The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a public hearing on August 13, 2026, to consider multiple comprehensive plan amendments and rezonings, including both small-scale and large-scale map amendments, urban service area expansions, and concurrent rezoning requests. The meeting featured extensive public testimony on several items, particularly the Dorman Road/Lithia Pinecrest proposals (Items C1, C2, and C3). The board approved all items except where noted, with the most contested decisions passing by a 5-2 vote.
Over 70 individuals signed up to speak; the board set a 2-minute limit per speaker. The vast majority of public comment opposed the Dorman Road proposals (Items C1, C2, and the rezoning). Key themes included:
Proponent testimony (from the applicant and the seller of the land) argued that the proposal meets all seven criteria for urban service area expansion, provides a moderate density (1.47 units per acre, reduced from 380 to 280 units), and includes enhanced buffers and landscaping. The applicant also noted that a denial would not preserve the land but could open it to more intensive uses by right, such as a school or industrial uses.
The board adjourned after the vote.
Good evening and welcome to the August 13, 2026 Board of County Commissioners Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing. The board will consider the adoption and transmittal of a both large scale and small scale amendments to the comprehensive plan and two rezonings that will be considered concurrently with related plan amendments. Before I ask uh planning commission to introduce first item, I'm still waiting on the final list, but we have looks like well over 70 individuals that have signed up to speak this evening. So consistent with how we've handled in the past, I'd ask for a motion for each person. We give it two minutes. Move to approve. Motion, Commissioner Myers. Do you have a second? Second. Second, Commissioner Bowles. Uh please record your vote. You're unmuted. Motion carry with seven zero. Great. The planning commission introduced first item. Yes, sir. Good evening, Commissioners. Our first item is item A1. It will be presented by Alexis Myers. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA twenty six oh seven, located northwest of Hillsborough Avenue and George Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately six point seven acres. It is located north of Hillsburg Avenue and west of George Road. Bacon land is currently on the subject site. The properties in the evacuation zone A, FM flood zone AE, and coastal high hazard area. Residential is not allowed in this category except limited accessory residential, for example, on-site security guards. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, light industrial uses such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials as a predominant uses, including support offices, warehousing, and retail uses. Next are the impacts as far as existing conditions currently under res six and um OC20. As I could consider up to 28 dwelling units or 51,945 square feet of non-residential uses under the proposed LIP designation. The proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density and allow greater commercial intensity. The planning commission found this item consistent due to the direction outlined in future land use section policy 2.2.3 and coastal management section policy 3.1.14. With this planning commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Conference of Plan. And this concludes my presentation for 2607. All right, thank you for your presentation. The applicant here. Good evening. Good evening, Commissioners. You want to show me a little bit of a question. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Good evening, Commissioners. Gina Grimes with the law firm of Bradley Aaron Bolton Cummings 1001 Water Street, Tampa, Florida. And I'm here this evening representing Cadence partners on this comp plan amendment application from Res 6 and OC20 to LIP. You heard the Planning Commission's staff report. Um initially, the planning commission staff found the request inconsistent with the with the um comprehensive plan. However, the planning commission board itself disagreed and did make a finding of consistency. And the reason for that finding, um, there's three reasons. Uh, first was that the site is in a coastal high hazard area, and therefore the existing comp plan category of res six is no longer appropriate in that type of location.