fort Hamner Road, which again is currently not constructed. Do you have a couple of agency review comments related to staff analysis that I'd like to go through briefly? We have the TPO's Access 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan or LRTP. This interchange is in the LRTP within the unfunded needs. I'd also like to note that the proposed interchange received a $7.5 million legislative yearmark 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 court of preservation plan map for the county's setback and right of way planning needs. There are wetlands near the general location of the proposed interchange. EPC's comments noted that a wetland delineation survey is necessary to verify the avoidance of wetland impacts for the proposed interchange. This must be approved prior to any permitting or construction. Protecting, enhancing and mitigating environmental impacts are important considerations that are noted throughout the comprehensive plan. The EPC's comments and the plan's policies do not directly prohibit interchange construction in this area. Final engineering and approval of the construction and alignment of the proposed interchange would occur outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process. This slide shows that there is also significant wildlife habitat near the proposed interchange. The comprehensive plan states to minimize adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive land and to wildlife habitats. Again, these issues would best be addressed through the roadway engineering and design process outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process. When staff review for consistency with the comprehensive plan, we review the entire plan. So we have a couple of policies that I'd like to point out to you here. The environmental sustainability section as well as the intergovernmental coordination section lists policies that relate to the previous comments provided by the EPC for wetland impacts and they require coordination with the EPC. The mobility section policies here speak to environmental considerations. Finally, the Little Manatee South community plan policies here support minimizing impacts on natural areas and encourage preservation of natural areas and creeks. In terms of consistency, the amendment is consistent with the objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan that are listed here. For the capital improvement section and the future land use section, the plan supports the provision of infrastructure needed for growth and development. Looking at the mobility section, the proposed Fort Heimer Interchange is within the long-range transportation plan, as I noted previously. And the comp plan directs the quarter preservation plan map and the LRTP to be in alignment. Additionally, one of the policies within the mobility section encourages infrastructure planning for UEA specifically. Finally, within the Little Manatee South Community Plan, that community plan has a vision statement that specifically supports regional connectivity to a potential future I-75 interchange. While an objective of the community plan is to maintain conservation areas, it also anticipates growth through urban service expansion. And this is a unique consideration that differentiates it from other rural community plans. Finally, this community plan recognizes the importance of enhancing infrastructure. With that, the planning commission found HCCPA 2611 consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan. This item was transmitted to the state for a state and regional agency review. They had no objections to this amendment, and this item is for your consideration for adoption this evening. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have along with staff from community and infrastructure planning. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. We'll go into the public hearing. Each person will be given three minutes. The first three speakers this evening are Amanda Brown, followed by Aaron Morrison, and then Samantha Rhimes, who's virtual. Good evening.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com