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.

Good evening.

Amanda Brown.

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

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.

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

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

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?

Why did this have to be a publicly initiated item?

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?

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

There are plenty of other concerns, as others will probably mention.

There are impacts to the environment, wildlife, and surrounding community, it lies in a floodplain, et cetera, et cetera.

But for the item before you today, there is one major issue that this is a publicly initiated amendment, which has not had true public engagement.

No signs were put up in the area, and no meetings were provided to the effective community.

So with so many major concerns, I ask you to take one of the following actions today.

Delay this item to coincide with the Little Manatee South Urban Expansion Area study to allow for proper community input and discussion, or find the item inconsistent with the comprehensive plan based on mobility goal number one, objective 1.1, since this did not have any public engagement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Brown.

Aaron Morrison, followed by Samantha Rhymes, is virtual, and then Dr.

Corey Campbell.

Good evening.

Good evening, Aaron Morrison for the record.

My concern tonight is not growth itself, but the decision framework that's being used to justify Little Manatee South.

After reviewing the Little Man T South Community Plan, the urban expansion area materials, the Fort Hamer Road Amendments, and the proposed Fort Hamer Interchange, I came away with a simple question.

What findings transform the future contemplated by the community plan into the future that is now being actively planned?

The community plan did not direct community or the county to urbanize Little Manatee South.

In fact, it established conditions under which urbanization could be considered in the future, specifically as growth thresholds are met and urban services are extended.

The county later created the urban expansion process to evaluate infrastructure, transportation, fiscal impacts, development patterns, and community input before future decisions are made.

Yet currently, a future six-lane Fort Hammer corridor is being preserved.

A potential interchange has been added to the corridor preservation plan, and Little Manatee South is currently being evaluated as a potential urban expansion area.

At the same time, the expansion area study remains unfinished.

The interchange locations have not been determined, and FDOT's own feasibility study is not expected to be completed until winter of 27.

Now I understand that corridor preservation is not the same thing as approving development.

And my concern is not that these actions appear, or pardon me, my concern is that these actions appear to be advancing based on a future development pattern that has not yet been justified through the planning process created to evaluate it.

So again, my question is simple.

Where are the findings that the community plans conditions and growth thresholds have been met?

If the evidence exists, please identify it.

If it doesn't, then please explain why planning actions based on a future uh based on that future are moving forward before the analysis is completed, especially considering some of the uh the analysis done by the county shows that the growth thresholds and the growth projections may well uh fall below what is currently projected.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Morrison.

Uh Samantha Rhimes, followed by Dr.

Corey Campbell and then Courtney Garvey.

Samantha on the line.

Commissioner Samantha has not checked in.

Okay, thank you.

Dr.

Corey Campbell, followed by Courtney Garvey and Joshua Briggs.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Dr.

Corey Campbell, and I'm a lifelong resident of Sundance.

My parents bought land in Sundance 50 years ago, and I have spent my entire 47 years connected to this community.

When my husband retired from 20 years in the United States Air Force, we chose to return to Sundance because this community represents abundant wildlife and equestrian lifestyle and small family homesteads.

I've watched our commun our county transform.

Open land disappears, wildlife habitat shrinks, and traffic increases.

The character that brought us here is fading.

CPA 2611 was initiated by the county, not by the residents of Little Manatee South.

And it would change the future direction of our community plan.

I understand this is described as a planning amendment and does not directly approve the construction of the Fort Hamer extension and I-75 interchange.

But planning decisions matter because community plans define the direction that we choose.

It is not just a road.

It's about what comes after the road.

Adding a future transportation corridor changes the purpose of the Little Manatee South community plan.

It shifts the area from one centered on agriculture, conservation, and rural living toward one designated to accommodate future urban growth.

More roads bring more development and more development places additional pressure on our groundwater, wetlands, infrastructure, and wildlife habitat.

Florida's natural resources are not unlimited, and this area helps protect us from flooding, supports our water supply, and provides habitat for protected wildlife.

When government proposes changes that could fundamentally alter a community's future, meaningful public involvement isn't a courtesy.

It is essential.

Have you visited Sundance?

Have you driven our roads?

Have you spoken to our families?

I invite each of you to spend an hour in Sundance before making this decision.

Experience the land, see the wildlife, and see what we are fighting to preserve.

Tonight I'm submitting two pieces of evidence for the record.

Documentation of our wildlife corridor.

And our petition.

Together, they demonstrate what's at stake and what is widespread support for the preserving of this community plan.

We are the people who would live with the consequences of this decision.

If transportation improvements are needed, alternatives should be explored that support growth without pushing urban expansion into the little Manatee South community.

Fifty years ago, Florida had room to grow.

Today, we have to ask a different question.

Not where else can we build, but what places are important enough to protect?

I ask you to vote no on CPA 2611.

Once this landscape is lost, we will never get it back.

Please protect the Little Manatee South Community Plan and vote no on CPA 2611.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Campbell.

You can provide those to the clerk over here.

Next three speakers, Courtney Garvey and then Joshua Briggs and Elizabeth Arnold.

Is Ms.

Garvey on the line?

Courtney is not on the line.

All right, thank you.

How about Joshua Briggs?

Yes, I'm here.

Good evening.

Am I muted?

No, go ahead, sir.

Okay.

Um so quick questions for for the commissioners is it okay for a municipality to uh go ahead and uh move forward on property that's not really theirs.

Um and basically is like businesses do it, uh and municipalities can't, you know, like there's constitutional processes to it.

So the question is is that's what you guys are doing with these comprehensive plans.

Um basically is what you're doing is you're saying, hey, we're gonna go, we're gonna go ahead and we're gonna grow in areas that has been previously denied, and it's like it's and I find it ironic that you guys just place uh growth zones and preservation and everything else to basically set aside land to accommodate future growth and development, and basically you're removing every property right that an individual homeowner has in the area.

So basically, you do you've done this countywide, you force basically developments in the coming in, you go through the department of commerce to just adopt this plan that nobody's agreed upon.

Then you're patching residents long-term-wise as you're forcing development in the areas that shouldn't be developed to begin.

Let's give you flooding corridors, uh flood zones, floodplains, wildlife corridors.

You guys basically was just circumventing the whole constitutional process of protecting homeowner's rights and private property rights in order to basically grab land to accommodate future growth.

Now, constitutionally like the comprehensive plan is questionable because you still have to go through the whole uh process of proving that it's gonna be beneficial for citizens' health and you know, infrastructure, you know, like to make it better for everybody.

You guys have not done that.

You guys aren't doing it in the comprehensive plan space because you're throwing in the comprehensive plan, and then you're forcing you know mitigation efforts, which if you have to mitigate a project to get the permit, and you shouldn't be developing there to begin with.

And looking with this, you guys don't even have a plan for a road reward tag.

You're basically saying, hey, we're just gonna satisfy this land for a future road that we may or may not be able to do.

So again, as like you guys are stepping on so many uh individual private property rights, you're directing the flow of property usage and everything else in the future.

These people that purchase this property is like done so for agriculture and Mr.

Briggs be away from the city.

Appreciate comments, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Elizabeth Arnold, is she on the line?

Elizabeth and Larry Arnold have not checked in.

Okay, thank you.

Next three speakers are Joel Witten and then Mark Vandery, who's virtual, and then Cheryl Witten.

It's Joel.

Good evening.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I uh am a resident of Sundance.

I don't have anything written down.

I just want to tell you some personal experiences living in Sundance in the past 25 years.

I'm a fifth generation Floridian from actually from uh Manatee County's where I came from, moved up into Sundance uh 25 years ago, uh just to kind of get a little more of a country type setting as Paris started to tear loose, and I got we we uprooted our family and moved into there.

Um it's been great living out there, but the impact that's coming our way with this possible development um and tying in that interchange on Valroy.

We have a preserve right down the road where animals will walk out and do their thing, okay.

So if we bring that road, that interchange in a Valroy, what are we preserving?

I guarantee you, majority of those animals are gonna get slaughtered out there.

We have a problem now with all the deer that are being pushed into Sundance from all the developments all over.

I can probably count seven or eight times just this year, between this year and last year, where deer, babies, mamas, bucks are being slaughtered.

Not only is it you know killing the animals, it's also endangering the drivers out there that don't live out there.

A lot of them are used that road as a cut through to go from 301 to 41.

Just this past week, my grandson was staying with me, and we were talking about as we were headed back into Ruskin.

We were talking about uh uh some of the deer populations that are out there.

And I told him, I said, just be on the lookout when we get close to 301 back on the left, that's where a lot of the deer congregate.

So my eight, nine-year-old grandson happened to say, Bob, there's a there's buffalo back there.

So there's no buffalo, there's no buffalo this area.

You're gonna find that maybe in the ranches farther out east.

Come to find out, some of the other residents had mentioned about a bear, mama bear.

So somebody else had gone through there and seen a bear and a mama bear out there on the property moving around.

If we take and we expand this area and bring all this traffic in there, I guarantee you can take that preserve and just trash it because a lot of those animals are using that preserve and coming up that uh the floodplain back up in there to try to get back over into the wooded area across 301.

So I would just ask that you really reconsider this whole process, and let's not turn southern Hillsborough County into what has happened to Northern Manatee County, which is where I came from.

Like I said, all you gotta do is drive down and take a look and see, sir.

Thank you.

Appreciate the comments.

Uh next week's speakers, Mark Vandery, who's virtual, then Cheryl Witten, and then Noelle LaCore is Mark on the phone.

Uh yes, good evening.

Mark Van Dere here.

Um from Manatee County, and I've uh lived in this general area for over uh one half of a century.

And uh I would just ask uh y'all to uh vote to not adopt this at this time.

Uh I think it's the wrong move to make.

Uh there's uh considerable wetlands and surface waters.

The Little Manatee River is an outstanding Florida waterway.

It is presently impaired, even though it's an outstanding Florida waterway.

You start opening up this area for higher density development, and you can kind of kiss that goodbye.

There's no way it's going to be able to survive that kind of pressure.

Now, I think y'all should be ashamed of yourself for going through with this type of a plan without having first specifically determine not just where the wetlands are, the delineation, but what is the carrying capacity of that area?

What is the carrying capacity of that South Elsborough County property?

How many people can you put in there?

You know, the analogy I've heard you all say, well, we got a plan for growth.

Well, you know, part of your job is to decide when growth is not appropriate in an area, and you need to take that to heart.

You need to seriously think about when it is absolutely not appropriate.

An analogy I like to use is the ship has sunk, and you have a lifeboat that carries 20 people, and you're trying to jam 30 to 40 people in that lifeboat, and you're gonna kill everybody there because it doesn't matter, does not have the capacity.

Now you got a letter from Manatee County, Rachel Lake said that the county Manatee County has no comments to what you're doing here.

Well, let me tell you that's not true because the citizens of Manatee County were not consulted.

We had no idea this was happening.

So maybe the administration of Manatee County has no comments, but the citizens of Manatee County have a whole lot of comments, a whole lot of objections because we are adversely negatively affected citizens.

We're downstream of you.

Most of the time we're downwind of you.

And the shenanigans you're gonna pull up there along the border, are gonna have a negative impact on our wildlife corridor on the quality of our wetlands, if they can even survive what comes after you pave over.

You're talking about this Fort Hammer Road, you're talking about a six-lane highway going right through wetlands and wildlife corridor adjacent to an outstanding Florida waterway.

Are you kidding me?

I looks like I'm out of time here.

But uh got a lot more to appreciate the comments.

So yes, sir.

Uh next three speakers, Cheryl Whitden, followed by Noelle LaCore and then Carl Bailey.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Um, again, I'm not gonna repeat a lot of the things that have been said.

Um I except for I would like to invite each of you personally to come out and visit our little community of Sundance.

Um my husband spoke earlier, 25 years there, but we looked and knew that Sundance would be where we would live one day 20 years before that.

Um we purchased our land, built our home, raised our children, and look forward to having many more uh memories made there.

Um I uh again just have a few concerns that I would like to expand on, would be of course, first of all, uh the overdevelopment.

If you put a uh exchange right there by all that very sensitive area, with that is gonna come the development of literally uh it's been projected of tens of thousands of homes between Sundance and Highway 41.

With that, uh, will be family homes, single-family homes, multifamily homes, and then the other things that come with that.

Will there be gas stations?

Will there be Wawas?

Will there be all these other things that are going to contribute to that development and all that comes with that?

I have a question with you uh for you two to consider, please, and that would be um.

Oh, I'm sorry, I lost my place.

Um, with that development, those of us that live there now, we have wells.

What is gonna happen?

What is gonna be the impact to our wells, our source of water?

Is there planning for that?

If my water goes out, can I call you guys?

I mean, should I?

What will I do?

What will we do?

The same thing that goes with that too, is if a god forbid a tropical storm or hurricane comes through, a lot of that water that uh we have seen in the past years is now gonna be right there.

They're going to uh fill, you'll fill in some of these wetlands.

It's been done, everybody here knows it, and the mitigation that's offered oftentimes doesn't even go to the areas where the uh process of filling up these wetlands has occurred.

Also, um, as far as that goes, the flooding, like I said, the floodplains will they be paved over?

I mean, these are questions that have you stopped to really think about.

If not, please do.

I ask you, please to consider all of these things.

If I sounded snarky, I sure don't mean to be, but these are concerns.

Um that we've invested so much of our lives as you've already heard.

So I thank you.

And again, please come out and thank you, Miss Whitney.

Little hidden gym.

We got Noel.

Your name for the record.

Please state your name.

Sorry, Cheryl Whitden.

Next three speakers, Noel LaCour, followed by Carl Bailey and then Amy Tanzius.

Good evening.

Hello.

My name is Noel Accor.

I live two miles from the Little Manatee River.

First, I'd like to say that the county needs to stop calling these comp plan amendments publicly initiated and instead call them developer initiated because that's what they really are.

The public doesn't want nor need this proposed road.

The developers who want to build tens of thousands of homes in the little Manatee South area want this proposed road.

This proposed road to nowhere does nothing to alleviate our traffic congestion in South Hillsborough County.

It has one purpose, and that is to support urban sprawl.

Y'all cannot keep up with the capital infrastructure improvements nor maintenance and repairs inside the urban service area.

And now you're trying to expand the urban service area into this agricultural and environmentally sensitive land, most of which is in an act uh evacuation zone A.

That area helps hold and absorb its stormwater.

This is not the appropriate location for this road, nor for an urban expansion, uh urban area expansion.

Instead of subsidizing urban sprawl, the county should focus on protecting our natural resources and managing growth responsibly within our existing urban boundaries.

Little Manatee South is in the same location where this board wants to expand the urban service area.

It also is the same location where developers want to create a special district with a build-out of nearly three uh 30,000 residential units.

That same developer has given multiple commissioners on the same board um thousands of dollars via campaign contributions.

Do you commissioners who have accepted that money should recuse yourselves from this case?

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

LeCour.

Carl Bailey, and then Amy Tanzius and Deb Ragusso.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Carl Bailey, and uh thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you.

We acknowledge that this land use change amendment will not determine that this will be built, will not determine where it will be built.

But changes to the plan do determine the character of growth going forward.

The piece going forward, keep in mind the comp plan is very complicated, and you kind of find in it what you want to.

A good lawyer could probably go in there and find anything, a ham sandwich consistent or inconsistent with the comp plan.

Asking for a continuance, and I'll give you a couple reasons.

First, this is very ambiguous.

I'm very sympathetic with your staff.

They were asked to find is it is an interstate interchange somewhere for a road that doesn't exist, consistent or inconsistent.

That's a tough job.

I know they did the best with what they had, but we're really that's kind of that lack of planning shows or putting the cart before the horse.

With the public notice, you've heard the frustration of the stakeholders and the citizens.

But there's more stakeholders than just them.

Manatee Cannon was mentioned, and this will include the future board of the members of land preservation stewardship district.

This will fall into that special district.

Those board members will be elected by the landowners with one vote per acre.

They haven't been elected yet, but they will certainly want to have some say in this and inform how we want to do the growth going forward.

Both for the stakeholders in this room, you at this table, and the uh land stewardship district.

The outcome of the study for the urban service area is going to be key in what we decide to do.

That study may actually come back and say, no, we're gonna keep we need to we can't expand it, or we need to keep this part rural as it is.

Again, reasons for us to just pump the brakes and wait.

And there are some inconsistencies with this.

Right now it is inconsistent with the current growth plan.

Land outside the USA are to remain rural, and the future land use for this area is natural spaces and then agricultural, agricultural residential, which would make it inconsistent with mobility 7.1.

The wetlands piece, you can read either way.

It's so ambiguous.

We know the wetlands are there, we know the wildlife are there.

Without details, uh I'm you could you could decide, and you have that latitude either way.

And obviously it's been inconsistent with public notice.

And then it'll cite some of the wisdom I've seen on this board with amendment three not yet approved.

We should not be planning for any new growth that we may or may not be able to pay for because again, this decision will determine the character of growth, and we may obligate ourselves or uh make create the intention that hey, we're gonna grow and not be able to pay for it if amendment three passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Bailey.

Amy.

Is it Tansius or then Deb Ragusso and Christian Caballero?

Good evening.

Hello, good evening.

My name is Amy Tanzas, and I live in Sundance near the Valerie Road area.

I respectfully ask that the county carefully evaluate whether a future I-75 interchange could be better located at Buckeye Road rather than Valray Road.

Buckeye is closer to Port Manatee and existing industrial and employment areas, which may which makes it a more logical location for truck traffic and future commercial growth.

It also serves an area where substantial development has already occurred or is planned.

Placing the interchange at Buckeye could help reduce pressure to urbanize the more rural and environmentally sensitive areas that we're talking about at Valorie Road in the Sundance area.

That would better preserve the natural character that we experience there, the wildlife habitats that are surrounding us and the open spaces that make this part of Southern Hillsborough County such a special place.

Before committing to a Valray Road interchange in the plan, I encourage Hillsborough County to collaborate with Manatee County to thoroughly compare the long-term transportation, environmental, and community impacts of a Buckeye Road alternative, and ensure that the public has the opportunity to review that analysis prior to a final decision.

I thank you for your consideration and ask that you defer this or say no.

Thank you.

I thank you.

Deborah Gusso, and the final speaker is Christian Cavallero.

Good evening.

Good evening, Deborah Gusso.

Um I live in Sundance, the beautiful equestrian community of Sundance.

I'm here tonight because of the my love of the environment, our love, and I'm deeply concerned about the future of the little Manatee River State Park and the Cockroach Bay Sanctuary.

These pristine environmentally sensitive areas are the ecological lungs of our region.

I'm also nurse.

They are irreplaceable treasures that we truly need to protect.

We are currently facing a major decision regarding a proposed highway interchange.

Now I want to be fair.

I've made friends with many of the residents living in the new developments and just across the border in Manatee County.

They want highway access.

They need it.

They told me they would love to have an interchange on Buckeye.

I completely understand and respect their needs.

There is a better compromise.

Moving the location to Buckeye is win-win.

Placing it there keeps the heavy traffic noise pollution away from the delicate borders of the Little Manitee River State Park and our quiet equestrian neighborhood in Sundance.

It satisfies the transportation needs of the neighbors in Manatee County without sacrificing the gems of Hillsboro County.

I urge the commission to protect our environment, protect Sundance community, and work to push this interchange to Buckeye Road instead.

Let's choose the path of responsible balanced growth.

Thank you for your time and your dedication to protecting our community's future.

Thank you, Mr.

Gusso.

Christian Cavallerous Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Christian Cavallero, and I'm also a resident of Sundance.

I'm also a public servant, uh, just like you, so I thank you for your time and your service.

I'm here to respectfully ask that you defer a decision or say no to HCCPA 2611 until additional analysis can be completed and shared with the public.

I do understand the importance of planning for the future, and I appreciate the effort that goes into long-range transportation planning.

However, decisions like this can influence where growth occurs for decades to come.

Once a corridor is incorporated into the comprehensive plan, it can shape future infrastructure investments and development patterns.

Before moving forward, I believe residents deserve a clearer understanding of several important questions.

We're all reasonable alternatives to other locations for new I-75 interchange other than Valory Road fully evaluated.

How do the environmental impacts compare between those alternatives?

How will this affect the rural character, wildlife habitat, and other open spaces that still exist on Valorie Road area?

How are the long-term fiscal impacts of preserving this corridor compared with other transportation priorities?

A short diversion uh deferral or a no would allow the county to provide additional information, answer these questions, and ensure the public has a meaningful opportunity to understand the long-term impacts of this amendment.

Thoughtful planning is not just about preparing for growth, it's also about protecting the natural resources and community character that make Hillsboro County special.

Again, I respectfully ask that you defer your decision or say no to HCCPA 2611 until additional analysis can be completed, presented to both the commission and the public.

Thank you again for your time and your service and your consideration.

Thank you, Mr.

Cavallero.

Okay, that closes a public hearing.

Uh what's the going to board comment?

What's the uh pleasure of the board?

Commissioner Woolstool.

I just wanted to point out a couple of roads that we still with deal with today decades ago when they were supposed to have their right right-of-way preserved.

There were the exact same arguments and methodologies used where they convinced the commission that if they killed the right-of-way preservation, they would kill the development.

Um but here we are now left with a disastrous lithia pine crest that's now almost a third of a billion dollars to buy through imminent domain processes that are gonna delay the project another seven years to accomplish this public safety enhancement that now has significant delays and unnecessary potentially loss of property in life with Hillsborough Fire Rescue and the Sheriff's Department on it.

And there's nothing we can do about it because right when you don't preserve the right-of-way, you have to go through the imminent domain process, which is um very predatory legal industry, which has significant delays in future costs of purchasing that property.

We've seen time and time again the same things through gun highways failed attempt to where we acquired that asset from the state decades ago with the same message that it would prevent the development.

The development inevitably comes one way or the other, largely because people um misunderstand that the urban service area has nothing to do with someone's right to ask to develop their property.

They can do it with that there or without that there.

Um the urban service area is specifically only a targeting and planning tool.

So if we vote this down, um, it doesn't mean that nothing's going to come.

It just means that we potentially create future harm by not preserving the right-of-way.

Um, and again, if if the growth predictions are wrong, then the same thing that happened during the 2008-9 bubble burst.

We we had huge growth preservation plans in the 90s, which is what led to the urban service area planning.

None of that growth ended up happening until decades after it was originally proposed.

And because there wasn't proper right-of-way preservation, we're now left with significant challenges.

Um, so it really doesn't matter whether you preserve this or not.

Um, there's always going to be there.

Anybody can ask to redevelop their property at any point in time.

I mean, the board just voted down 600 apartments in Dover because we felt like that was inappropriate.

Um we've voted down 15,000 apartments over the last three and a half years that I'm aware of.

And we can do that at our discretion.

And a future board can um there could be no urban service area expansion, there could be no right-of-way preservation.

The future board could look at a piece of land and say, hey, I think that this deserves to belong there, urban service area or not.

It doesn't matter.

That's that's not how the process works.

So I just think that the right-of-way preservation um is a moot point.

It has it has nothing to do with the future issues or future growth patterns.

This is if if the FDOT decides they don't need it, then they have an empty piece of land, they dispose of their right-of-way all the time because they had a right-of-way in the past, they decide they don't need it, and they give it up in the future.

So those are just a couple of my points.

Um, oh, and the um the um the well comment, whether there's development or not, um, whoever said if if our if our wells run dry, you absolutely um should call us and Tampa Bay Water will um I just had six wells fixed in the lithia area that has nothing to do with growth.

It just happened to have a change of the auto aquifer.

If you have problems with your well, please contact us and we can get Tampa Bay Waters team out there at a no-cost service to you if they determine that your well is um no longer depth or has other issues, they will help you at no cost um to use a taxpayer.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gowen.

Thank you.

Mr.

Guormley, could you help but help help out here for a minute and just remind the board and everyone exactly what it is we are being asked to do here?

Yes, sir.

So it'd be asked to add the interchange to the corridor preservation map.

This will not be a funding commitment, is not a commitment by the board to construct or to fund or to contribute to any such interchange.

It's simply a tool to protect that interchange to ensure that there's not growth there that's incompatible with that with that.

So that if one day you want to build a road, you don't go back and find out that there's a hotel sitting there that got built in the in the NRM.

Yes, that's the um so I I have in my notes here from my briefing setting aside right of way if needed on land the public already owns.

Yes, sir.

Um so uh nothing at all uh about a plan to to build anything yet correct.

If that were to happen, what would be the public engagement that would occur at that time?

So if that were to happen, that would be a project that FDOT would be involved with.

There would be uh public outreach and uh there'd be a whole process in project design and engineering process that would accompany that that decision.

Okay, and then the other the other question.

I I I wanted to just um there was a lot of discussion of the community plan, and what I noticed that actually the community plan says regional connectivity will be supported by providing access to roads that connect to a future interstate I-75 interchange.

So that's actually in the community plan.

And then um finally, I I just the other thing is that I did notice the planning commission voted for this unanimously.

Is that their recommendation to us was unanimous to find it consistent?

Yes, correct.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Bowles Thank you.

I don't know if this is for attorney Lundgren or for Director Gorley, but if we approve this tonight, and FDOT basically says after their study, which I concludes is the end of next year, says that the recommends no bill or that we shouldn't, you know, go forward with this.

Does this create any type of entitlement or financial obligation to the county or anybody?

No, it doesn't would not create any type of financial obligation or entitlement or commitment by the county.

It is a planning tool, um, and it would not obligate the county to any particular uh action or or funding or or or commitment.

So in essence, it's putting a symbol on a map.

Correct to preserve that and kind of is going concurrent.

It's like a concurrent action with the UEA US possibly USAU study and the uh the FDOT feasibility study.

Yes, all those are happening.

So this is like a concurrent action with this is a concurrent part of that.

We'll note that this has been included in the MPO uh long-range transportation needs plan.

So there has already been some recognition of the potential need for this, as well as the the uh language in the community plan that was referenced.

So let's say at the end of all this, FDO says no, and the UA says no.

Are we able to remove it?

Absolutely, yes, sir.

Uh we'll have to be another public.

But we can remove it, and there would be no could no issues at all.

Correct, I mean, outside of you know what may come up with a couple comment, but yes, sir, correct.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Myers.

Uh thank you.

Uh I agree with all the commissioners who have spoken your comments as well.

Uh Adam, therefore, I'm going to make um a motion um to move for approval.

This came back.

This was transmitted to the state.

It came back with no comments, no objection.

And so, therefore, my motion is to um approve as presented.

Uh HCCPA 2611.

That's my motion.

Okay, we got a motion to approve by Commissioner Myers.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second, Commissioner Wolstool.

Okay, don't see anyone else in the queue.

Uh, please record your vote.

Commissioner Collin.

All right, thank you.

Motion carried five to one.

Commissioner Cameron Sepay to vote of no.

Okay.

Thank you for everyone that came down this evening.

All right, the next two items will be combined presentation and public hearing on HC CPA 25-35 and HC CPA 25-36.

This time the planning commission uh introduced the amendments.

Uh yes, Gillian Massey for the record with planning commission staff.

Um, as mentioned, the next two items will be presented as a one combined presentation, B1 and B2.

Um, presented by Miss Alexis Myers from Planning Commission staff.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present HCCPA 2535 and HCPA 2536 located at 6210, County Road 579 for the urban service area expansion and the future land use map amendment.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is large in scale.

I'm sorry, small in scale and approximately 34 acres.

The applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area as well as uh change the future land use category from residential four to serving suburban mixed use six.

This is the general location map.

Uh as I mentioned, this associated is I'm sorry, this amendment is associated with ACCPA 2536.

It is in the rural area within the limits of the Tonoda Sassa community plan.

It is located north of East Sly Avenue and west of County Road 579.

Here is the area of the site.

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

The subject property is the lazy days of RB's Tampa.

The site has wetlands and is in the evacuation zone E and FEMA flood zone X.

There is a mobile home park and agriculture to the west.

Single family uses are to the north and west.

The Hillsborough Heights landfill is directly east across County Road 579.

Industrial uses are to the north.

Lastly, there um are commercial uses to the north and south within the urban service area.

Currently, the future late's designation is residential four.

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

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

Other future land use categories shown in this map include suburban mixed use six and community mixed use 12 to the south, public public to the east, and residential one to the west.

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

Uh to the suburban mix use six category allows six zoning units per gross acre and maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

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

Office uses are not subject to location criteria.

Next are the impacts for the urban service area expansion.

This amendment would bring 34 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer.

Next are the uh impacts for the future land use map amendment.

As far as existing conditions, currently under REST 4, the site could consider 136 dwelling units or 370,821 square feet of non-residential uses under the proposed future land use designation of SMU 6.

The site could consider 204 dwelling units or maximum intensity of 740,563 square feet of non-residential uses.

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

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

It is also consistent with these uh following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan.

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

Thank you.

And this concludes my presentation for HTCPA 25 and HCCPA 2536.

All right, thank you for your presentation.

Uh the applicant.

Thank you.

Commissioner's Jay Kramer with Barbara Scramer.

Uh, I'll keep this short unless you all have questions.

Our team is here.

Um, but this property is already uh required to connect to utilities.

Uh you probably know this as the lazy days uh RV park portion of the property.

Uh however, a different landowner actually owns the property.

And this would just allow us, as you'll see in the PD site plan in our upcoming hearing in a few minutes.

This just allows the potential uh when the lease is over to eventually transition to industrial.

As you all know, you've had a number of industrial applications in the 579 corridor and the Thanona SASA community plan in this particular area does support that and actually promotes that.

Uh so unless you have any questions, uh I'll I'll sit down for now and I'll have a few quite uh a few comments for you on the site plan when we get to the zoning.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jake.

And we'll go into our public comments.

Um Courtney Gobby is on the line.

Staff is she's on the line.

Courtney is not checked in.

Okay, Joshua Briggs.

Virtual.

Joshua on the line.

Josh Briggs.

Yep.

And basically I'm gonna make the same comment as I did on the previous ones.

Uh good evening, uh, Josh Briggs.

Uh the comprehensive plan, I've got some serious questions about it at all.

It's because you guys are you guys put it in place and you are not follow you know, based you you're not following through the the process for the communities.

Yes, you can put a transportation corridor or an industrial zone or whatever, wherever the hell you want.

But you you're you're ignoring decades of data that you guys that the county has on file that limits certain construction progress or developments and everything else, and you guys are purposely ignoring it.

All you're doing is just putting it under the comprehensive plan.

And again, it's questionable at you know, at best.

It's a tool, it's not the uh set in law.

I don't think it's even muster up uh the constitutionality of everything if you know private property rights or whatever.

It's like you guys are overreaching and you're not able to show that besides that it fits is consistent inside of the master plan.

Which is something that the people don't even approve of.

It's something that you guys have put in place, and something that you guys have decided that you wanted to do.

The communities surrounding it don't do it.

Uh they they don't want it, they know their properties, they know the impacts that it has.

It's like in all you're doing is just kicking a can down the road.

It's like you ignore all the flood study data that comes up just because you want to put a transportation corridor or include it in a service area or whatever the hell it is that you want to do, is like it doesn't mean that it's suitable for it.

So like I said, you guys will approve this and you'll say it's consistent with the comprehensive plan, but again, the comprehensive plan is very questionable.

You guys are not considering all of the details.

And as the one commissioner stated earlier about the whole eminent domain process is like, yes, it's designed to slow things down for a reason.

It doesn't mean you know, like if you have to go through that, one is like you're gonna have to figure out if it's worth it or not.

But two, you still have to go through that process.

You cannot uh pre try to prevent that process to speed things long because it's not convenient.

There's a reason why it's it's there, and it's there so that the studies get done, the knowledge and the information that you guys have on file and on record, you should this staff should be able to pull that off.

It's like all previous denials on every piece of property.

You guys have it all.

It's like you use it when it's benefits for you, but when it goes against what you want to do, you guys don't pertain to that, and you require the public to actually have to request information and everything else to do.

I appreciate your comments, sir.

Uh is Elizabeth Arnold on the line.

Elizabeth and Larry have not checked in.

Okay, thank you.

Uh last speaker, Dennis Apgar.

Good evening.

Greetings, Hillsborough County Commission.

Now I kind of made a mistake with my application.

I know the vote's already been done, but I wish you guys reconsider I'm about myself.

I'm a geographer and aspiring urban planner.

And I think sprawl is the wrong way to go when it comes to urban planning practices.

Right now, the US is really behind other countries when it comes to land use zoning.

In France, for example, they have wildlife corridors every certain number of kilometers.

And uh we need to get rid of the traditional Euclidean zoning for form-based codes as directed by the Congress for New Urbanism.

But preferably Dutch are you know zoning of any European Union country where the suburbs are dense and the wildlife is protected.

Uh and uh I really wish you guys can re I really wish you would reconsider uh the notion to uh keep the right-of-way for the interchange and a feature to get rid of the project.

I support the no build option, by the way.

Yeah.

Sorry if I'm kind of okay.

So as regards the motion at uh late on the lazy days RV, I don't think there's a reason to extend this urban service boundary there, huh?

As you know, I think it's being lazy days RV seems to be happy with what they have right now.

And uh I think I'm speaking on the future other motions, right?

So uh I thank you all for taking time to listen to me.

Thank you, Mr.

Abgar.

Appreciate your comments.

Thanks for coming down.

Uh that closes the public hearing.

Uh the applicant has an opportunity for three minute rebuttal.

Do you want to use that?

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I think some of the comments were obviously about the last application.

Um I'll get into the site plan, I'll address some of the concerns, but I think it'd be better to move on to the zoning, and then I can address the some of the comments that were made.

Okay, thank you.

Uh this the votes on these two uh plan amendments will occur after the related rezoning.

Um at this time, anyone that's uh intending to speak on the rezoning request.

Will you please uh stand so the clerk can square you in?

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

All right, thank you.

You may be seated.

All right, staff would introduce the item.

Commissioner's next item is uh related item agenda item B3, which is the current item rezoning major mod 26-340.

Uh, this is a major modification to the plan development uh located as indicated on the map, the west side of County Road 579, uh north is on the north side of Sly Avenue.

It's a major modification to uh parcel three within the plan development that's currently approved for a RV campground and display area.

This proposal would add a second development optional to the parcel three to allow for manufacturing uses, including warehousing distribution, manufacturing, and accessory outdoor storage, totaling a maximum of 750,000 square feet.

Uh development service staff based on the uh site plan and proposed uh uh buffering and screening, which includes an additional uh enhanced uh buffering along the northern boundary adjacent to residential.

Staff did find this request approvable.

Uh Planning Commission found the requesting consistent with the plan and the hearing officer recommended approval.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Applicant.

Thank you, Jake Kramer from Barbara Scramer, 2002 West Cleveland Street here again.

I'm just gonna go through a couple of slides to address some of the comments that were made, commissioners.

Um the only reason why we're uh we're we're here today is again we're we're planning for the future.

So this is this is actually good planning.

For some reason, we have not been able to quite figure out uh this entire PD was actually required to connect into utilities, uh, but for some reason the urban service area had that line had just been drawn at the time.

And so probably what should have happened is in the 90s this property should have all been put into the urban service boundary, and that didn't happen.

The notice asset community plan, uh, again back in the 90s, around the same time, uh the planning commission actually voted to uh in favor of considering along this 579 corridor uh that on an on a case-by-case basis, uh they recognized that it was going to be even back then it was transitioning away from residential um into what we see now into really an industrial corridor, right?

So we have the county solid wasteland fill, the county's made massive investments out in this area because of that, and that's why you see some of these uses like Amazon, Cass Creek, Florida Biosolids, Mako Soils.

Um, and so really this is this is the perfect place for the county to maximize this investment in this area uh in and allow industrial because industrial doesn't fit everywhere.

If it fits anywhere, I would suggest to you that it's in this part of the county.

Now we did have a community meeting, and we came up with several things based on the community meeting.

We had had had an open house, we asked for feedback, and this is the way the process is supposed to work because a few things came out of that meeting uh that we thought were good ideas, and we've incorporated.

Uh one of those was working with staff to uh on our western boundary.

Uh we worked on some variations from the normal buffering standards because we wanted to protect there's some wetlands, uh so we wanted to protect those, and then we also wanted to protect the existing tree line on the southwestern portion of the property.

Uh so we worked with staff to do that at the community's request.

We also uh on the north side of the property.

The community asked for some enhance some enhancements for compatibility along Buster Bean Road.

Uh and so this is uh again, this is what we've proposed and worked with the community.

We've had a number of follow-up calls with uh the representatives that live out on this road.

And then there were some uh some traffic concerns.

So again, we worked with staff uh to to figure those out to make sure we're designing uh safe improvements and safe access to the site.

And again, those are all at the community's request, which we were happy to do.

So you know, again, your your uh planning commission unanimously recommended this area uh to that it should continue uh to transition towards industrial.

We have the support of staff.

We worked hard with them and the community.

Our team is here if you have any questions.

Uh so thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

All right, thank you.

This time we're going to oral argument, which is limited to the parties of record.

Uh five individuals have signed up this evening.

Uh, none are qualified as parties of record according to our county attorney.

And I'll just say their names.

Courtney Garvey, Joshua Briggs, Elizabeth Arnold, Larry Arnold, and Cheryl Whitten.

There are three individuals that are parties of record uh as far as proponents would go first.

Uh Cynthia Godwin Wilson.

Is she here?

Want to speak?

Oh, you're uh hello, Cynthia Spidel, Barbara's Kramer.

Um, for the record.

Uh Cynthia Wilson reached out to me.

She could not attend tonight, but she did come out at zoning hearing master.

She was one of the um persons who came to our community meeting, and we were able to address her concerns.

So she came out in support of the project at zoning hearing master, but she apologized.

She could not be here today.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else in support?

Okay, opposition.

There was a Thomas Godwin and a Patricia Boyette.

Either one of you here.

Okay, anyone else in opposition?

All right.

Applicant need rebuttal.

No, sir.

You're good.

Okay.

Uh Planning Commission.

Good evening, Alexis Myers Planning Commission.

Uh, the subject site is in the residential for future land use category.

The proposed major modification is running concurrently with HECPA 2535 to expand the urban service area and HCCPA 2536 to change the designation to urban uh suburban mixed use six.

Based upon the applicant requesting the rezoning run concurrently with the plan amendment as such, planning commission staff review the requested rezoning under the proposed future land use uh category and the site's inclusion of the urban service area.

It is within limits of the Tonoda Sassa community plan with respect to the uh proposed option one, which would allow for the continuation of the existing mobile home park.

The request is consistent with the uh intent of future land use section objective 3.1 and 4.4, which emphasizes that new development and redevelopment redevelopment must be compatible with the uh character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods.

The continuation of the existing uh residential use maintains the established land use res uh resolute uh I'm sorry, uh relationship within the area and does not introduce a level of intensity or operational characteristics that would material um materially alter the surrounding community uh context.

Conversely, option two, which proposes the intro uh introduction of light industrial and warehouse uses, does not meet the intent of future landing section, objective 4.4 and objective 3.1.

The prevailing development pattern in the immediate vicinity of the subject site is characterized primarily by residential, commercial, and public uh public quasi public or institutional uses.

While industrial uses may be contemplated within a broader future land use designation, the specific scale, intensity, and operational nature of the proposed development must still demonstrate compatibility with the adjacent and nearby uses accordance to um the comprehensive plan.

Overall, staff finds that the proposed light industrial use is not compatible with the existing development pattern found within the surrounding area and does not reflect the vision of the Tonal Tonal Disaster Community Plan.

The proposed major modification would not allow for development that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan based upon those considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies.

Planning commission staffs find the major proposed major modification and consistent with um unincorporated Hillsburg County comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed major modification to plan development zoning and found that the proposed modification is consistent with the comprehensive plan pending expansion of the urban service area and the amendment to the SMU six land use category that are both being proposed concurrently.

The zoning hearing master also found the application to be consistent with the code and the recommendation was for approval.

Okay, thank you.

Going to board discussion.

Commissioner Wilson.

I just didn't want the speaker that hung out to feel ignored, and Mr.

I think it was Mr.

Abgar.

Just contact my office and I want to email you the letter from the planning commission about the urban service area and how they basically have no idea if it's working, how it's working, or what it's doing to us, and also point out that Hillsborough County is uh I think the top county for wildlife corridor preservation.

If you didn't know that, um over 60,000 acres, more than double the number two county in the state of Florida.

So I'll move for approval of both items.

Okay, I need to vote that individually.

So the first one is CPA 2535 by Commissioner Wolstall.

Second Commissioner Myers, uh, please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

You have a motion for CPA 2536.

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wilson, second commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

And now we can have a motion for major mod 26-0340.

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wilson.

Second Commissioner Myers, please accord your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay.

With that, we're adjourned.

That's a lot of time.