Welcome to the Works. We're going behind the scenes with Hillsborough County's Temporary Traffic Control to find out how they plan, manage, and monitor our roadways and traffic, all while keeping the county running smooth. TTC is critical to the safety of the roadway in Hillsborough County. We're making sure that that work zone is set effectively so that it provides the safe traveling path for the persons that are driving through that work zone. There's the second one, Sean. Oh, a little puppy. Hold on, I got two right here. No, there's two right here, two little ones. Obviously when we pull up a brass, I'm like, hey, is that your dog? They said when they approached it, it started to growl at them. They were obviously hesitant, but they're like, it doesn't look in good condition. We found one dog in there that was barely alive. It's literally skimming bones. Oh my God, that is just ridiculous. 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 will not be able to attend the July 16th county 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 with Planning Commission, I'd like to introduce the first item. Good evening, this is Jillian Massey with Planning Commission staff. The first item on the agenda is item A1, which will be presented by Ms. Katrina Corcoran. Good evening, Katrina Corcoran, Planning Commission staff. I'm here tonight to present HCCPA 2611. This is a text amendment to the quarter preservation plan map. I know this board has heard this presentation a couple of times, so I will try to be concise. We have also received a few public comments and questions on this item, so I will also be thorough with the information that I present. And those public comments are available in your packet for your review. Some background on this request. This is a publicly initiated amendment. The applicant is Hillsborough County's Community and Infrastructure Planning Department. It is a text amendment adding an interchange to the adopted quarter preservation plan map, and this interchange is a potential connection to the proposed Fort Hamner Road, which is currently not constructed. Some background on the quarter preservation plan map, the adopted map you can see here. This map is utilized to protect future right-of-way from encroachment, provide connectivity, and ensure transportation corridors are adequate to serve planned growth and development patterns. 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. 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. This slide shows some general planning context for the proposed general location of the interchange. It is within the Little Manatee South community plan boundary as well as the urban expansion area or UEA boundary. That study is currently ongoing. This slide shows the map with the proposed changes. You can see the proposed interchange in southern Hillsborough County. I'd like to note that this map does not dictate the exact location of the interchange. Its location is yet to be determined and will be decided outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process. 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 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. 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 list 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 Hamner 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 on to 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 Rimes, who's virtual. Good evening. Good evening, Amanda Brown. I'm here today to just remind you that goal number one, objective number one of the mobility section of our comprehensive plan mandates that the county engage the public to ensure that all individuals or groups have opportunities to collaborate with the county and provide input in all aspects of transportation planning and implementation. Unfortunately, this item did not include any of those 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 their impacts to the environment, wildlife and surrounding community. It lies in a floodplain, etc, etc. 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 finding 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 Manatee 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 transformed 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 Hamer 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 location has 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, based on that future, are moving forward before the analysis is completed, especially considering some of the analysis done by the county shows that the growth thresholds and the growth projections may well fall below what is currently projected. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Morrison. Samantha Rimes, followed by Dr. Corey Campbell, and then Courtney Garvey. Is 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 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. 50 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. 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. Name's Joshua Briggs. Am I muted? No, go ahead, sir. Okay. So quick questions for the commissioners. Is it okay for a municipality to go ahead and move forward on property that's not really theirs? And basically is like, can businesses do it? And municipalities can't, you know, like there's constitutional processes to it. So the question 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, uh, in the area. So basically you, you've done this county wide, 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 with because of, you know, flooding corridors, uh, flood zones, floodplains, wildlife corridors. You guys basically is just circumventing the whole constitutional process of protecting homeowners rights and private property rights in order to basically grab land to accommodate future growth. Now constitutionally is like the comprehensive plan is questionable because you still have to go through the whole, uh, process of proving that it's going to 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 plans. Basically, you're forcing, you know, mitigation efforts, which if you have to mitigate a project to get the permitting, you shouldn't be developing there to begin with. And like with this, you guys don't even have a plan for a road or war attack. You're basically saying, Hey, we're just going to satisfy this land for a future road that we may or may not be able to do. So again, it was like, you guys are stepping on so many, uh, individual private, 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 to be away from the city. Appreciate your comment, sir. Thank you, sir. Elizabeth Arnold, is she on the line? Elizabeth and Larry Arnold have not checked in. Okay. Thank you. Next week's speakers are Joel Whidden and then Mark Vandery, who's virtual and then Cheryl Whidden. It's Joel. Good evening. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am a resident of Sundance. I don't have anything written down. I just want to tell you some personal experiences living in Sundance for the past 25 years. I'm a fifth generation Floridian from actually from Manatee counties 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 the 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 use 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 is where a lot of the deer congregate. So my eight, nine year old grandson happened to say, pop, there's a, there's buffalo back there. There's no buffalo. There's no buffalo this area. You're going to 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 flood plane 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 got to do is drive down and take a look and see. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the comments. Uh, next three speakers, Mark Vandery is virtual, then Cheryl Whedon, and then Noel LaCour. Is Mark on the phone? Uh, yes. Good evening. Mark Vandery here. Um, I'm from Manatee County and I've, uh, lived in this general area for over 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 determined, 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 Hillsborough County property? How many people can you put in there? You know, the analogy I've heard y'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 going to kill everybody there because it doesn't that does not have the capacity. Now, you got a letter from Manatee County. Rachel Layton 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 going to pull up there along the border are going to 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? It looks like I'm out of time here, but I got a lot more to say. Appreciate the comments. Yes, sir. Next three speakers, Cheryl Whidden followed by Noelle LaCour and then Carl Bailey. Good evening. Good evening. Again, I'm not going to repeat a lot of the things that have been said, except for I would like to invite each of you personally to come out and visit our little community of Sundance. 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. We purchased our land, built our home, raised our children, and look forward to having many more memories made there. I again just have a few concerns that I would like to expand on would be of course first of all the overdevelopment. If you put a a exchange right there by all that very sensitive area with that is going to come the development of literally it's been projected of tens of thousands of homes between Sundance and Highway 41. With that will be family homes, single family homes, multi-family 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 for you two to consider please and that would be oh I'm sorry I lost my place. With that development those of us that live there now we have wells. What is going to happen? What is going to 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 we have seen in the past years is now going to be right there they're going to 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 the process of filling up these wetlands has occurred. Also 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 that we've invested so much of our lives as you've already heard so I thank you and again please come out and visit thank you Miss Whedon. Can you state your name for the record please? Please state your name for the record. Sorry Cheryl Whedon. Next three speakers Noel LaCour followed by Carl Bailey and then Amy Tanzius. Good evening. Hello my name is Noel LaCour. 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 a evacuation zone A. That area helps hold and absorb storm water. This is not the appropriate location for this road nor for an urban expansion 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 30,000 residential units. That same developer has given multiple commissioners on this same board thousands of dollars via campaign contributions. Few commissioners who have accepted that money should recuse yourselves from this case. Thank you. Thank you Ms. LaCour. Carl Bailey and then Amy Tanzias and Deb Raguso. Good evening. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Carl Bailey and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. We acknowledge that this land use change or 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 other 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 are putting the cart before the horse. With public notice you've heard the frustration of the stakeholders and the citizens but there's more stakeholders than just them. Manatee Cano is 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 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 going to 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 read either way it's so ambiguous we know the wetlands are there we know the wildlife are there without details 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 3 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 make create the intention that hey we're going to grow and not be able to pay for it if amendment 3 passes. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Bailey. Amy is it Tanzes or then Deborah Guso and Christian Cavallero. Good evening. Hello good evening my name is Amy Tanzes and I live in Sundance near the Valerie Road area. I respectfully ask that the county carefully of Valerie Road in Sundance area that would better preserve the natural calorie road in 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 Valerie 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 Guso and the final speakers Christian Cavallero. Good evening. Good evening Deborah Guso. I live in Sundance the beautiful equestrian community of Sundance. I'm here tonight because of 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 a 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 have 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. We do not have to destroy our environmentally sensitive lands to make that happen. 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 Manatee 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 Hillisboro 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. Guzzo. Christian Cavallaro. Good evening. Good evening commissioners. My name is Christian Cavallaro and I'm also a resident of Sundance. I'm also a public servant 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 clear understanding of several important questions. Were all reasonable alternatives to other locations for new I-75 interchange other than Valwari 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 Valwari Road area? How are the long-term fiscal impacts of preserving this corridor compared with other transportation priorities? A short 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 Hillsborough County special. Again I respectfully ask that you defer your decision or say no to HC CPA 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. Cavallaro. Okay that closes a public hearing. What's the board comment? What's the pleasure of the board? 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-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 but here we are now left with a disastrous lithia pine crust that's now almost a third of a billion dollars to buy through imminent domain processes that are going to delay the project another seven years to accomplish this public safety enhancement that now has significant delays and unnecessary potentially loss of property and 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 very predatory legal industry which has significant delays and future costs of purchasing that property. We've seen time and time again the same things through gun highways felt 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 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 the urban service area is specifically only a targeting and planning tool so if we vote this down 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 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 so it really doesn't matter whether you preserve this or not 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 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 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 is is a moot point 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 thus um the well comment whether their 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 I just had six wells fixed in the lithium area that has nothing to do with growth it just happened to have a change of the water 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 no longer depth or has other issues they will help you at no cost to you the taxpayer thank you commissioner Cohen thank you mr gormley could you 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 we've been 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 interim yes that's the um so i 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 nothing at all 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 process project design and engineering process it would accompany that that decision okay and then the other the other question i 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 is 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 concludes at the end of next year says that it recommends no build 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 commitment so in 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 usa study and the uh the f-dot feasibility study yes all those are happening so this is like a concurrent action with this is a concurrent part of that and we'll note that this has been included in the mpo uh long-range transportation needs plan so there has already been some some recognition of the potential need for this as well as the the language in the community plan that right it was referenced so let's say at the end of all this f dot says no and the uea says no are we able to remove it absolutely yes sir would have to be another publicly initiated the same process but we can remove it and there would be no no issues at all 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 i agree with all the commissioners who have spoken your comments as well or adam therefore i'm going to make a motion 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 wolstel okay don't see anyone else in the queue uh please record your vote commissioner cullen all right thank you motion gary to five to one commissioner cameron cepeda voted 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 hccpa 25-35 and hccpa 25-36 this time the planning commission uh introduce the amendments uh yes jillian 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 25-35 and hccpa 25-36 located at 6210 county road 579 for the urban service area expansion and the future lane 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 applicants requesting to expand the urban service area as well as uh change the future lane use category from residential four to suburban suburban mixed use six this is the general location map uh as i mentioned this association is i'm sorry this amendment is associated with hccpa 25-36 it is in the rural area within the limits of the tonota sasa 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 rbs of 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 are commercial uses to the north and south within the urban service area currently the future names 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 on 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 lane use category to suburban mixed use six uh the suburban makes you six category allows six billion 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 research corporate park uses light industrial multi-purpose and cluster residential and or mixed use office uses are not subject to location with 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 impacts for the future land use map amendment as far as existing conditions currently under res 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 owner incorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan thank you and this concludes my presentation for hccpa 25 and hccpa 2536 thank you for your presentation of the applicant thank you commissioners jake kramer with barbers kramer i'll keep this short unless you all have questions our team is here um but this property is already 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 thanonis asset community plan in this particular area does support that and actually promotes that uh so unless you have any questions uh i'll sit down for now and i'll have a few a few comments for you on the site plan when we get to the zoning thank you thank you jake and we're going to 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 well you know basically you're not following through the the process for the communities yes you can put a transportation corridor an industrial zone or whatever wherever the hell you want but you're you're ignoring decades of data that you guys that the county has on file that limits certain construction projects or developments and everything else and you guys are purposely ignoring it is 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 can muster up the constitutionality of everything of 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 it's consistent inside of the master plan and which is something that people don't even approve of it's something that's 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 and they they don't want it they know their properties they know the impacts that it has is like and all you're doing is just kicking its hand 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 it's like it doesn't mean that it's suitable for it so like i said you guys will approve this and you'll say that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan but again the comprehensive plan is very questionable you guys are not considering all the details and as the one commissioner stated earlier about the whole eminent domain process it was 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 try to prevent that process to speed things along 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 all that up 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 thank you mr briggs 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 has 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 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 in a future to 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 to 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 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 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 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 may be seated staff want to introduce the item commission the next item is uh related item agenda item b3 which is the current item rezoning major mod 26-340 this is a major modification to the plan development uh located as indicated on the map on the west side or counter road 579 uh north on the north side of sly avenue it's a major modification to a parcel three within the plan development that's currently approved for a rv campground in display area this proposal will add a second development option to the parcel three to allow for manufacturing uses including warehousing distribution manufacturing accessory outdoor storage totaling a maximum of 750 000 square feet uh development service staff based on the site plan and proposed uh buffering and screening which includes an additional uh enhanced buffering along the northern boundary adjacent to residential staff did find this request approval uh planning commission found that 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 barbis kramer 2002 west cleveland street here again i'm just going to 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 planning for the future so this is this is actually good planning for some reason we have not been able to 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 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 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's solid waste landfill 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 cascrete 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 and 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 um and we came up with several things based on the community meeting we 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 on our western boundary uh we worked on some variations from the normal buffering standards because we wanted to protect there's some wetlands so we wanted to protect those and then we also wanted to protect the existing tree line on the southwestern portion of the property so we worked with staff to do that at the community's request we also on the north side of the property the community asked for some enhance some enhancements for compatibility along buster bean road and so this is again this is what we've proposed and worked with the community we've had a number of follow-up calls with 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 were 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 or that it should continue uh to transition towards industrial we have the support staff we worked hard with them in 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 the 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 um 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 spydell barbus 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 apologizes 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 you're good okay uh planning commission good evening alexis meyers planning commission uh the subject site is in the residential for a future lane use category the proposed major modification is running concurrently with hcpa 2535 to expand the urban service area in hcpa 2536 to change the destination to urban suburban mixed use six based upon the applicant requesting to the rezoning run concurrently with the plan amendment as such planning commission staff review the requested rezoning under the proposed future lane use category and the site's inclusion of the urban service area it is within limits of the tonota sasa community plan with respect to the proposed option one which would allow for the continuation of the existing mobile home park the request is consistent with the 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 character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods the continuation of the existing residential use maintains the established lane use resulate i'm sorry a relationship within the area and does not introduce a level of intensity or operational characteristics that would material materially alter the surrounding community context conversely option two which proposes the intro introduction of light industrial and warehouse uses does not meet the intent of future learning 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 public quasi-public or institutional uses while unlike 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 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 it does not reflect the vision of the tonota sasa community plan the proposed major modification would not allow for development that is consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the only incorporated 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 unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan thank you thank you zoning hearing master 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 and 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 wilstle i just didn't want the speaker that hung out um to feel ignored and i think it was mr abgar i 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 i'm 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 need to vote individually so the first one cpa 2535 by commissioner wilstle second commissioner myers uh please record your vote motion carried six to zero you have a motion for cpa 2536 so moved motion commissioner wilstle second commissioner cohen please record your vote motion carried six to zero and now we have a motion for major mod 26-0340 so moved motion commissioner wilstle second commissioner myers please record your vote motion carried six to zero okay with that we're adjourned