Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're going to head up to that dog hall right now. So we'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at these dogs, I'm like garbage. I mean, that's just like, did you see those bags of food there? She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears. I need my photos. I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see. Getting where you need to go shouldn't be a struggle. That's why Hillsborough County offers Sunshine Line, a transportation service for residents who need a little extra help. If you have no mode of transportation, you may qualify for Sunshine Line's door-to-door service based on age, disability, or income. For those who live in the Hart service area, you may be eligible for an income-based bus pass program. Sunshine Line's trained drivers provide safe, shared rides, helping you to and from the vehicle and making sure you're secured every step of the way. Scheduling is simple. Just call 813-272-7272 to see if you qualify and start your application process today. Sunshine Line is here to keep you moving safely, affordably, and with a smile. Visit hcfl.gov slash sunshine line to learn more and get started today. Sunshine Line, Hillsborough's ride on the bright side. So good, yeah, change your grip. There we go. All right, so now twist it. It's got to open it. Stop. All right, close it. There you go. And then we're going to dig deeper down in. Deeper in. Let it cut all the way. Of your planning commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plan City, and unincorporated Hillsborough County. The planning commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play. For more information about the planning commission, please call 813-272-5940, follow us on social media, or visit our website at planhillsborough.org. Welcome, everyone, to the April 13, 2026 public hearing of the Hillsborough County City Planning County Commission. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room. Please sign the register at the reception desk and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For action items, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chairman. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal or response. Planning commissioners will ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second in discussion of what will be taken. And with that introduction, I'd like to ask the clerk to please go ahead and call roll. Present. Present. Here. Present. Here. Here. Here. All right. Before we begin, I guess I should announce that item G, HCCPA 26-09, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, was continued to the October 2026 cycle, southwest of State Road 60 and Turkey Creek Road. So we won't be hearing that item tonight. So if anyone's here for that, no need to hang around. Unless you're interested, obviously, in the others. So we will start with our first action item, 2A, HCCPA 25-23, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 117 North Dover Road. And the presenter is Willow Mickey. Good evening. I'm Willow Mickey with your planning commission staff. I will be briefing HCCPA 25-23, which is located at 117 North Dover Road. This request is a privately initiated small scale map amendment. It is made up of two parcels that total approximately 21.76 acres. The request is to change the land use designation of these parcels from residential four to residential 20. This plan amendment is part of the January 2026 cycle, located in the urban service area, and is not within the limits of a community plan. The site is located north of the Energy Innovation Park. Here's an aerial photo with the site outlined in pink. The blue line represents the urban service area, with the west of the line being the urban service area. It is located north of State Road 60, east of North Dover Road, and west of Sydney Washer Road. Within the vicinity of the site, there are public quasi-public uses to the north and west. Across State Road 60, there are a mix of uses including light industrial, heavy industrial, single family residential, agricultural, and light commercial. To the east of the site, there is single family residential, vacant land, and a mobile home park. Here we have some photos of the site. This photo is looking across from the site on State Road 60, then the site is on the right. This photo is looking at the site from the gas station across on State Road 60. This photo is looking onto the site from the fire station that is across from the site. This photo is looking onto the site from Hans Lane, and this photo is looking onto the site from North Dover Road. The site is in the residential four lane use category. Residential four allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects. Surrounding lane use categories include res four to the north, east, and south of the site. Directly to the west is residential nine, with office commercial 20 located further west. Public quasi-public is located to the north and further east of the site in the Energy Innovation Park. Lies to the south. The request is to change the site to residential 20, which allows for the consideration of uses, such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use developments. This slide outlines some of the comprehensive plan amendments that have occurred to the west of the site. The one that is gray in the middle there is the only one that was denied, so the rest were approved. And this is just kind of a zoomed out map to show you some of the development patterns that are more west occurring to the site. This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change. Currently under res four, the site can be considered for up to 87 dwelling units and 236,966 square feet of non-residential. The change to residential 20 would allow for the consideration of 435 dwelling units, and 710,899 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will result in a potential increase in development potential by allowing consideration of higher residential density and greater commercial intensity. This proposal has been reviewed by the commenting agencies, which you can find in your packet under the agency review section. There were no objections, however, the Hillsborough County Community and Infrastructure Planning Department commented that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed flu, except for the segment of State Road 60 from Valerica Road to Dover Road. While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Though the request is related to several general policies, staff found five main areas of inconsistency. Future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.5 relate to the urban service area and the appropriateness of future land use map amendments that increase density or intensity within the USA to a degree that it changes the land use classification from suburban to urban. The proposed increase to residential 20 would result in a significant shift in land use classification from suburban to urban within a context that is primarily low density and intensity in nature. Objective 2.1 and 2.2 along with the associated policies pertains to the future land use map and the categories that establish permitted land uses. Although the uses permitted within the Res 20 category may be considered for the site, the proposed amendment would introduce densities and intensities that are not compatible with the adjacent lower density feature land use categories. The proposal is also inconsistent with future land use section objective 3.1 and its associated policies related to compatibility. The proposed residential 20 feature land use category is not compatible with the current development pattern that is seen within the vicinity of the site. The residential 20 category introduces a higher level of intensity and density within a predominantly lower density residential pattern and lower intensity non-residential pattern. The introduction of this category to the area fails to demonstrate sensitivity to the surrounding density intensity in the area. It does not support harmonious integration with the existing development. And then finally, objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 emphasize the importance of enhancing and preserving the existing neighborhoods and communities. The proposed request of Res 20 would not complement or appropriately integrate with the established character of the adjacent neighborhoods that are lower in density. And therefore remains incompatible with the stated policies. Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. That concludes this presentation. I'm here for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Thank you. Good evening. Isabel Albert with HAP 1000 North Ashley Drive. I say this with a lot of respect for Planning Commission. I've been working with Melissa for quite some time and everything, but I was shocked by the report of how they portrayed this site. And just that one sentence, I have to say that it says this amendment could potentially disrupt the existing neighborhood character of the area and alter the balance of the development pattern. When I first filed for this, I looked at the area and it is not described as what seems to be portrayed because it fails to state that this area is already approved for 100,000 square feet of commercial use. The site is already approved for a big commercial development at this location. To the north, there is a church. Across the street, there's a fire station. All along State Road 60 is commercial. You have some multifamily in the area. You have single family in the area. You have gas stations. You have warehouse distribution. So this area, the character of the area is mixed use. It is an absolute mixed use area in this location. We are proposing Res 20. Residential 20, the reason why we asked for that is to introduce multifamily. You'll see some along, as you heard, some amendments that were done in the previous years where they went to Res 20 for multifamily development. Now, I understand that the Planning Commission cannot look at, you know, planned developments or existing zoning and things like that, but we are applying for a planned development. Basically, all we're asking is to amend, this is all the commercial use approved, to amend this portion here to allow multifamily. Now, I understand that when you look at the Res 20, it's .75 FAR, 700 square feet of commercial. That is impossible to build that on this site. It is impossible to build the maximum number of units on this site. As you can see, this is pretty intense, but it's 100,000 square feet. There's not much you can put on there unless you start going higher in your commercial use. So, when we requested the Res 20, we felt, you know, myself and the team, that it does meet the objective 1.1, is to put the residential development, higher intensity development within the urban service area. It also meets policy 2.3.1, which says that the density promotes the efficient use of existing infrastructure in the land of the area. There is the existing infrastructure. There is the road improvements through the planned development rezoning. Whether it's Euclidean or not, any road improvements will have to be addressed at that time. There is the school capacity. There's also objective 3.1 that talks about the compatibility. The compatibility will be addressed through site planning for this site. And also, when you look at objective 4.1, that supports the efficiency of used land while ensuring diverse living option. This provides a diverse living option. If you take away that commercial and you want single family there, it's not going to happen. The best use, either it's going to maintain as is with the shopping mall there, or you have, you know, the commercial along State Road 60, which is where you would see it, and then multifamily in the back. This concludes my presentation, and I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you. All right. We had one individual sign up for this one. They are virtual. Sebastian Fiali? Sebastian V? Mr. Chair, Sebastian did not sign in. Okay, that's all we had sign up for this one. So I will then turn it over to the planning commissioners. Let me check my in person. Yeah, that's all I had sign up for this one. So over to the planning commissioners for questions, comments, discussions on this item. I guess I'll kick it off. Did you want to, or staff, Ms. Ornita, or staff to address the comments made by the applicant? I mean, they seem pretty surprised by staff's characterization of the site. I'll start with the main point that it's on the edge of the urban service area. So we really want to see a transition of use when we go from the urban service area to the rural area. And the surrounding uses in that area going from the Res 4 to Res 20 would be a very stark contrast with what's already there. And so the transition wouldn't be appropriate. Yeah, I would just add that in the residential land use categories at an intersection such as State Road 60 and Dover Road, under Res 4 or Res 9, which is over on the west side of the road. I mean, they would be allowed to have non-residential uses under the locational criteria. So what they're approved for is consistent with the residential for a land use category. State Road 60 is a busy road, so it makes sense they wouldn't want to put, like, single-family homes right along it. But 20 units per acre is a big jump in density, as Willow said, right at the edge of the urban service area. And there's also, we don't look at the PD in conjunction with it. We're looking at all the potential impacts since the future land use change is permanent. We're changing the map, and so the PD is not something that we can take in two-factor. That's understandable, but my question more leans to, I guess, the characterization by staff. I mean, if you're taking all things that could potentially happen into consideration, then one potential is that nothing could happen. But we don't really discuss that. We kind of just go to the maximum potential and show the maximum potential. And I've talked about that. I won't get into it right now. I've vowed to leave you all alone for the rest of this year. We have urban service area things that I already have to go talk to the Board of County Commissioners about and other things. But, you know, there's some language in here in the staff report. And I was kind of interested in talking about site planning and buffering and screening. Things that, again, are questionable as to our purview here at this Board, but they seem to be appearing in the staff report every now and then. Well, we do want to recognize that there are other steps in the process that some of these issues can be addressed in. And we want to be balanced and fair in that this isn't, you know, the only step. Just like on transportation or school concurrency, you know, this isn't the only bite of the apple to take a look at those. However, I think in this case, we felt like with a residential 20, it would be hard to have, you know, buffering and screening completely overcome those compatibility issues with the adjacent residential four. But again, that still is a site planning sort of thing. That's not our purview that, again, staff is bringing up. And I'm not against staffs. I'm not arguing against it. I'm not going to make any motion one way or the other. My point, because I get thrown under the bus constantly for why I bring these things up. And, you know, we talked about this last time, kind of whether or not staff makes a recommendation or doesn't. And then, like you just said, fairness in how staff presents that recommendation, you know, there's something to be said for that. You know, and I think when the applicants come in here, some of them may have valid gripes when they say, well, they don't feel. I don't, you know, I'm not going to say staff doesn't. They say they feel like staff is not representing it as fairly as they could. So, you know, all these questions arise for me. But those are topics for a different day. I just kind of wanted to bring them up as we were going through these things. So I'll hold my peace now. Commissioner Sieben? So it appears that there's three mobile home parks basically on every other corner. How many units to the acre are those? Yes, I can take a look at the mobile home park directly east. If I, maybe if I pull up, maybe if I get a future land use map. So that looks like, so the mobile home park is, is this right here. And that is a residential four. So it's four units per gross acre. You said there was multiple mobile home parks. It looks from the, sorry, it looks from the existing land use map. Like there's. This right here. There's one on, yeah. And this is residential six. Okay. So they are in fact accurate. So this strawberry ridge boulevard and that both north and south are all accurately, you know, six, the max of six units per acre. It just looks very dense. That's why I'm asking. Um, it sounds, looks like the applicant might have some comments on that, but without going and looking at the, um, the zoning layer, we would not be able to verify their exact approvals. Some of the mobile home parks, uh, historically were approved under like commercial zoning and some other things that may have allowed them additional units. My only point is on the west side of the street, west side of Dover, the south side of State Road 60, and then the southwest corner of Dover and State Road 60, it all appears that there's pretty dense mobile home parks. Mobile homes units are calculated differently, so yes, they're usually double more. And that's why they're done through planned development. Okay, so what would you say the density of those is? I have not calculated, so I can't say. But it's definitely more than what the future land uses. It's based on the future land use. Helpful, thank you. Commissioner Sink. Could you zoom out for the bigger picture? I think you had it on an earlier slide. This one? Yes, okay. To the area directly to the west, there's a big section, looks like it's commercial. 20? Office? Is it office commercial? That's just over there, right there. From my understanding though, that is like also apartments. Is that map correct? The office commercial 20, you're saying that you think these are apartments here? Mm-hm. Okay. I have an existing land use map in front of me here, but I don't have that far. Okay. So- Sorry. It looks like the applicant- To answer the question, yes, they are multi-family there. Those are, because it has OC20, so they are permitted 20 units to the acre. But the OC also has more commercial to it, versus what we're requesting is residential 20, the same density, but more residential. So, in theory, you said right now your future land use is- Residential 4. Residential 4. Mm-hm. The map that you showed on your presentation showed commercial space? Is that right? You showed- So, not to confuse the zoning versus the land use. Got it. Okay. And so, that's why you look at the land use map or the existing uses, they're not always portraying what's really out there. Correct. So, I guess on my side, just for us when we look at it, it says commercial 20, and inside there is commercial up against the main thoroughfare. Followed behind there, directly behind there, is a apartment complex use. So, when we see the commercial 20, that's not actually how it's playing out. Can someone show us where this is exactly? I have a hard time figuring out where we're talking about. Sorry. This is our site right here, and this is the site that I believe he's referring to. It is. So, these are commercial along State Road 60 is what you would see, and then behind is the multifamily. Can you clarify? I believe those are townhome units, not apartments. So, I just think that's a distinction that might be important. And you're right. You're right. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Sink is on. Sorry. They're townhomes. Sorry about that. They're townhomes. I think the complexity that is there, though, regardless of apartments, townhomes, the number of dwelling units is there, and it's looking semi-equivalent to what they're requesting. All right. Commissioner Seidman. That was what I was going to say. Okay. See? If you wait for it, he'll deliver for you. Commissioner Sink is sharp. All right. Are there any other thoughts? Commissioner Linkus. I think this is a pretty tricky one. It does look like as you get into the, you know, as you go west here on the site, you do see some commercial development, some higher density development. But just, you know, feet to the east, it is a rural area. And, you know, when I pull up the address on the map, what comes up is farm, farm, farm, trails. So, I guess I'm pretty sympathetic to the staff's recommendation that there should probably be a transition area to these lower densities. This is very rural. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that the urban service area, you know, this is where we want to have development. But it's pretty atypical in Florida to see that hard line between high density and then rural. You see that out in Portland, Oregon. But I think that would be, you know, a sort of shock to the system in this area. So, I understand where the staff is coming from on this one. It just, it's a tough call for me. And I'm really looking carefully at this. But I just think it's right at an edge where you see deeply rural kinds of uses in place. And, you know, some density is certainly allowed here. But I think going into one of the higher density categories that the county allows would be a hard decision for me. All right. And I'll just take a quick moment, as we gather our thoughts for any more comments, to remind everyone that if we're making a decision against staff's recommendation again, that we have to sit here at the dais and figure out some policies, objectives, to back our going against staff's recommendation, even though we're the recommending body. So keep that in mind as we go forward and have these discussions. If you want to make a motion opposing staff, you're going to have to figure out some policies and objectives. And hopefully Ms. Zornita may be looking for some or can point us to some if she could be so kind, since we helped her out earlier. Commissioner Seaman. Sorry, I did list those policies. Okay, they're in the packet. All right. Good deal. Mr. Seaman. Just looking at, so I was just wanting to speak to the last comment. You know, looking at the map, it appears to me, like even if nothing happened with this parcel and it was vacant, it looks like Dover Road is a pretty distinct line between relatively high density on the west side to low density on the east side. So I think the principle of not wanting to go from high density to low density looks like it's kind of lost on this, in this area, a little bit regardless. I mean, just looking at the north and south side of 60 west of Dover Road, if you look at the existing land use, or the existing uses, it's the figure two. The aerial photography I think really shows it pretty well. Commissioner Sink. I mean, for us as a board, I mean, I'd be pretty hard pressed to say that having something that increases density and access to housing directly across from a fire station, which can serve as that, in an area where less than a couple of minutes, there's a very like project without the commercial aspect. So I think that if we think about transferring from dense down to lower density, if you lose the commercial aspect like the other project has up the street, wouldn't that naturally be you progressing down to lower density or lower uses as you went closer to Dover, especially being on a corner? Definitely lower intensity. Lower intensity. We always throw density and intensity together. Intensity, yeah, I mean intensity. But that's definitely a decrease in intensity. Yeah, good points, good points. Any other thoughts or comments from the commissioners on this one? Everybody's got their eyebrows for trying to figure out what they're going to do. All right. Well, I'm going to set it out there once, twice more on the public comment, seeing as there are no more takers. I am going to close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Is there anybody out there? Commissioner Sink. I'd like to do a motion to find this consistent. All right. Citing policies or objectives, does Ms. Zora need to have some help for our brand newest planning commissioner? I do. So I think Ms. Albert mentioned most of these, but I would suggest 1.1, and then policy 1.1.5, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, and objective 4.1. All right. So is that amenable to you, Commissioner Sink? It is. All right. So we have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Sink, citing policies 1.1, 1.1.5, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, and objective 4.1. Is there a second anywhere out there to that motion? Commissioner Sieben? Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions? And that's a motion of consistency finding on this one to the commissioners. Are there any questions, comments before we take our vote? And I'm going to turn this one over to the clerk for a roll call. Bowden? No. Cardenas? Yes. Jimison? Yes. Linkus? No. Steven? Yes. Sink? Yes. Joseph? No. Motion carries 4-3. Commissioners Bowden, Linkus, and Joseph voted no. All right. Motion carries. Congrats. All right. And we will move on to our next agenda item. I haven't taken care of that one. Item 2B, HCCPA 26-01, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 15728-15806. Westlake Drive, and the presenter is Andrea Papendrew. Good evening, Commissioners. Andrea Papendrew with your Planning Commission staff. This is HCCPA 26-01, 15728-15806 Westlake Drive. This is a publicly initiated small-scale map amendment. It is approximately 15.04 acres. The request is to go from the Wamama Village Residential 2 and Residential 4 Future Land Use Categories to the Residential 4 Category. In 2025, the Board of County Commissioners expanded the Urban Service Area and changed all of the rule WVR 2 Future Land Use Category in Wamama to Res 4, Natural Preservation, and Residential 1. For this amendment, these split parcels are within the Urban Service Area and were not subject to previous board direction. Staff have identified these three parcels as the last properties with the Wamama Village Residential 2 Future Land Use Category in Hillsborough County, and are recommending a change to Residential 4 to provide greater consistency with previous board direction. The site is in the southern portion of the county in the Urban Service Area. It is within the Wamama Village Community Plan and the South Shore Area-wide Systems Plan. This is an aerial of the subject site. The site is east of Westlake Drive, southeast of Bill Tucker Road and 19th Avenue Northeast, south and south of Florida Breeze Loop. Further west is the U.S. Highway 301 south. In addition, further south of the subject site is State Road 674, which is the main commercial artery for the area. The site is composed of three parcels. The northernmost parcel is vacant, and the other two are single-family residential. Surrounding the site is a mixture of agricultural land, single-family residential, HOA common property, and vacant land. Further north, west, east, and south are public quasi-public institutional uses, and to the east is the Baum Road scrub and land owned by the Bullfrog Creek Mitigation Bank. In addition, property to the east and further south and north of the site was changed to resident 4 by the board last year, per HC CPA 24-44 and 24-45. In addition, there are a couple of recent private amendments in the surrounding area. CPA 24-10 and 24-11, which are located north and east, were approved to expand the urban service area and changed WVR 2 and Residential Plan 2 to Residential 4. In addition, though not listed in the staff report, CPA 23-11 was approved just south of the site from WVR 2 to Residential 4 as well. These are not all the planned amendments in the entire area, but just a few highlights. Lastly, there are two current public-initiated amendments on South Hill Road and Wamama that are currently proposed to change to Res 4. A more zoomed out aerial map is in your packets. The amendment is composed of three properties. The picture shows the northernmost site, 15728 West Lake Drive, which is currently vacant land. This is the middle parcel, 15734 West Lake Drive, which is currently single-family. And then the last parcel, which is east on West Lake Drive, 15806, which is also single-family. So this is on West Lake Drive, looking north. On the right side is the middle parcel for the proposed amendment. Left along the roadway is vegetation. And behind that is HRA Common Property and single-family residential, the Valencia Lakes neighborhood. This is further down on West Lake Drive, looking north of the northernmost parcel in the planned amendment. North of the site is agricultural land owned by the Aston Strawberry Property Management LLC. And again, on the left side of the screen is vegetation, which behind that is HOA Common Property and single-family residential. This is looking south of the subject site. Again, the right side of the photo is vegetation, and behind that is HOA and single-family residential. On the left side, directly south is vacant land and single-family residential. Further south is agricultural, public institutional land, and vacant land. And then lastly, this is looking west of the subject site on West Lake Drive, showing that vegetation. And behind that is the HOA Common Property and single-family residential. The three properties have an adopted future land use, a residential four, and the Wilma Village residential two. Surrounding the site on all sides is the residential four future land use category. Property to the site, to the, excuse me, property to the north, south, east, and further north, east, and southeast, which changed to residential four by the board last year as part of phase one of the urban service area expansion for WVR2 and RP2 in the rural area. And then further south is the natural preservation category, and the blue line further south, it shows the urban service area boundary. Proposals to move for the entire site to be residential four. The existing categories would allow approximately up to 43 units and up to 163,785 square feet. However, the site is not within the Wamama downtown east district, where commercial office and industrial uses may be considered. It currently would only allow consideration of residential support uses. The proposed change to residential four would increase density and allow up to 60 units and allow commercial consideration at the same intensity, but it'd be subject to meeting commercial locational criteria. So no formal objections received from our agency review. However, there are some, one comment of note. Hillsborough County Office of Emergency Management commented that the proposed amendment does not align with goals, goal areas two and three in the county local mitigation strategy. They provided comments that any additional development and population growth in a high risk flood zone area will lead to further traffic evacuation and regional shelter capacity issues, and increased development could contaminate watersheds, complicating disaster recovery efforts. Hillsborough County Public Schools also did state that Eisenhower Middle School is projected to be at capacity, giving existing approved development in this amendment. However, state law requires the school district to consider capacity in adjacent concurrency service areas, which does exist at the middle school level. While formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Though the request is related to several general policies, staff found it consistent. Policy 1.2.2 states that planned villages shall be defined as areas identified as Residential Plan 2 or Wamama Village 2 on the future land use map within the rural area. Subject site is located within the urban service area. Retaining the rural or planned village designation is inconsistent with policy direction. The proposed amendment to Residential 4 would remove the Wamama Village Residential 2 designation from lands inside the urban service area and replace it with a suburban residential category. Objective 1.2 of the future land use section directs at least 80% of all new population growth into the urban service area and designated urban expansion areas through 2045. Policy 1.2 specifically states that all new residential or mixed use future land use categories within the urban service area should have a density of four dwelling units per gross acre or greater to direct growth within the urban service area. The request does support the county strategy to direct residential growth to areas where urban services are planned or available. Surrounding the site on all sides is the Residential 4 future land use category. The proposed category aligns with the low density residential pattern already present in the area and is consistent with the scale and intensity of surrounding uses. As noted earlier, there have been other amendments in the surrounding area. Planning Commission staff are recommending a change to Residential 4 to provide greater consistency with previous board direction. As these are the last WVR2 parcels in the county, if this amendment is adopted, there will be a future public amendment to remove the WVR2 language in the comprehensive plan. The amendment is also consistent with the Wamama Community Plan and the South Shore Area-wide Systems Plan. The amendment would allow for additional density on site, meeting both plan strategies to encourage or maintain housing for all incomes. Both plans also have strategies on environmental protection and the impacts to environmental areas will be reviewed at the time that new development or redevelopment occurs. Planning Commission staff recommends the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. We did not have anyone sign up in the public comment for this item. So, I will turn it over to the Planning Commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this item. Not seeing a lot. I did want to ask the question. We are the applicant on this one, correct? So, did we make sure and notice everybody in the area? Or, I know Commissioner Lauk always likes to ask that question. That's just like bread and butter there, so. Yes, we did. Give me one second here. Yes, so we sent out two rounds of certified mailing letters, both for the property owners, both to their mailing address and their property address. And then we did our normal round of noticing letters that goes out to property owners within 500 feet and HOAs. Okay. Did we get any pushback or any feedback? I got a couple returned to sender, but nothing. I got, I think, one call from someone in Valencia Lakes, but no public comments that were sent in or anything. Okay. And I guess now that I've covered Commissioner Lauk's usual question, I'll ask my usual question. Did we ever find out how we got that weird little line on the map like that? Where did that come from? Whenever I see mistakes in the map like that, I always get, it always makes me nervous. Like, why do these things happen and are we able to keep on top of them? Do we have any clue how that, I mean, I know it got left out of the previous round, but that weird little cutting across the lots, that's kind of odd. It doesn't match anything on the map. All right. Well, originally it went across, well, it dates back to when the WVR2 was previously RP2 and the line cut across a number of those properties. Some of those properties, there was a privately initiated amendment on the properties to the south that changed them. And then, but these three remained split. And then, yeah, then when we changed everything that was rural, these were somehow in the, I don't know the history of why they were, there was RP2 in the urban service area because that was supposed to be a rural category. Is there a way, and not for this one, but I'm just asking in general as we go forward, is there a way for our GIS team? To find out what every, not for us to change it, because the noticing requirements with that may be crazy. Just for our knowledge to know where all these cross lot splits are, might that be something that the GIS, like just pull every parcel that has more than one land use on it, you know what I mean? Yeah. So we can understand where these things are. Not to, again, do them all whole cloth, but maybe eventually we get extra budget, county commissioners feel good, we could stick a team on that to, you know. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I know they, we did an exercise like that where, and this may be where the urban service area originally followed and split those properties. I could go back and look. They did an exercise like that back in 2007-8, and Yanika and I did the plan amendments to, it was about which ones were split by the urban service area. And we fixed properties, and that may be where we fixed the urban service area splitting these properties, but we didn't fix the land use category. Yes, that was 07-30. They did a text amendment to change the urban service line, but I don't think they changed the land category. Yeah. Andrea knew. See? I had to stop talking. I knew there was somebody on the staff would be able to know, so. All right. Are there any other real questions pertinent to this direct amendment before us from any of the planning commissioners? Not seeing any, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions. From the planning commissioners on this item. Commissioner Jemisin? Motion to find 8C CPA 26-01 consistent. All right. A motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Jemisin. Commissioner Bowden? Second the motion. All right. We have a second to that motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any questions, comments, discussions from the planning commissioners before we take our vote? They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Good deal. Next up, we have action item 2C, HCCPA 26-04 comprehensive plan map amendment, Bird Island and Sunken Island. And the presenter is Katrina Corcoran. Good evening. Katrina Corcoran, planning commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 2604. This is a map amendment for Bird Island and Sunken Island. Some background on this request. This is privately initiated and small in scale. It is approximately 49.72 acres. The request is to go from not classified to natural preservation. Some more background on this request. Planning commission staff has proactively reached out to island property owners, namely Mosaic and Port Tampa Bay, that don't have land use designations in an effort to encourage them to voluntarily establish land use. This ensures that the property owner and the public have a reasonable expectation of what they could expect to occur on the property. During the briefing on this item, planning commissioners asked about other islands without future land uses. GIS analysis identified seven islands, the majority of which are owned by Mosaic and the Port. Finally, the applicant has also submitted a separate rezoning associated with Mosaic's Riverview facility and e-stack expansion on a different mainland property. The approval of that rezoning and environmental permits on the other mainland property are subject to individual rules and regulations for those processes and are not a part of the considerations tonight. This hearing is restricted to Bird Island and Sunken Island and the designation of natural preservation specifically for those islands. This slide shows the general location of the proposed plan amendment. It's located in southwestern Hillsborough County, west of the Alifaya River and southwest of the mosaic fertilizer plant. This slide shows an aerial of the subject site. You can see Sunken Island and Bird Island outlined in pink. The urban service area is the blue line. The site contains wetlands. It's located within the coastal high hazard area and it's also in the FEMA flood zone VE. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has designated these islands as critical wildlife areas, home to thousands of birds during nesting season. This slide shows the adopted future land use map. The subject site is outlined in black and as you can see here, it is not classified. There is heavy industrial to the northeast and residential one uses to the east of the subject site. This slide shows the proposed future land use change with the islands taking on the natural preservation designation. Next are the impacts. The no residential development is permitted except for facilities determined necessary to serve a caretaker of the recreational and environmental property or for compatible recreation or educational development. The proposed amendment will allow for clarification and development potential by allowing the designation of the site as natural preservation, limiting uses to conservation, open space and passive nature parks. There were no objections received on the agency review. However, we have a few comments of note. The Environmental Protection Commission or EPC noted that they recommend a conservation easement for the islands and revisions to draft restrictions. This is not a part of the plan amendment and would be worked out by EPC, the applicant in the county in the future. So this is again not determined at the plan amendment stage. The Water Resources Department noted that the area is outside of the urban service area. So portable water and wastewater services will not be provided. And finally, both Audubon and Port Tampa Bay are supportive of this amendment, noting the ecological importance of the islands, including their role as critical nesting habitat. The Port is also noted that they have an easement to add spoil slash fill to the island. With that planning commission staff review all policies in relation to the proposed request. These policies are mentioned in your packet under other related. While the comprehensive plan includes standards related to land development and private property rights, the amendment remains consistent with those provisions. In terms of the full consistency review, the proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. In terms of the future land use section, the amendment is consistent with requirements that new development and redevelopment avoid adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and other significant natural systems. Looking at the capital improvements section, the comprehensive plan limits infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area to specific circumstances, including restoration or enhancement of natural resources. Given the islands location within the CHHA, the proposed land use designation is in line with this policy direction. Looking at the coastal management section, the county is directed to protect, maintain and enhance the abundance and diversity of living marine resources within Tampa Bay. Continuing on with the consistency review, looking at the environmental and sustainability section, the plans intent is to protect sensitive environmental resources, including wetlands and preserve ecological integrity. Finally, looking at the Gibson community plan, it's aligned with the vision established in that community plan and encourages the protection and enhancement of public lands for conservation and recreation purposes. With that planning commission staff recommends that HCCPA 2604 be found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. I'd like to note that my staff member Erica Larson is unable to be here in person this evening, but I wanted to give her kudos for all of her work and coordination on this amendment. The applicant is here this evening and is available for questions and I'm also happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. This one's publicly initiated too, huh? Privately? Oh, okay. Is there an applicant presentation of any kind? Commissioners, thank you. Vanette Godelia with Stearns Weaver Miller from the Mosaic Company who's the applicant. We do not believe a presentation is necessary. I think staff said a great job. Kudos again also to Erica for the work she's done on this. We're here for questions. We have company reps here, but we think what you have in the staff report and in the comments hits all high points. All right. Thank you very much. All right. We had one individual sign up in the public comment for this and that's Jeff L. from the Audubon virtually. Jeff Lighty. Go ahead, Jeff. Jeff Lichty and I serve as the Sanctuary Manager for Audubon Florida's Postal Office. For decades, Audubon has managed Bird Island and Sunken Island as the Alifi Banks Bird Sanctuary. Due to the abundance and diversity of birds that rely on these islands for critical nesting habitat, the Alifi Banks represents one of the most important waiting bird rookeries on Florida's Gulf Coast. Each year, as many as 10,000 nesting pairs nest on the island from 17 different species, including five species listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. These islands play a vital role in sustaining Tampa Bay's iconic water bird populations, including brown pelicans, roseate spoonbills, herons, egrets, and more. Given the importance of this habitat, Audubon Florida strongly supports the natural preservation land use designation. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. Did the applicant want to respond to that in any way? I've got to throw it out there. No? All right. All right. Then I will send it over to our Planning Commissioners for discussions, thoughts, questions, comments on this. I knew Commissioner Sink was going to light up. Thank you. Thank you. I've got a question. You said they mentioned there are seven total islands. You said majority are held by Mosaic and the port, but that's not all. So is beer can the other one that's not in that? Give me one moment. I will pull up the owners. So we have two islands owned by Mosaic, three by the Port Authority. One is actually listed as owned by Audubon, and the other remaining is Pine Key slash Beer Can Island. Thank you. All right. Any other comments or questions? Commissioner Jemison, see you moving. I saw a response from the Port Authority that wanted to ensure that they would still be able to use the islands of spoil from dredging. Is there a response to that? I'm Chris Cooley. I'm the Director of Environmental Affairs for Port Tampa Bay. We're very supportive of this initiative. This is a great story, a good news story for us to be working on together with Mosaic and Florida Audubon. There are some dredge disposal easements out in the area, and I think that's still protected through this process even with the restrictive covenant. We have a port deepening project that's a generational project that's coming up over the next five to ten years. And there will be a lot of beneficial placement of dredge materials in this area to expand the habitat, other areas for bee tree nourishment. Egmont Key is going to be expanded almost back to where it was before all the erosion, filling defunct dredge holes and that kind of thing. So we're confident, you know, as long as we're still allowed to place it there, our intent, or the Army Corps of Engineers, our intent is just to do beneficial reuse there. So we're not planning on constructing anything, just maybe expanding the bird habitat that will continue to be managed in partnership with Mosaic Company, Florida Audubon, and the port. So thank you. Thank you. All right. Answered my question, too. I was wondering about the port. Question, Commissioner Jemison. Good question. Are there any other questions, thoughts, comments from the planning commissioners? Not seeing any, going once, going twice. I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Linkus. I'd like to make a motion to find HCCPA 2604 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Bird Island and Sunken Island, consistent with the county comprehensive plan. Sorry, Commissioner Jemison seconds that. A motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Linkus, a second by Commissioner Jemison. Are there any thoughts, questions, comments before we take our vote? Not seeing any, then would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up, we have Item 2D, HCCPA 2605 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 18308 Dorman Road Urban Service Area Expansion. Dun dun dun dun. And the presenter is Lillianne Lenahan. Good evening, Commissioners. Lillianne Lenahan, Planning Commission staff, here to present HCCPA 2605, located at 18308 Dorman Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is large in scale and approximately 190 acres. The applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area, and this amendment is associated with HCCPA 2606, which is a request to change the future land use designation from Agricultural Rule 1 to 5 to Residential 2. This is the general location map. As previously mentioned, this application is associated with HCCPA 2606. It is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Airwide Systems Plan. It is located north of Dorman Road, east of Boyette Road, and south of Lithia Pinecrest Road. Here is an aerial of the site. The site is outlined in pink, and the blue line indicates the existing urban service area boundary. The site currently has some agricultural and single-family uses, and there are single-family residential uses to the east, south, and west of the site, and agricultural uses are found within the rural area to the south and east of the site. Here are some site photos. This is looking at the subject site along Dorman Road. This is looking west of the subject site along Dorman Road. This is the parcel that is directly west of the subject site along Dorman Road. This is looking south across Dorman Road from the subject site, and this is looking east of the subject site along Dorman Road. The proposed amendment would bring approximately 190 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer. The proposed amendment received no formal objections. However, it did receive a few comments from the following agencies, which are important to note. Fire Rescue commented that there may be an increase in overall response times to the surrounding area due to the increase in residents and traffic patterns. Fire Station 2 is approximately 1.5 miles away from this location. The applicant has provided additional information and has measured the distance of the fire station from the location of the parcels along Lithia Pinecrest. And this measurement puts the fire station within 0.3 miles of the proposed urban service area expansion. Staff did evaluate these discrepancies in distance from fire station 2 and found that the station is approximately 0.3 miles from the parcels located along Lithia Pinecrest Road. And approximately 1.5 miles from the parcel with the address of 18308 Dorman Road, which was used as the reference address for all agency comments. The Agribusiness Department commented that it has concerns regarding the need for major road upgrades. They further stated that County Road 39 and Lithia Pinecrest Road are already well over capacity with residential, commercial, and agricultural traffic causing safety issues and significantly increased transit times. They also mentioned that additional proposed development will further increase transit times and negatively impact the movement of perishable crops to cold storage facilities and overly stressed livestock being transported to other locations. Additionally, community infrastructure planning staff prepared an initial traffic analysis based on the provided agency review summary and concluded that there is not adequate capacity to accommodate additional trips generated by the proposed future land use change in the future scenario. The applicant did state within their submitted narrative that all impacts on infrastructure and services will be addressed through the companion rezoning. And additionally, the applicant provided a letter on March 19th, 2026 to address the provided agency comments. This letter states that the developer is willing to work through a mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement with the county to assist in facilitating improvements within this area. While formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. And though the request is related to several general policies, staff found four main areas of consistency. The proposed request is consistent with FLU's objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.10, which directs 80% of the population growth into the urban service area and establishes the criteria for publicly and privately initiated urban service area amendments. The established urban service area is located directly north of the site and adjacent to the site on the northern boundary. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment to expand the urban service area also meets all of the criteria listed in FLU's policy 1.1.10, including addressing the potential deficits in existing infrastructure through techniques such as developer agreements, CIP amendments, and public-private partnerships as outlined in criteria four. FLU's objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 call for compatibility and gradual transitions of density and intensity between uses as new development is proposed. The agricultural uses within the area are located to the east, southwest, and south of the site, with more suburban development occurring along the northern border of the site and to the northwest within the existing urban service area. Based on the existing conditions, the urban service area expansion would allow for development that is compatible with the existing development patterns in the surrounding area. According to mobility section objective 5.3 and policy 5.3.1, new development shall mitigate its impact on the multimodal transportation network and use mobility fees to help maintain the multimodal level or quality of service standards in the transportation network pursuant to the mobility fee ordinance. As previously stated, the developer is willing to work through a mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement with the county to assist in facilitating improvements in this area and is therefore consistent with these policies. Lastly, the environmental sustainability objectives 3.5 and policy 3.5.2 sets the standards for planning commission staff to apply adopted criteria, standards, methodologies, and procedures to manage and maintain wetlands. And or other service water areas for optimum fisheries and other environmental values in consultation with the Environmental Protection Commission. And to collaborate with the EPC through the land planning and development review processes to prohibit unmitigated encroachment into wetlands and or other service waters. The planning commission staff worked with the Environmental Protection Commission in the evaluation of the amendment. Within the agency comments received, the Environmental Protection Commission did not have any objections to the proposed amendment and commented that the approval of this comprehensive plan amendment by the Hillsborough County Planning Commission does not constitute a guarantee that the EPC of Hillsborough County will approve or permit any necessary permits for future development purposes and does not itself serve to justify any impact to wetlands and does not grant any implied or vested right to environmental approvals. Planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? They do. I do. Good evening. Cammie Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson representing the applicant this evening. One thing that's important I think before we start talking about this particular amendment is talk about again the urban service area. And I know you've all been spending several months talking about the urban service area, but to put this in context, this is something established in 1993. And for the most part, it remains static for a period of 30 years. There were very few amendments. There were very few expansions. There were some privately initiated, but they were few and far between. Uh, during that 30 year horizon, the board of county commissioners, multiple boards of county commissioners deferred needed expansion of the urban service area, despite ongoing growth. The county is legally required. The counties and the cities are legally required to plan for population growth. They have an obligation to have longterm plan horizons to accommodate growth. And what happened in 2023 was that the county realized that they were at the useful life end of their 2025 comprehensive plan. And they asked the planning commission to undertake some studies and some evaluations of how we were doing with the urban service boundary. And was it time to expand the urban service area in general? And the resounding results from that was yes, in order to accommodate the 2045 plan horizon, that some expansions of the urban service area were going to be required. And with that, they ultimately updated their plan policies with respect to expansion in the criteria for consideration of expansion. And they came up with two separate divergent policies. One is objective 1.1, which applies to privately initiated urban service boundary expansions. What would apply to a specific site? And then they also established objective 1.3, which was for county initiated plan amendments for expansion. And those ended up being larger areas, much larger areas, thousands of acres that would potentially be subject to master plans. And those are two different regulatory schemes in the plan. And here, just the population projections that are actually contained within your comprehensive plan, demonstrating that unincorporated Hillsborough County is, is essentially slated to accommodate 73% of the growth from both population. And I've got another slide showing employment. And there was also this chart that is in your comprehensive plan says that indicates without expansion, you're going to see encroachment into the rural area for population growth. And that was not a desired outcome by either the planning commission or the board of county commissioners. And again, here's those employment projections. Now it takes us to this site. The black dotted line is the existing urban service boundary and the pink area is the subject site in question. You can see we are directly adjacent to the urban service boundary, the existing. This also for context was the WVR2 and the RP2 expansion areas where we had expansions area in Balm in the green and Waimama in the orange color. You'll see the purple arrow is actually the location of this site. And you will see that it's very similarly situated and the facts and circumstances associated with this expansion are nearly identical to those expansions. It's just a little bit further north. Again, you have existing future land use policy criteria relating to expansion. And your staff has found that every single one of the seven criteria have been met. This is a vicinity map. It shows the fire station within a half a mile. We're showing the existing school sites, parks and recreation opportunities, and also showing where the existing public utilities are located in relation to the site. Again, for compatibility and this is really more for the next amendment with 2606 where we're asking for normally you would ask for in an expansion you would ask for residential four because that's what the plan dictates. But here given the unique nature of this area we are asking for a residential two designation similar to the RP2 designation. Now, keep in mind the RP2 designation which is directly to the north. Those plan policies required the development pattern to resemble four units of the acre. So you have 40 acre lots and some other more intense development patterns in the RP2. This R2 would actually show a transition from that more intense development pattern. And this is just an outline of some of the existing neighborhood services, gas, grocery and restaurants. Again, the subject property is outlined in pink and you see all of the options that are within this area. Very suburbanized area that we're actually located in. Again, these are retail and professional services that are located within close proximity to the site. Existing schools and daycare that are located in close proximity to the site. And again, churches, public parks and services. So you can see that while there may be rural areas transitioning to the east, the subject property is actually located in quite a suburban area of the county. As far as transportation is concerned, this Board of County Commissioners has done more than any other Board of County Commissioners in terms of ensuring funding for infrastructure projects. This is the TPO 2028 and 2032 priority transportation project list. And you will see Lithia Pinecrest widening is on that list. Also, there are plans for widening of Lithia Pinecrest using the CIT. This update that you see on the slide is directly from county administration with respect to the proposed improvements that will be occurring on Lithia Pinecrest. And then just briefly also like to put up on the Elmo show you the county is one water infrastructure project that actually comes through this area. This is Lithia here and it's going down to South County. So there's significant infrastructure improvements that are occurring on behalf of Hillsborough County in this general area. So generally speaking, between the roadway improvement infrastructure plans and the one water infrastructure plans, this is where you would generally want to see an expansion of the urban service boundary. And again, your staff has found this request consistent with the future land use policy, the mobility policies, and the environmental and sustainability policies. And with that, I'm here to answer any questions and would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal given the extensive public comment, if the chair would allow, and if it's needed. Yeah, we'll see. We'll see. I'm not too... Understood, Mr. Chairman. It's your show. There's not... There's actually not that many people sign up in the public comment for this particular item. So the next one has a few more than this one, but we'll go through and see the first... I'll keep it short if I can. I promise, sir. Okay. All right. We will start off virtually with Ashley Ivanov. Is Ashley... Mr. Chair, Ashley did not sign in. Okay. That was our only virtual one, I believe. So we will go to in-person individuals, and we will start with Mia Stutzman. In our mind, everybody, it's three minutes per person. Good evening. My name is Mia Stutzman, and my 10 acres is adjacent to the subject property and comprises about half of the western border. My neighbors and I stand in opposition of the requested extension of this urban service area. In Lithia alone, there are over 1,800 existing and new homes. For sale. That does not take into account the significant new developments in Waimama, Balm, and surrounding areas, and the approved but not yet started developments, including at least one in the immediate area in question. We understand that this area is growing and that we need to plan for future development. However, the roads, schools and utilities need to be improved and keep pace. My in-laws lived on Lithia Pinecrest Road from 1969 until last year. There have been no meaningful improvements to that road other than at major intervals. Pinecrest Road from 1969 until last year. There have been no meaningful improvements to that road other than at major intersections. Back to my childhood, I can remember people saying that Lithia Pinecrest was going to be four lanes. Trust me when I say that was a long time ago and it is still two lanes from end to end. As one former county commissioner put it, we've overbuilt and our roads are behind. Under the corridor preservation plan, only a half mile section of the road that's included in the staff analysis for traffic impacts for this project is planned to be four-laned by 2050. There is also an environmental cost. Part of our property that abuts the subject property is swamp. Much of the land on the subject property is low as well. Building up that property and adding the requisite concrete and pavement is likely to result in flooding for many of the surrounding landowners. Most importantly, we must consider community character. As I will mention in my next presentation for 2606, large acreage is a hallmark of Lithia. The lots surrounding the subject property on three of four sides dwarf the size of the proposed lots. There needs to be a more gradual transition. We respectfully request that the commission deny the request to extend the urban service area. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to call a couple names now so we can get people down here to the mic a little bit quicker. There's a couple open chairs. I see three at the front right there. You all can come down and queue up. So next up we have Lisa Wolfson. And after Lisa Wolfson, we have Michelle Brawner, Rebecca Gulick, and Matthew Gulick. So with Lisa Wolfson, Michelle Brawner, Rebecca Gulick, and Matthew Gulick, please come on down. And we will start with Lisa. If she is possibly not here, then we'll skip and go to Michelle and then we'll come back to Lisa again if she can. I'm sorry. I think Lisa is on the road traveling. She was out of town. I think she was delayed. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Michelle Brawner and I live at 18539 Dorman Road. The urban service area amendment must satisfy all the criteria in the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.10. My comments focus on the second criteria, which requires that a USA expansion contain developable land addressing population and employment projections. The staff report and the applicant rely primarily on the statement that Hillsborough County expects approximately 350,000 additional residents and therefore this request meets that requirement. However, countrywide population projections alone do not satisfy the intent of the policy. This property is located in a rural area planned at one unit per five acres and the comprehensive plan establishes a separate process for transitioning rural land into suburban or urban development through designated urban expansion areas. Under Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Policy 1.3.1, urban expansion areas are created through a publicly initiated plan and are guided by an urban expansion area plan that evaluates infrastructure, land use patterns, and development phasing. That process exists so the county can determine through a data-driven plan and effort where future population growth should be accommodated. Right now, Hillsborough County is actively reviewing urban expansion area studies for the I-4 corridor in the Little Manatee South area. Rural Lithia is not one of the areas identified through that planning process. Expanding the urban service area here would bypass that structured approach and instead allow a fundamental shift in the development boundary in a rural area based on an ad hoc request from an individual developer. Determining where to accommodate future population growth should follow the county's established planning framework, not occur through piecemeal boundary changes that undermine the comprehensive plan for the plan. For these reasons, this proposal does not meet the second criteria of policy 1.1.10 and I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to recommend denial and this is our rule area. All right, thank you very much. All right, next up we have Rebecca Gullick or Gullick, sorry about the last name if I'm butchering it. Good evening. My name is Rebecca Gullick. I live at 18732 Dorman Road in Lithia directly south of the proposed site. Regarding the urban service area, I want to start by saying this isn't the first time that I've tried to get ahead of growth in Hillsborough County. Unfortunately, it keeps following me. Grew up in Brandon when Lumsden was pretty much nothing but cow pastures. We moved to Riverview before that was anything and then eventually out to Fishhawk and we eventually got our nice little five acre property on Dorman Road looking for a more rural way of life. After watching growth and traffic intensify in Brandon Riverview Fishhawk, we moved out to Dorman, but the infrastructure here has not kept up with the growth that has already occurred. Lithia Pinecrest Road is still largely a two-lane road, yet now it carries approximately 25,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day and is already operating at or beyond capacity. This is me on my drive three miles up the road to get my daughter to school in the morning. Lithia Pinecrest carries approximately 25,000 or 30,000 per day. The surrounding roads, Dorman Road and Browning, are narrow rural roads with no meaningful traffic capacity and no published traffic accounts because they were never intended to serve this level of development. Every day we experience long delays, cut through traffic, unsafe conditions. A short trip just a few miles up the road can take 30 minutes or more and when there is an accident, there are no alternate routes. When roads are blocked, it also impacts emergency response times for fire rescue and law enforcement. Even conservatively, the proposal could add hundreds, if not thousands, of additional daily trips onto a road network that is already strained. Under the comprehensive plan, expansion of the urban service area requires that infrastructure capacity be available and that new development does not create deficits. Based on what we are already experiencing today, that standard is not being met. The infrastructure is not in place and the urban service area would only make that worse. Growth should follow infrastructure, not the other way around. Once this rural character is gone and our way of life is lost, we can't get it back. Please recommend denial. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Matthew Gullick. Hello, I'm Matthew Gullick. I live on 18732 Dorman Road. That's my wife there. We obviously live together. I had this kind of fancy speech, to be honest with you, the chat GBT looked that up. I'm not a lawyer, so I can argue policy there. I'm not qualified, but I am a nurse. I work in the local area. I'm not going to say what hospital, but one of the surrounding hospitals is EMS. And they brought up in the concerns that there is an EMS station that serves two miles from the area, probably less than. But that's one EMS truck. If you look, my wife showed the pictures there in the morning. Between the hours of 7 and really 10, the drive is impossible. I pick my daughter up every day at 5. From the next station, it's halfway between the two. It takes me 40 minutes to get home. That's half of the next responding station. I work in an emergency room. A lot of times, not one emergency doesn't occur at once. I've worked in trauma centers that get multiple injuries, especially with all the vehicle crashes that are going on. So minutes matter when it comes to EMS responses. There's cardiovascular that's 60 minutes, door to balloon. Strokes are a big thing, 90 minutes. You only have a three-hour window where you can give life-saving medication if it takes an hour to get the EMS to the hospital. And how do you, I mean, you're limited on time. And that's if they catch it right at time. So, like I said, I've had all these policies there. But the main concern here is, you know, the infrastructure is not compatible with adding the already dense there. Not to mention that, you know, I did move out there for rural life. I had to leave multiple positions because of response times as in procedural cardiovascular stroke intervention because I can't make it to work in 30 minutes unless it's 2.30 in the morning. I've actually leave the work to get over by 4.30 just so I can be there and not have to spend an hour and two hours in traffic. So, with that being said, this is not consistent with the, you know, it's this leapfrog development at its best. And it's just the roads infrastructure are not keeping up with it. And just remember, there are people that move in these homes. People have emergencies. People have issues. They need to be responded to in safety. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Tegan Zeeley, Leah Heyer, Jessica Scott, and Miles Scott. Come on down. Tegan Zeeley, Zaley, Tegan Zee. Okay. Leah H, Jessica Scott, and Miles Scott. That's our rural. All right. That's our, the southern part, and that's our single family home depiction. Hi, I'm Leah Heyer. Good evening. And I'm here to speak in opposition of the proposed expansion of the urban service area into approximately 190 acres of agricultural rural one to five land. I'm not against growth, but I am against growth that is poorly planned and unnecessary and harmful to the community that we already have. First, the proposal does not meet the basic expectation of being a logical extension of existing development pattern. This land is currently rural and agriculture for a reason. It's not part of a natural progression of urban growth. It's representing the eroding into our rural character, which you're going to see more of that play out tonight, not a thoughtful continuation. Lithia remains historically agriculture and rural community. The proposed amendment disregards established protections and introduces incompatible development. Approving this would set a precedent for expansion under, that undermines long-term planning. Second, I'm deeply concerned about infrastructure. Our roads are already congested. Schools in this area are strained. Emergency response times matter and adding more demand without clear guaranteed capacity puts lives at risk. Equally important is the impact on rural and agricultural land. And these 190 acres are not just empty space. They are part of a larger system, which you'll learn about more, that supports our local environment and community character. Once this land is converted, it's lost forever. This proposal chips away at the very identity of our rural areas and weakens the protections that are supposed to preserve them. Finally, I worry about environmental impacts. Even if their claim to be minimal, incremental changes add up, development brings that increased runoff. It could potentially, um, will lead to flooding on my adjacent property. I'm right adjacent. It also, um, is definitely disruptive to the habitat that's there. This area is where I've witnessed all types of wildlife. We have eagles. We have swallowtail kites. We have so many gopher tortoises, and they're clinging for this last little space for a home. We also have the pressure of the natural systems. The creeks that are there, those exist. They're tributaries from our local Alifaya River. In closing, um, am I done? Thirty seconds. Um, proposal not clearly meet the, it doesn't, clearly doesn't meet the expansion requirements for the urban service area. And it doesn't meet that transition development, it raises serious infrastructure concerns, and it lacks, um, the demonstrated need, and it threatens our rural and environmental resources. I urge you to protect our community, follow the comprehensive plan, and deny this amendment. Enough is enough. All right. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Jessica Scott. Ma'am, can you please state your name for the record? Leah Heyer. And I skipped that. I'm sorry. No, you said it when you came on, it might not have been clear, though. Hello, my name is Jessica Scott. I live at 18505 Dorman Road on five acres. I'm also a fifth generation Floridian. I'm here tonight asking you to deny the urban service area expansion. The proposal does not meet your comprehensive plan requirements. First, it is not contiguous to the existing urban service area. There are properties in between that are not included, which creates an isolated expansion, something your policies do not support. Second, there is no demonstrated needs specific to this area. We keep hearing about countywide population growth, but that is not the standard. Rural Lithia is not designated as a growth area, and no urban service area study has been completed for this community. Third, this proposal would stress an already overtaxed infrastructure. I'm going to repeat what everyone else has said. Your own staff reports show roads are already over capacity, emergency response times may increase, impacts to agribusiness, and yet we are being told these problems can be fixed later. Things are broken out there. Why are we going to make it worse by adding more? The comprehensive plan is clear. Protect rural areas, ensure compatibility, and base decisions on real data. Please uphold your plan and protect our community and recommend denial of CPA 26-05. Thank you. Next up, we have Miles Scott. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Miles Scott, and I live at 18505 Dorman Road. I'm here in opposition to expanding the urban service area for this 190-acre development. Hillsborough County is in a water crisis. As of April 9th, 79.84% of Hillsborough County is in extreme drought, and the remaining 20-plus percent is in severe drought, meaning 100% of this county is in drought conditions right now. Because of this, the Southwest Florida Water Management District has declared an extreme water shortage, requiring one-day-per-week watering restrictions for all residents. And this is not temporary. In 2024, there were only five months where the county was not in drought conditions, and we have not been fully out of drought since December 3rd, 2024. Now let's look at this property. Today, it is largely unirrigated pasture land with minimal water demand. Under current zoning, it could support about 38 homes, using roughly 2.7 million gallons of water per year. But the accompanying change to the future land use increases that to between 280 and 380 homes, driving the total water usage north of 20 million gallons per year. That's an increase of up to 23 million gallons annually. And let's be realistic. This builder, West Bay Homes, they build beautiful communities. People take pride in their houses, their lawns, their landscaping, their parks, and their green spaces. That means even more irrigation, not less. So the question is simple. Why are we approving this massive increase in water demand when 100% of our county is already in drought? The applicant mentioned that the county has a requirement to plan for growth, but growth should follow resources. And right now, the water is telling us no. I urge you to deny this expansion in the Irvis service area. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next group up is Tiffany Willis, Clint Childress, Teresa Childress, and Carla Evans. Good evening. My name is Tiffany Willis. I'm a fourth-generation Hillsborough County resident. My family has lived in this county for a generation, and now I'm raising my own children here, hoping that they can experience the same rural Hillsborough County that I grew up in. My children both raise and show show cattle. They wake up early morning, work long hours, and learn responsibility, discipline, and have respect for the land. This is not just an activity for them. It's a way of life for our family. It reflects the agriculture heritage of Hillsborough County. This way of life depends on protecting rural land. The proposed dorm and road development includes extending the urban service area into what is now and currently rural land. This is concerning because once the urban service area is extended, it sets precedence, and we all know that. One extension becomes another, and over time, rural Hillsborough County slowly disappears. We're already seeing subdivisions pop up faster than our roads, schools, and infrastructure can handle. Traffic is out of control. Schools are overcrowded, and emergency services are stretched across growing communities. At this time, we are all under a current watering restriction. Residents are being asked to conserve water because our resources are already strained. Extending the urban service area and adding hundreds of homes will only increase the demand on already limited water resources. This sends conflicting messages to the residents who are being asked to conserve while growth continues to accelerate. Growth is inevitable, but it should be where infrastructure already exists and where services can support it, not by expanding into rural areas that were never designed for suburban development. We know, just like with Fishhawk, i.e., the Bell Shoals Road, the developers are not held accountable for their promises of improvements to roads and infrastructure. As a fourth generation Hillsborough County resident, I respectfully ask for you to deny the extension of the urban service area and help preserve the rural character, agriculture, heritage, and sustainability of our community. These decisions will help shape the future of Hillsborough County, and I ask that you protect the future and for future generations. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next up, Clint Childress. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Clinton Childress. I live at 5921 Falconwood Place, and that's north of the project that we're talking about tonight. The plan to place 360 homes on this partial of land will significantly increase the potential for flooding, worsening stormwater runoff, and reducing natural water absorption. We have lived in Fishhawk phase one for 26 years, and I have witnessed what I'm about to share. Little Fishhawk Creek borders many homes in Fishhawk phase one. During heavy rainfall and hurricanes, the runoff fills Fishhawk Creek and will overflow its banks, creating potential flooding and standing water. The soil in the area contains clay, and the soil does not perk well, creating standing water. The soil in the area, I just said that, new construction of homes will possibly require elevating home sites above the adjacent properties. Adding homes, asphalt roads, concrete driveways significantly reduces natural water absorption, therefore increasing flooding and stormwater runoff to adjacent properties. This is a major concern for all of our neighbors. In cases of emergency, flooding could cause roadway blockages and compromise evacuation routes. We have wetlands and conservation areas around us. We expect they will not be disturbed, and I know studies have been done, and you will base your decisions on the information provided to you, but the best made plans can go awry. We ask that you consider the existing property owners well-being, and I agree with the content of all speakers before me and after me, and I thank you for your attention. Thank you, sir. All right. Next up, Teresa Childress. Okay. Carla Evans. I wish my husband was like that, right? Say it, honey. This is going to be short and sweet, but I'll be back for round two. Carla Evans, K-A-R-L-A Evans. I'm at 18862 Dorman Road. I'm against expanding the urban service area. I implore you to help with more orderly growth and keep the comprehensive plan to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, and we're already hearing all those details. I want to thank you for your patience, because we have approximately 75 people, some of us, most of us in red here. This isn't just about our individual homes. It is, but it's our community, our agricultural world community, and even our subdivision neighbors around us, too. Even as we sit here, we are being ridiculed, not from the Planning Commission, other people here. We're being told we're going to war. We're told we are ridiculous, and this is hard. Like I said, this is our homes, and we're very passionate, I'm sure you can already tell, about this issue. Thank you so much, and I'll be back for the other issue. Thank you. All right. We have three more individuals who signed up for the public comment. Ray Papillon. Thank you, Commissioners. I know you had a long day. My name is Ray Papillon. I live at 1-10188 Metal Run Drive up there in Lithia. I also retired from the Sheriff's Office. I started here in 87 and did all that time on the patrol side of the house. I'm just going to reiterate what some of these people have already said. But to give you a view from the front seat of my patrol car, from 60 all the way to 39 on Lithia Pinecrest. In 39 years, nothing has significantly begun to Lithia Pinecrest to help the traffic on that road. They bring in the new subdivisions. The road widens at that point, and everything comes out and goes in and goes back to the two-lane road, including my own subdivision up there. They widened the road, let's see where. They widened the road at Lumpston and Lithia just recently. They finished the last couple of years, where all they did was add turn lanes in all directions. And as soon as you come out of that turn lane, you're backed up in traffic pretty much all the way to 39. In fact, at that very intersection, about three weeks ago, my wife got in a rear-end crash there. And once I found out she was okay, I said, honey, well, that's the best place to have a crash on Lithia, because it's the only intersection where you can get out of your car and have the responders there, right? I dread when my family has to drive on that road, because as a first responder, there's nowhere to stage, there's nowhere to turn around, there's no shoulders, and on the worst part of the road, when you have the curves and the dips and the bridge, there's no shoulder whatsoever, not even a grass shoulder. So I dread them driving on that road. And another thing is with the schools. I got a report here that says that Newsome up there is at 101%. Someone quoted earlier how you can use the adjacent school to adjust that. But when you move it over to the adjacent school, you run into a problem where you're over capacity everywhere. My wife has to drive 45 minutes in the morning. She works at Advent by the VA. She drives 45 minutes in the morning and an hour and a half in the afternoon to get home. I live where I live. That's where we chose to live and I have a problem with that. But for us unexpectedly to get all this other traffic up there, that's a quality of life issue. That's a quality of life issue. And quality of life issues on a local level is handled by you guys as far as safety and those type of issues. These schools get overcrowded like they did in the past in Hillsborough County. You got to go into double sessions. I was at Gaither doing double session. Quality of life issue for a child to ride on a bus for umpteen hours getting to and from school. So I'm opposed to this growth like everybody else here and that's my reasons why. So thank you. Thank you. Deputy Papillon, I attended Gaither High School when you were there. As soon as you said your last name, I was like, is that Deputy Papillon? Wow. I did a great job. Yes, you did. All right. Next up we have Jane Graham and our final is Daniel Conrad. Jane Graham. Good evening. My name is Jane Graham, attorney at Sunshine City Law, 16703 Early Riser Avenue, Suite 272, Lando Lakes. I represent Preserve Rural Lithia, which is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to protecting Lithia's rural character environment and the quality of life. My client respectfully requests denial. A USA amendment must satisfy the seven criteria under Policy 1.1.10 and this fails each one. It fails the first criteria of being adjacent and contiguous to the established boundary. Two rural properties break the contiguity along the northern boundary which, as a result of this amendment, will be completely enclosed within the area. So look, right here, this is the applicant's map of the yellow area and I have circled in purple the two parcels. The amendment also fails to meet the second and sixth criteria, which is based on the lack of data showing the need for expansion based on population projections. And it relies on the overall county population increase without justifying the increase in a specific rural area. The comprehensive plan requires that there's an evaluation between the transition of the rural and suburban pattern through the urban expansion area process. And so that's something happening in tandem and that should be looked to instead of having individualized discussions like this. The boundary fails the third point because it's not an extension of the existing development pattern. It is one unit per 7.6 acres to the east, west, and south, which is an increase of tenfold. The surrounding rural areas are also deed restricted and remain rural in character. There are properties to the north which have a density of 1.62, which is still greater than the proposed two units per acre. County staff pointed out the significant infrastructure deficiencies and you've heard a lot of that tonight, so I won't belabor that point. But I do want to mention that the road capacity issue cannot be resolved without fundamentally changing the character of the area in conflict of the livable communities element. South shore area systems plan which requires roadways to reflect the surrounding character and environment. And you've seen the photos that show that if you were to enlarge these roads, it would make it very different. The new boundary is also surrounded by state and county conservation lands. These are maps from the Florida Wildlife Corridor that show that there's a circle of state and local conservation areas all around it, which is right in here. And people have talked about seeing wildlife crossing their property in the middle. Thank you very much. I have copies of the letter that I've sent as well, so I'll give that to all of you. Okay. Last but not least is Daniel Conrad. Daniel Conrad. Going once, going twice. Nope. Okay. That was all we had signed up in the public comment for this item, so I will turn it back over to the applicant. I'm going to hold you to three minutes, Cammie. If we want to hear more, then the planning commissioners will bring you back up to speak some more. You do have the opportunity to speak to us directly when we're going through our deliberation, so I'm going to hold you to your three for right now. If I can respond to questions, because one of my challenges, Cammie Corbett again for the applicant, one of my challenges is when the public speaks, we scattershot all over the place and we're not sticking strictly to the plan criteria. So it makes it a little bit more difficult to understand which arguments are resonating or which are causing questions with the planning commission. So anyway, with that, let me start with, I respect Ms. Graham, we see each other often. However, her arguments are not a substitute for your professional planners who have reviewed and evaluated this and evaluated it in the larger context. Your planners are very well aware of the public sentiment regarding this amendment. And this is one of those hard decisions that I think that they probably had to consider that we talked about earlier when you were talking about kind of the future and what the future holds with respect to making difficult decisions when it comes to growth. Another point that she made was she mentioned that several of the surrounding areas are deed restricted with HOA deed restrictions. I think those deed restrictions actually protect the surrounding area from any type of encroachment or precedent and center standard here in the lithium community to the extent that they're only allowed one single family home per five acres that protects them a plan amendment can't supersede those deed restrictions. One other point I wanted to make with respect to school concurrency, Hillsborough County and I'm not just saying this because Ms. Orton is here is one of the best counties in terms of planning for school infrastructure and growth. They are on top of their game, they've been ahead of the curve, but most jurisdictions that I work in, they have a five year plan that's aggressive. They do what is required by state law and correctly find that if there's not capacity in one school, they have to look to the concurrency adjacent area. And when that's not the case, they have a robust proportionate share program that's in place and has been in place for several years and actually is working really well and allows them to buy properties. In anticipation for future growth and they do a really good job at doing that and so that's one area where I think that there's certainly been a demonstration of planning. Same thing with public utilities, the one water program is really innovative program and an infrastructure program that they're planning for. Fire rescue has impact fees that they closely monitor and it's a plan based impact fee that says we're going to look at where growth is approved and we're going to plan and we're going to make sure we adjust our fire impact fees accordingly. And then lastly, Hillsborough County does not have transportation concurrency. They remove those policies from their plan and they do have the mobility fee requirement and it is incumbent on the county to plan for growth. And just lastly, with my 30 seconds, I want to show you wildlife corridors in green in adjacent to around this site. Subject property is not in any significant wildlife corridor and while there are some corridors surrounding the area, the property itself is not mapped as significant wildlife habitat at either the state level or the local level. And I'm happy to answer any questions should you have any. Again, we respectfully request a finding of consistency this evening. All right. Good job. Thank you. Keeping it to three minutes. Did you have any more you wanted to put it out to the commissioners if you had any more you wanted to say to see if any of the commissioners wanted to hear any other points from you? Would you rather wait for our discussion and see if we have any questions for you? Whatever the pleasure of the commission is, I mean, to the extent that there were arguments that were made that resonated with one or four of you or caused you to answer questions. I think I mentioned in my, one thing I do want to point out in my opening remarks, I talked about the distinction between objective 1.1, which was the privately initiated urban service expansions and 1.3, which was cited several times by the opposition as we're being inconsistent with. The 1.3 is those publicly initiated urban service study areas and this is not that. All right. Well, I will turn it over to the commissioners then for our questions, comments, discussions. You all don't look so excited. That wasn't that many comments. Commissioner Sinks, yeah, get us going. I know, you knew it was going to happen. All right, so the USA, one of the things is 80% inside the USA, 20% outside. But I don't see anywhere in staff and I don't see anything else showing why specifically in this area it's necessary. And then the other thing that I was, I have a question about is criteria number six. I don't see, I mean, there's some really good policy on this, which is like, there hasn't been a study done on this yet. We're doing the study right now down for the other southern area, but we haven't done it on here. So how do we have the data to support criteria number six, I guess is my other question. Ms. Zornita? Sure. So the policy 1.1.10 talks about those population and employment projections and it does not specify that they be sub-county basis. The way the comprehensive plan is written, particularly in goal one, is looking at countywide, unincorporated countywide, how are we managing growth, the urban service area being a tool for that, the 80%, the 20%, that is unincorporated countywide. So this policy guidance really is looking at the countywide, the unincorporated area and do we need more land to address the population projections. At the time that we did the last update of the comprehensive plan, what we found was that, and I think Ms. Corbett showed the chart from the plan, was that by, I believe it's 2030, we anticipate that we will no longer be able to meet the benchmark that's been established in the plan to date of 80% of growth being within the urban service area. So it was time for us to start planning for expansion of the urban service area, and we did two things. We won this set of criteria in 1.1.10, used to be 10 criteria, it's now seven. We made it a bit more flexible to begin to allow for more privately initiated amendments, and then we added in a new section about the urban expansion areas. So those are the two ways to address the outward growth issue. There are other strategies added to deal with inward growth, because that piece needs to be looked at also. But, yeah, the data that we have is unincorporated countywide, and that, at this point, until the urban expansionary studies are completed, and we have an adopted, you know, plan for how we're going to expand and phase, we do have a need for more areas to accommodate population. The residents are correct that this area is not within one of those two study areas. I will say, Commissioner Sink, if it helps you feel any better, that's one of the points I'll be raising when I talk to the Board of County Commissioners. Again, this idea that we, as a county, have an understanding of the demand, pseudo, right, broad scale. We can say there's a million people coming. We need a million units for these million people. But we don't have a proper way of understanding this area, that area, versus this area, versus that area, market setting. And I think that's an important part, you know what I mean? So I can't say that this isn't a good market. This might be the best market for it. I don't know that, you know. But, I mean, I think, as a county, your point is well made, that we should understand those sorts of things as we're doing this, so that we can be more sensitive to this or that, and let citizens know ahead of time, you know, at a grander scale, that this could be headed your way, as opposed to it just popping up and catching people by surprise all the time. So that's kind of one of the things I wanted to talk about also. Yeah, I mean, it kind of feels like on this one specifically that we kind of know it. We don't have water. We don't have sewer. We're in a flood zone. Like, we have all these things, which is like, we don't have these things. And even if we can tap in, it's from the quarter mile. Do we have the capacity to actually handle it once it's built? So is our infrastructure driving this, saying the reason we have the USA is to make sure that we have the resources available? This is outside of it. We can tell you we already don't have streets, and we don't have a plan for it. So if we look at putting growth so we're not taking over rural lands and farms, wouldn't this be like the ideal thing, which shows us specifically, we don't have the capacity to do these things right now until we have the resources and the water and everything else there. I see Ms. Corbett wiggling. You want to try and fill Commissioner Sink in and respond to that? Yeah, respectfully, Mr. Sink, we do have utilities available. We showed you where the public utilities are available. I also showed you the one water project that is planning for utilities that are available. And with respect to the drought, to the extent we're going to use the drought as a reason not to approve development, then we probably shouldn't have approved any of the amendments that we approved today. Because if the drought today is the reason to stop planning for growth, we just better stop planning for growth. Because this is a plan for growth. This is not development coming out of the ground tomorrow. So who knows what the drought conditions would be like. But the county is very specifically, and I think I mentioned that in my rebuttal, talking about the ways in which the county plans to ensure that infrastructure is in place. So I respectfully disagree that we don't have those things in place. We do indeed have them in place. And staff did find this consistent, right? Yeah, we did. And just on the point about utilities, I think the Water Resources Department is always going to say, because they are constantly approving, based on the future land use, different things that are coming in and asking for service. So they say that the proposal will meet the expansion criteria, that it's within a quarter mile. They require that the developers bring the infrastructure to the site. So the line is not going to be right in front of the site, typically, in this type of situation. And they're always going to be a little bit cautious, I guess, at this stage, because they don't know what other development is going to be coming in and what exactly the capacity is going to be. So they don't want to pin down, this is the improvement that's going to be needed, but that some improvement may be needed. So having seen them make much stronger comments, saying that there wasn't capacity, I thought we read this as there was capacity. Commissioner Cardenas? Yeah, I guess a little bit of my concern here is access, you know? It looks like there's a bottleneck on the right side there. Lithia Pinecrest, what is that access going to look like? I can't see the name of that right there, but the road in front of it. But is there access down to Boyette and down to whatever that is over there? I mean, where's the access? Well, if you're talking about site access, be careful, area. Don't forget, we're not. Zoning issues isn't our purview. Do you want to talk about the roads around it and whether they could carry the capacity? Yeah. I'll let you play a little, but where the site access is going to be is none of our business, and that's really the, you know, applicant's concern once they get to the zoning phase. So let's be careful here what we're dabbling in. And I'm easily a no. All right. We've heard from Commissioner Cardenas then. We'll see. We'll still listen to some conversation here. Don't forget, if it's a no, if we are going to go against staff's consistency finding, then we have to have some policies, some objectives, some goals, something to rest that being against staff's recommendation again, which we'll talk about later on this year, the staff recommendation thing. But we are going to need those if we are going to go against what staff says. So be sure to be thinking of those. Ms. Ornita, be sure to be thinking of those. Well, I guess you wouldn't be thinking of those, Cammie. That's not what you want. I'm sorry. All right. We will take some more discussion, though, before we get to that point. Does anybody have any comments or questions or discussions on it? This is an interesting one for me. I mean, obviously I've been the target, the big X on my back, since this whole urban service area thing started way back in the day. I find it interesting that this is one that staff is quickly approving, not for any nefarious reasons or because I'm against it, but staff has been so clutching pearls over this urban service area thing that when they, I find I'm in agreement with Commissioner Locke that at this board we're very wishy-washy about the way we do things. And it makes me always feel like these sorts of things should be handled by the elected officials. Again, I'm going to talk to them this Wednesday. I believe that that's the proper level. They have the proper reach. They can quickly get the proper resources and answers to make these decisions. They are, again, elected by these people, so your voices speak directly to them. And I'll remind all of you, irregardless of what the outcome here is tonight, it still has to go before the Board of County Commissioners for the final decision. So that is really where you need to show up and speak. Those are really the people you need to contact if you feel that passionately about it. So just a reminder there, but yeah, this one was interesting to me when I read through it and I saw that staff had so clearly and resoundingly approved this one. And it has, again, nothing to do with any limitations. It was just interesting to me that after all this urban service area stuff the staff has been through and them wanting to focus the growth into these expansion areas that these things sort of pop up and they're willing to find it consistent too, which doesn't say which way I'm going to vote. With the history that's gone on, it's just interesting to me. Yes, Commissioner Seidman. I wanted to ask Ms. Sornita, you know, given all of that, what Commissioner Joseph just said, do you want to give us any reasoning why you felt like this one was particularly favorable for, you know, expanding our access to housing? I'd be interested to hear your perspective. Well, I mean, our tool in evaluating these is the adopted comprehensive plan and we follow the seven criteria for expansion of the urban service area is the main focus of our staff finding on any requests to do that. So, you know, we're looking at those criteria and I think in this case the proximity on the northern boundary to the fishhawk and two, that suburban development pattern and the relationship there. I mean, it was one that there was quite a bit of staff debate about for sure because on the northern boundary it definitely has a relationship in that direction and then on the southern boundary it has a rural character. And so, that's one that, you know, we, on that criteria, I think it's criteria, hold on, I just, the worst. The criteria about the proposed boundary would be an extension of an existing development pattern or has a functional relationship to a development pattern of the surrounding area of the proposed site while ensuring the review of adopted community plan guidance has occurred and addresses any conflicts. So, that was probably the one that we had the most discussion around and we felt like looking at the language, they were talking about an extension of an existing development pattern and having a relationship with that and that the site did meet that. There's not an adopted community plan in this area like there have been in some of the others that we've discussed with you all. The county commission has asked us to begin work on that and, you know, so that is a difference perhaps between some of the ones that we've seen and maybe Keystone or Lutz and so, but we have to follow the adopted language. But that was probably the one piece of the criteria that was the biggest sticking point for us in our internal discussions. And it really, you know, we felt that the language was clear and that the development pattern was pretty clear. Commissioner Cardenas. Yeah, I guess kind of going a little bit with what you said, I think about we're currently in the process of kind of questioning the urban service boundary area. And it's the commission, it's the letter from the commission, not from the organization that's doing that. And I think that this is an example specifically why. So, I mean, if we voted one way, it's kind of saying our letter doesn't mean much. If we vote the other way, it kind of says, hey, we're really thinking about this and we need some guidance and we want some concrete stuff to be able to make decisions like this because I think this is exactly the situation. Commissioner Sink. Commissioner Sink. So, going through the criteria, how do we overcome criteria one of that everything is continuous? Like we have areas that are missing in here, like. So, yeah. How do we, like that, physically we're looking at it, we see cutouts that drive us crazy all the time. We're like, why is this here? This makes no logical sense. And we're going to create that exact situation right now. I understand. Technically, criteria one says that it should be adjacent and contiguous, which it is. And if it's not contiguous, there should be unique circumstances warranting the separation. Technically, I mean, the site is adjacent and contiguous to the established urban service area. There's nothing in the plan that says you cannot create a hole in the donut. Is that a limitation in the policy? Perhaps. And something that, with this opportunity to tweak things and reevaluate things, we might be able to clean up. But right now, there's nothing in the plan that says you cannot create a hole in the urban service area. Good. Commissioner Seaman. I have a question about that, actually. Would the applicant be able to add these parcels into this request if those parcel owners were amenable to adding their property into the urban service area? Or would staff be able to, you know, bring something forward on a public way to make everything continue? I'm just curious, honestly, just structurally how it works. I think at this point in the process, the amendment would have to be continued to add additional property. So I don't know that it could be done as part of this amendment at this point. But yes, a separate amendment could come forward. Staff could, like we did on those properties down on Westlake, we could contact the property owners and talk to them about it. That's always a possibility. Let me check with Commissioner Linkus. Yeah. I thought the applicant had an outstanding presentation. And I've been quite seriously pondering this, but I'm going to kind of go where I've landed on this one. And unusually for me, it will be against the staff recommendation. I don't believe that the infrastructure here supports this expansion. And I'd rather see more of a coherent study of this area. This is an area that is just notorious. If you say, Lithia Pinecrest, you're talking about traffic. It's also got a really established community that is very rural in nature. The fact that there might be a plan worked on for this area and the fact that all these folks are here really speaks to the nature of this area to me. And the fact that it deserves a kind of special level of attention when you're talking about the urban service area expansion. If you Googled Lithia Pinecrest, it's one fatal car accident after another. If you look at the news headlines, for me, there's a story here of just needing to do a really in-depth level of planning. For me, this is exactly why I really do believe in the urban service area. And this story tells you that this is a place where we need to really look coordinatively at the infrastructure provision. When you go beyond it, if it's not ready, it's not ready. And I don't see any evidence from this scenario that it's ready. Obviously, this is a great place to live and a place where people would want to build homes. But we've said this has a rural character in our plan. And I haven't seen anything to persuade me that there's a reason to alter that at this point. So I'm laying my cards on the table. This is where I'm going to stand with this one. It was a tough decision. And I do think the applicant did a really nice job presenting this. But to me, I will be looking at the, oh, I'm lost it. I just had it up. But the fact that this is not supporting the, it's 1.1.10 with number four. And I would argue it's not really adjacent and contiguous with 0.1. I can see both sides of that, but it's kind of a vague criteria. I am just shocked. I can't. This urban service area thing is going to make my head explode. When you said that, my eyebrows just left my head when you said that. Like, I can't believe. Wow. And it's all to Commissioner Lauk's point. I know he's somewhere with his feet up smug because that is the point he made way back that brought us to all this urban service area stuff. It's the back and forth and the, you know, he didn't like that. And he said we need something to make it so that we can be solid on the decisions we're making, so that the community can know what's going to happen, so the development community can know where they can invest, so that we can know what decisions we need to make. And the more we go on with this, the more he is being proven right. Don't tell him I said that. Well, I just have to say, I feel like this is doing what it's supposed to do here, and that's why I do like the urban service area. There's a clear boundary here where the community has been under the impression that they're going to be a rural area. And I'm not seeing enough of a reason to go against that. So, for me, it favors the strength of the urban service area as a clear marker. All right. Are there any other comments, thoughts on this one? Commissioner Sink? I mean, and to kind of go further, I think the development people know, like the urban service area, when you invest in these things and they're outside of it, they know that this is a risk of it. And to make sure that when they're looking at it, that the services and the needs of the people who will live there are actually there. And I just don't think that this has it. So, I would go with 1.1.10 for items one, two, and six would be my supporting reasons to find it inconsistent. All right. Well, we're not taking motions just yet, but Ms. Zornita is writing those policies down just in case. So, I will say I tended to agree with staff on this. I know I'm going to make Deputy Papillon mad at me by saying that, but my original instinct was that staff was, you know, oddly, again, where everybody gets on their different sides and it's just odd. But I, you know, felt that staff had looked at it. It was on the edge, but it was close enough. There's a lot of development that goes on down there. Staff made the case about the infrastructure being there and the different things like that. We didn't get a lot of pushback from the other departments, you know, in the county that we usually do, the fire and the EPC and those sorts of people. So, I sort of felt – I mean, I was still – it's the urban service and it drives me crazy. But I was, you know, kind of more in support of staff on this one and willing to let it go. But I'm still listening to arguments. So, that's not where I'm laying my hat just yet. Commissioner Berry. I've been sitting on this board for a minute and it seems to be the same thing every single time. So, I think Wednesday is a huge, you know, something we really have to do. Because it's the same thing the residents, the developer, whoever's trying to build. It's USA, environmental, and traffic. That seems to be the same three categories every time we come on this. And it's like, is it going to be good or are we going to build the infrastructure before the development? It seems like we just keep doing the same thing. And we really got to figure that out. Because we're going to have these half the room saying yes and half the room saying no. And the residents want their answers and also we want our answers. Yes, we are recommending board. But we need to be also educating the public on what's going on. Because it's the same thing. I've been here for like a year now. And every time USA comes up, it's the same thing. So, we got to be better at that. All right. Good points, Commissioner Berry. Don't leave us. Don't let it chase you away. We need you, man. Don't go anywhere. Commissioner Bowden. Yeah. I'm listening to the, and I've mentioned this several times, about the USA and infrastructure. And when you look at the USA as it is, well, it's expanded since. But you look at the USA and where it was 20 years ago, some of those same developments that were built in the USA still doesn't have infrastructure. So, you know, what does that tell you? You know, that's the way I see it. Now, there has been areas that the infrastructure was not as close and it actually was, the USA has been expanded beyond that. And we approved it. So, the thing is, is that the infrastructure seems to be closer than it was in some of those other areas that were actually, it was expanded. So, it's just a matter of, you know, as I sat here, I've seen some go yes, some go no. And infrastructure has never, well, I would say, I would say 90% of the time, infrastructure was never the reason for the decision being made. But my big thing is that, you know, if we're using the USA as the determining factor, why not increase the density there before you do expand out? Okay. And if you're not doing that, then you're kind of missing the mark, I feel. Good point, Commissioner Bowden. I would agree with you. I would agree with you. That's kind of why I brought up what I brought up. So, I did want to say, though, in defense of the Board of County, this Board of County Commissioners, I can't speak to those 20 years ago, but this Board of County Commissioners has been pretty legendary with the way they've taken a focus on infrastructure and tried to make sure that the revenues that are generated by land values are invested right in those areas where the money is generated. They've come up with, you know, funding for different areas that are starting to boom right now, like the USF area to deal with infrastructure and transportation issues that are going to arise around that area. So, this Board of County Commissioners is really good about when they notice it, trying to address it. So, you know, maybe when this gets before them, they can speak to those sorts of things. Again, that's beyond our purview. So, that's, again, why I always get a little consternated that we have to make these decisions at this level without that information. They can understand what the pot looks like and where it can be spent to, you know, help and listen to these voices and get that stuff done and make the promises they need to or divert the things they need to. So, in defense of them, I will say that they've been pretty good about whenever an infrastructure issue pops up, they're right on it trying to get something done about it and not just kicking it down the road a bit. So, for what that's worth. All right. Are there any more thoughts, questions, discussions? Ms. Corbin, I'm going to check with you just in case you had anything you wanted to say. You've been listening quietly for a while. She's like, just send me to the board. This is enough. All right. Commissioner Horton. I think I said it before, but just because the USA area is expanding does not mean that there is money to put infrastructure in place right now. It's something that's going to take 10, 20 years because it's part of the long-range transportation plan. And I'm just, you know, it doesn't mean it's going there right now. It's going to take a long time for infrastructure to be in that place. All right. Are there any other thoughts, questions, comments, or reminder? And people have been working on them, policies and objectives that we need if we're going to go against staff because staff found this consistent. So have those ready, but I'll put it out there once, twice for any more public comment on this one and then close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the planning commissioners on this item. Don't everybody rush to it all at once now. Commissioner Linkus. I will make a motion to find HCCPA 26-05 comprehensive plan map amendment 18308 Dorman Road urban service area expansion inconsistent with the county comprehensive plan. Can I just say 1.1.10? Okay. Based on policy 1.1.10. All right. Is there a second out there? Commissioner Sink? I second. We have a motion of inconsistency finding by Commissioner Linkus citing policy 1.1.10. Second to that motion by Commissioner Sink. Are there any questions, comments, or discussions before we take our vote? And I am turning this one right over to the clerk's representative to take a roll call. Fowden? No. Cardenas? Yes. Jemison? Yes. Linkus? Yes. Steven? No. Sink? Yes. Motion carries 4-3. All right. All right. Bowden, Steven, and Chair Joseph voted no. All right. That's an inconsistency finding for those of you who weren't keeping up with it. Calm down. We still got more. We got a long night ahead of us, folks. I got you excited, but we got another one. All right. Next up, we have item 2E, HCCPA 26-06 comprehensive plan. Thank you. And the presenter is Lillianne Linehan. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Lillianne Linehan, Planning Commission staff, here to present HCCPA 2606, located at 18308 Dorman Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is large in scale and approximately 190 acres. The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from Agricultural Rule 1-5 to Residential 2. This is the general location map. This application is associated with HCCPA 2605. It is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area-wide Systems Plan. It is located north of Dorman Road, east of Boyette Road, and south of Lithia Pinecrest Road. Here is an area of the site. The site is outlined in pink, and the blue line indicates the existing urban service area boundary. The site currently has some agricultural and single-family uses. And there are single-family residential uses to the east, south, and west of the site, with agricultural uses found within the rural area to the south and east of the site. As shown in the previous presentation, here are some of the site photos. I will just go through them quickly. Currently, the future land use designation is Agricultural Rule 1-5. This category allows for one dwelling unit per five gross acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. This designation allows for the consideration of farms, ranches, feedlots, residential, neighborhood commercial, offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses, and mining related activities. Other future land use categories shown on this map include Residential 1, Residential Plan 2, Residential 2, and Natural Preservation. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to Residential 2. This category allows for two dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. The Residential 2 designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multipurpose projects. Currently, under the Agricultural Rule 1-5 designation, the site could consider up to a maximum of 38 dwelling units, or approximately 2 million square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed future land use designation of Residential 2, the site could consider up to a maximum of 380 dwelling units, or approximately 2 million square feet of non-residential uses. And during the rezoning process, commercial locational criteria and site constraints may affect the allowable square footage for potential non-residential development. The proposed amendment will increase the maximum potential residential density and will not change the maximum potential non-residential intensity. The proposed amendment received no formal objections. The comments received for this application were the same as the comments provided for HCCPA 2605, Urban Service Area Expansion of Amendment. Just to recap those quickly, the fire station distance discrepancies were resolved by staff, and the applicant has stated they are willing to work through a mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement with the county to assist in facilitating improvements within this area. While formulating our recommendation, Planning Commission staff reviews all related policies regarding proposed request. Though the request is related to several general policies, staff found four main areas of consistency. The proposed request is consistent with FLU's objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.2, which directs 80% of population growth into the urban service area, and requires that all new residential or mixed use feature land use categories proposed within the urban service area shall have a density of four dwelling units per gross acre or greater, unless environmental features or existing development patterns do not support those densities. Based upon the existing development pattern, which contains residential two and residential plan two feature land use designations within the existing urban service area, staff would not find the introduction of residential four feature land use to be compatible with the existing development pattern and lower density found within the existing communities to the north of the site within the existing urban service area, and abutting the existing large lot rural areas to the south. The request to change the feature land use to residential two with the accompanying urban service area expansion aligns with the existing development patterns. FLU's objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 call for compatibility and gradual transitions of density intensity between uses as new development is proposed. The agricultural uses within the area are located to the east, southwest, and south of the site, with more suburban development occurring along the northern border of the site and to the northwest within the existing urban service area. Staff ran initial calculations of the density of the surrounding areas and found that within the urban service area, and within the residential plan two feature land use category which abuts the site to the north and is also located further east of the site. The average density was approximately 1.62 dwelling units per acre based on existing conditions. Additionally, the density of the rural area surrounding the site to the east, west, and south was approximately one dwelling unit per 7.6 acres based on existing conditions. There is a clear trend of low density residential development within the urban service area and large lot residential and agricultural development within the rural areas. Based on the above analysis and existing conditions, the future land use amendment would allow for development that is compatible with the existing development patterns. According to mobility section objective 5.3 and policy 5.3.1, new development shall mitigate its impact on the multimodal transportation network and use mobility fees to help maintain the multimodal level or quality of service standards on the transportation network pursuant to the mobility fee ordinance. As previously stated, the developer is willing to work through a mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement with the county to assess and facilitating these improvements within this area. And lastly, FLU's objective 4.4 and FLU's policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of single family residential and agricultural uses. The development within the urban service area that abuts the northern portion of the subject site contains the residential plan 2 and residential 2 future land use categories with existing suburban neighborhoods. The surrounding areas to the east, west, and south of the site are generally large lot rural residential developments that contain a future land use designation of agricultural rule 1-5. The proposed request to change the future land use to residential 2 for additional suburban style development complements the existing development pattern within the area and would serve as a transitional area between the more suburban development pattern to the north and rural development pattern to the south. Planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation for this item, and I'm here if you have any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Cammie Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson again. I will be brief. I'd also like to make just a general comment. Someone said in the last public hearing that the opposition has been ridiculed. I'm not sure by whom, but what I am feeling in this room just now when I just got up to stand and talk again, murmuring in the room and just having someone take photographs of my private text messages and post them to Facebook that we can all disagree and be agreeable. I would hope. I certainly don't hold any of the people. I understand the people here are passionate and this is a really, really important issue to them. And I think that you all responded to their concerns, but I don't think that there's a need to make it personal or to invade people's personal spaces. So I just wanted to put that on the record. I respect all of you and I would respectfully request the same. Just briefly, just going real quickly, again, notwithstanding the urban service boundary expansion, we do have RP2 and R1 in the immediate area and we do think that R1 would be an appropriate transition. We presented this previously. We feel that it's compatible and consistent with the surrounding area and we think that this request is supportable, but recognize given your last action you may not feel the same. I'm here to answer any questions should you have any. Thank you, Ms. Corbett, and sorry about that. She's definitely right and I echo her sentiments. We need to make sure we all have respect for one another in here. If I catch anyone doing anything like that, you better believe the sheriff's going to be in here fast and it's not going to be good. We don't play those games around here, so let's all be respectful. We sat here and listened to all the comments very calmly and coolly. Let's keep that respect going one for another. All right, so we had a few people sign up again for this one. I'm going to call the names, but again, if you've spoken the last one, this is very similar. You can just say ditto. You can just say you want your comments from the last one carried over to this one and save us a lot of time. Of course, if you want to speak, it is your right, but I will tell you that after a certain time we get to stop this show and then it's up to us whether or not we want to continue. So if this takes too long, we could run into that, which isn't good for anyone. So I will start off virtually with Ashley Ivanoff again just to double check to see if maybe they came on. No? No, Ashley, all right. Then we'll go to in-person people and I'll start with Israel Banks. My name is Israel Banks. I live at 11756 Browning Road and I'm a little nervous, but I'd like to first start off by making it very clear that I am by no means an expert on any of this. Zoning districts, CPC, LDC, density versus intensity, it's all Greek to me. However, I did grow up with siblings and just like lots of people who grow up in a home with siblings, I think I'm an expert on one particular thing and that is what's fair. So mainly I just want to ask some questions in regards to fairness. Is it fair that Browning Road becomes less safe than it already is, inundated with potholes and speeders who decide it's a shortcut to their new construction, that I have to replace another mailbox that gets run over by a distracted driver? I don't think it is. Is it fair that folks like me who may need to transport livestock, feed, hay, fencing and other materials get tail-cated, honked at, sped around because our focus is on safety and not the speed at which someone gets home from work? I don't think it is. Is it fair that the rural character of Lithia continues to be treated as an amenity for planned communities, a bullet point on sales flyers, all while slowly chipping away at it? I don't think it is. Is it fair to place two incompatible and differing communities so close together without any buffer, where residents of this new development may not be aware that hearing target practice on Sundays is perfectly normal, that donkeys don't care about what time it is when they bray, and that goats tend to never be quiet? I don't think it is. Is it fair to gradually eliminate all the rural character of the area that we specifically bought and built homes in because of its rural character, all for the sake of profit? I don't think it is. So I'm asking you to recommend denial for this request because what's being proposed isn't fair to rural Lithia. Thank you. All right, next up we have Mia Stutzman, then I'll call the rest. Leah Heyer, Lisa Wilson. So I'm not going to say ditto because I have different points on this one. So again, for the record, my name is Mia Stutzman. I live at 18917 Boyette Road. My 10 acres is adjacent to the subject property and comprises about 50% of the western border. I'm a Florida native and both my husband and I graduated from Brandon High School. We bought our first and only home in Lithia over 30 years ago because we wanted to live and raise our future children in a rural atmosphere. For those of you that are not familiar with the area, Lithia covers 160 square miles. Fishhawk and other high-density housing is identified on this map in white, leaving a large part of Lithia that is still rural. The blue parts are public lands and so we are surrounded by public lands. It is what the developers, sorry, large acreage has always been a hallmark of Lithia. It's what the developers of Fishhawk touted when it was built in the 90s. In adopting the comprehensive plan, the county agreed. While the requested density is two homes per one acre, the actual density is significantly smaller. The applicant submitted a revised site plan on April 9th with a reduced number of proposed homes. So I don't have the exact lot measurements like is shown on this map. But assuming that the same amount of land will be used as the original plan that's shown on the screen and extrapolating, the average lot size would be approximately 9,800 square feet or less than a quarter of an acre. The current zoning for this property with infrastructure would have lot size of approximately 72,000 square feet or 1.65 acres. Most of the surrounding lots on three sides are five acres, are 218,000 square feet. Three of the four sides have significantly larger lots. As you can see, the current zoning provides for a more appropriate transition. We respect landowner rights, both for the owners of the subject property and for the existing landowners. While the request is not for ultra high density, the transition would not be gradual but profound. We respectfully request that the commission adhere to the density included in the approved comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to make a note to the commissioners. The lotting plan and the site plan information Ms. Stutzman just gave you needs to be erased from your mind if you did take it in. That's none of our business. We have no way of understanding if that was real or not. That is the applicant's business and zoning and site planning matters are not within the purview of this board. If anybody has any plans to put that up there, you're definitely free as a citizen of these United States to do and say what you feel within respectful decency for one to another. But we can't take that into consideration in our decision making. So I just wanted to make sure that the commissioners were aware of that. All right. And with that public service announcement, we'll move on to Ms. Leah Heyer. Hi. Did you get the PowerPoint that I sent? Yep. There was a PowerPoint attached to my name that I was supposed to submit two days ago. I can get back in the queue if you want me to. We got it. I'm going to take you on a little trip to the country. My time starts now. I'm Leah Heyer and I'm here to talk to you about the Lithia Pinecrest project, not the Dorman Road project. It's the Lithia Pinecrest project because it will empty 280 homes onto an already overburdened two-lane road called Lithia Pinecrest. AKA the worst road in Hillsborough County per Commissioner Woestel's on the record comment. It needs to be acknowledged for what it will be. Another contributor to the already gridlock the commuters face each morning and afternoon trying to get out of our rural area to work into their nearby schools on this one and only two-lane commuter road in Lithia. These 190 acres offer the buffer and transition from the Fishhawk neighborhood. I'll click right past that since this isn't applicable to this, but this shows you the amount of rural land and south and east. Unless you've lived this way of life, you might not understand the desperation I'm coming to you with. The peace and tranquility I'm showing you is what I stand to lose. This way of life is how I sustain teaching middle schoolers for 30 years. And yes, there were 35 in a class. Did I teach you? It's where my children and grandchildren learn life skills, confidence, and work ethic by working with animals. And it's where we enjoy our agricultural activities of endless chores and tractor work and mucking stalls and things that other people might not like. We reap the rewards of nature and appreciation of the active wildlife on this land. Thoughtful urban sprawl would support this. I'd like to express to you my heartfelt plea as one of the adjacent landowners to this proposal. I've lived at this home for 23 years and I had the protection. I had the protection of my deed restriction and AR designation surrounding me. That's similar to what most of you experience with the protection of an HOA you might live in. I moved from another AR property in Lithia to gain more land and protections knowing it would be the home that we live out of retirement years. I've retired from the Hillsborough County as a teacher to this area or living in this area. And now I'm sadly looking at the possibility of losing value on what I once counted on to lead me through retirement. If this 190 acres land is converted to RES 2 cluster, AKA row housing, I call it, being asked for, my home value surely decreases. And my realtor will attest to that. I have an investment backed right as a property owner. The builder's decision to convert this comprehensive plan with the potential for commercial properties now affects my entire life. How is this fair? My husband and I have worked our entire lives for this dream. Please acknowledge that and put yourself in my position for a minute. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next up, we have Lisa Wolfson. And after Lisa, we have Michelle Bronner, Rebecca Gullick, and Matthew Gullick again. So Lisa Wolfson. Oh, Michelle. Yeah, Lisa's still not here. She still has not made it. Give me an evening again. My name's Michelle Bronner. I live at 18539 Dorman Road. I've been at this address for 24 years. Um, I have this outline right here represents my 10 acre parcel. You can keep going. It'll come on. Okay. All right. So I have a 10 acre parcel. Um, my daughter and her family live right down the street. They're at 17923 Dorman Road. Um, they've lived there for the last 10 years. Their home that they live in is actually nearly a hundred years old on Dorman Road. Um, their family enjoys the rural lifestyle. They ride four wheelers. They ride horses. This is, this is my granddaughter rocking her Preserve Rural Lithia sign in front of their hundred year old home. Um, I purchased my property. Yes. In a deed restricted area. Um, it is zoned AR. And when I bought it, I really thought that I was protected in a rural area. I would be able to have my horses. My granddaughter would be able to ride her horse wherever she wanted to. Um, and for that reason, I strongly oppose, um, this change to a res two in our agricultural lifestyle. This is my other granddaughter. I was told to make sure I've proved it was rural property. So here's my other granddaughter riding her horse down to Cheeto Preserve. Um, adding extra homes, extra traffic to these roads. My granddaughter would not be able to do this in the future. Here they are again out at Cheeto Preserve. It is a rural area. We are surrounded by nature. We are surrounded by preserve areas. And this is my way of life and my grandchildren's way of life. And I would like for you guys to deny this request to change this. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Rebecca Gullick. Matthew Gullick. I'm going to get my daughter home, so it's just me. So all of us opposed this. Do I got to restate my name? Yes. Uh, Matthew Gullick, 18732 Dorman Road, Lithia, or Lithia. Um, all of these, all of us who oppose this project share consistent and well-founded concerns. This development request represents continued encroachment in our rural way of life and places additional strain on infrastructure that is already stretched beyond its limits. At its core, this issue is about more than just growth. It is about balance and sustainability. Homes can always be built, but land cannot be replaced. Once rural land is lost, it's gone forever. The rural fabric of Florida is not just land. It's heritage, character, and the way of life that cannot be recreated once it's gone. What is being proposed here is not just a local change. It is part of a broader pattern that threatens the very identity of our state. This is not just our fight. It's a fight to preserve the unique qualities of Florida itself. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right. Did Tegan Zeely show up or want to speak? Good evening. Um, my name's Tegan Zeely and I'm here to respectfully oppose the proposed change to the future land use of 18308 Dorman Road from AR15 to Res2. At its core, this issue is about supply and balance. In Hillsborough County today, there is no shortage of smaller residential properties. A quick search on Zillow shows over 4,600 homes for sale on half an acre or less. But when you look for properties with five acres or more, the type of land protected under AR zoning, that number drops to just 50. 50. That's not just a difference, it's a scarcity. Agricultural and rural land is a finite resource. Once it's gone, it's gone for good. Every time we convert AR land into higher density residential, we further limit opportunities for agricultural, equestrian use, and rural lifestyles that are defining part of this county, and more importantly, this district's character. This isn't about opposing growth. Growth is inevitable, but responsible growth means preserving balance. Right now, the data shows we are heavily oversupplied in small lot housing and critically undersupplied in large acreage properties. Approving this change would further move us out of balance, not closer to it. I urge you to consider the long term impact of this and any other changes to the future land use. This decision would not solve a shortage, but it would accelerate the loss of something we already have too little of. Please vote no on this proposed land use change. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next up we have Monica R. I'm not even going to attempt the last name, and Braden R after her. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Monica Rigo. I live at 18614 Dorman Road. I'm here today, not just as a homeowner, concerned about the negative impacts to my agricultural community. I'm here as someone who made a very intentional decision about how to live and serve in this community. My husband and I are both retired military combat veterans. Service has shaped our lives, and it didn't end when we took off the uniform. It has just changed form. We chose to buy agricultural property, not for convenience, but for purpose. Our goal has been to build something meaningful on our land, an equine assisted therapy program designed specifically for military veterans and first responders. We've seen firsthand what this kind of service requires of people and what it can take from them. Our land isn't just an open space for us, it's an important part of the plan. Horses in a peaceful, rural environment are essential in creating this type of program, where the quality of life for first responders and military veterans can be improved. But it can't be created in the middle of dense development or close to overly crowded roads. Spaces like our agricultural properties aren't just peaceful, they are necessary for healing. What's being proposed on the 190 acres bordering our agricultural community may sound like progress to some, but growth without infrastructure isn't progress, it's pressure. Our roads are already strained, emergency services are stretched, some schools are at capacity, and we're talking about adding hundreds of people without a clear, sustainable plan to support them. Please do not change the comprehensive plan and allow this land use change. We can't bring it back later when we realize what was lost. This isn't about being against growth, it's about being responsible for growth. Please only consider growth that reflects the infrastructure, preserves rural space, and considers long-term impact over short-term gains. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Braden Rigaud. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Braden Rigaud. I live on 18614 Dorman Road. I am a high school student and a part of the agricultural community here. My family and I are lucky to live on agricultural land where I ride and train horses. I spend a lot of my time taking care of my property and the animals within it. My property management includes pasture management, fencing repairs, anything that comes up requiring immediate attention. I also work part-time helping many of the neighbors on their agricultural land. This isn't just home to me. Living on agricultural property and having these rights and privileges is where I've learned responsibility, discipline, and patience. Since moving to our agricultural property from a subdivision, I have learned that life is more enjoyable and challenging. I now see many more opportunities in my future. I just recently got my driver's license last week. I promised everyone that I'll be careful, but I know the roads here are not good. They are dark at night and mostly two-lane roads. They can't handle any more cars during most times of the day. Furthermore, my high school is maxed out and there's not even enough room to park until you are a senior. Our rural way of life isn't just a hobby. It's part of our community and an important part of Lithia's future. Once this land is developed with too many homes, too close together, and too close to our properties, it's gone for good. I think growth should happen, but it should respect the people who already live here and the way of life that has been here long before these plans. Thank you. Thank you. Well said, young man. All right. Next up, we have Margaret Jamsky. Margaret J. I wasn't sure if my submittal went through. Anyway, my name is Margaret Jamsky, and my family has called this area home for over 100 years. So when I stand here tonight, I'm not just speaking as a resident. I'm speaking as someone whose roots run deep in this area. I understand that growth is part of our progress, and I'm well aware of the comprehensive plans Ms. Zornia and I have talked previously. Hi, Hillary. But the whole idea is to ensure that it's a responsible balance and is sustainable and that it protects people who already live here and not just those who may be moving here next. Right now, that balance has been lost. One of the most overlooked issues is a lack of transition between suburban and rural areas. What we have now isn't a transition. It's more like a collision. It's more like a collision with the consequences, overcrowded and increasingly unsafe roads. I, too, worked in the ER, and I can remember standing at the door waiting for ambulances to arrive when moments are ticking by. Our paramedics are awesome people, but they cannot control the traffic. Schools and infrastructure are struggling to keep up. Evacuation routes that raise real concerns in a state where storms are inevitable, not just maybe. And then there's the water. Many of our rural residents are already feeling the strain over their wells. Water needed just not for the homes, but for livestock and the gardens. Water is not unlimited. So while long-time residents are trying to conserve, others are required to consume because of the requirements of the HOAs that mandate lush green lawns. Still, we're being asked to accept more density without real assurances that infrastructure and safety comes first. A comprehensive plan is supposed to be a promise. The promise that growth is managed wisely and safety comes first. Right now, that promise feels a little backward. I ask respectfully that you will deny this request. Growth should not come at the cost of very people this plan was meant to protect. I, too, was in a non-urban service area when I first moved to my home 42 years ago. The urban service area slipped in without our knowledge at all. I had no idea what was happening. And I do request that we find a way to make the public more aware when these changes are being made. Posting a sign here and there just isn't enough because people really don't know what to do with it. Thankfully, I did have some great help from the Planning Commission years ago when we, too, were trying to rearrange some thoughts the developers had in our area. So, I appreciate that opportunity and I hope that you will deny this request. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to start calling multiple names again to try to get people queued up because we got those three seats down front open and it seems like everybody's going to speak. So, let's go. Next up, we have Jessica Scott. After Jessica, we have Tiffany Willis. And after Tiffany, we have Dana Gandolfo and Miles Scott. So, Jessica Scott, Tiffany Willis, Dana Gandolfo, and Miles Scott. Please come on down. Hi. My name is Jessica Scott, 18505 Dorman Road. I'm a lifelong Hillsborough County resident. I'm here to ask you to deny the proposed future land use change from AR to Res 2. This is not a minor adjustment. This is a tenfold increase in density from one home per five acres to two homes per acre. That kind of change is simply not compatible with our rural area. The existing area is defined by agricultural uses plus large lot rural homes. Even the nearby developments are built at lower densities and allowed, reinforcing the rural character, not intensifying it. Your own comprehensive plan requires compatibility and gradual transitions of density. This proposal does neither. It inserts suburban density directly into a rural area with no buffer, no transition, and no regard for the existing community. This is also one of the last large parcels of rural land in the Dorman, Boyette, and Browning Road area. If this is approved, you will effectively box in the remaining rural community, eliminating the buffer that allows agricultural and rural living to continue. I chose to live here for a reason. I built my life around agriculture, riding and training horses, milking cows, and living the rural lifestyle this area was planned to support. I've seen what happens when planning protections fail. I grew up milking cows at a dairy on Linebaugh Avenue in Tampa, and I watched as development crept closer and closer until the dairy could no longer survive. Today, that land is covered in houses. I don't want to lose my home in the life I've built the same way. This proposal would result in a permanent damage to the rural character of Lithia, and it directly conflicts with your comprehensive plan, which clearly states that rural areas are intended for long term agricultural use and low density living. This decision is not about 190 acres. It is about whether your comprehensive plan still has integrity, and whether rural communities like mine still have a future. This is one of my horses. I just want to share this is how we live out there. I respectfully ask you to recommend denial of CPA 26-06. Thank you. Next up, Tiffany Willis. Good evening. My name is Tiffany Willis. My family has called this area home for generations, and I am now raising my children here, hoping that they can continue this same rural lifestyle that has defined this community. Again, my children both raise and show cattle here in Hillsborough County. They wake up very early in the mornings, and they learn responsibility and discipline, things that cannot be had or found in a traditional neighborhood, which is why we've chosen this way of life. Agriculture is very much alive in our community, and maintaining larger parcels of land is critical to preserving our way of life. I respectfully ask for you to deny this rezoning. While we already see the impacts of rapid growth, Lithia Pinecrest is becoming increasingly more congested and unsafe. Crashes and deaths are already concentrated along the corridor, and residents are concerned about the safety of traveling along these roads daily. At the same time, there are already approved developments adding more traffic to the area. There are more than 204 townhomes currently being built on Bomboyette Road. Another development on Boyette Road near Channing Park for approximately 100 homes. All of this traffic will funnel into one road, and that road is Lithia Pinecrest. Further increasing congestion and safety concerns. Once this density increases, it will never reverse. These decisions shape our community for generations. Again, as a fourth generation Hillsborough County resident, and as a parent raising children in agriculture, I respectfully ask for you to protect the rural characteristics of this area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Dana Gandolfo. Dana Gandolfo. Dana. Dana. Hi. Good evening. My name is Dana Gandolfo, and I do not live on the farmland, but I do live in Fishhawk Phase 1. We were one of the early intruders into the area, so to speak. I've lived there for 26 years next to the children's, and I do feel in our situation we're very personally impacted by this situation as our properties directly back up to the backs of the homes that the applicant is intending to put there. This is totally going to change the character, privacy, and value of our properties that we intentionally purchased on bordering the preserve and wetlands. We paid substantial premiums when we purchased those properties to ensure privacy and natural surroundings. We routinely see wildlife in our backyards, different kinds. We were told, rightly or wrongly, by the builder and Fishhawk when we purchased those properties, that the agricultural land behind us was protected in perpetuity, and there would never be any building back there. So it's totally changing were it to happen, our way of life, and our calm, and our peace, and what we've worked for all these years to provide in our retirement years. I want to address quickly, particularly Cammy's points about Lithia Pinecrest, 26 years living in the area. I ran a business from 2005 to 2014 up north of Bloomingdale Avenue on Lithia Pinecrest, and we've been being told ever since 2005 that the road's going to be improved. And to this date, as you've heard this evening, there have been no improvements other than where developments have been built, and they've added turning lanes. There is no improvement on the road. There's constant accidents. You can't move. There's areas of the road where when EMS tries to get through, there's no shoulders. There's nowhere to go. I've sat there in the traffic jams, and I've watched the fire trucks, and the sheriff's deputies, and the EMS people weaving, and weaving, and trying to get through. And there's nowhere for people to go to get out of their way. And I sit there and I think, how would you feel if your mother, or your parent, or your child, or your spouse was having an emergency event, and the responders couldn't get to them because of traffic issues? I've noticed recently, I'd also like to address the situation with the fire truck. I've sat on Lithia Pinecrest and seen the fire truck not be able to get out of the station onto Lithia Pinecrest because of traffic. So, the proximity to the new applicant area doesn't really seem to be relevant if they can't get out onto the road. In conclusion, because I'm running out of time, I feel really strongly that this proposal offers absolutely no identifiable enhancement or advantage to our community, but serves only to add more stress and potentially detrimental consequences. That's your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Miles Scott. And after Miles, Erica Taylor. No Miles. No Miles? Okay. Erica Taylor. And Carla Evans after Erica. Good evening. I am Erica Taylor. Thank you for letting me come to speak. Until you work in a school or live the daily reality of getting your children to and from school, it's difficult to understand how decisions like this affect classrooms, families, and students every single day. What looks manageable on paper becomes very real once it plays out in our schools and on our roads. Students arriving late due to traffic or delayed buses, learning is disrupted. Teachers have to pause instruction, classroom routines are broken, and instructional momentum is lost for everyone. That happens regularly. HCPS comprehensive plan amendment suggests there's space for additional students. Those same projections are being used simultaneously by multiple developments. Between just four developments approved or under consideration affecting our schools, Pinecrest is projected to be at 83% capacity, Barrington 95, and Newsom even more over capacity. This doesn't include students who enroll throughout the year through various scholarships. Many families, including mine, participate in school choice to attend these top rated schools. I live in South Plant City and have to fight traffic to Lithia, Pinecrest and 39 and then into Fishhawk. I travel dormant every weekday because Fishhawk Boulevard and Lithia, Pinecrest are already so congested that alternate routes are a necessity. And frankly, they don't deserve to have my traffic affecting their tiny road. Because we're rural, there aren't many routes you can take. Turning on and off of Lithia, Pinecrest is difficult and unsafe. Adding another access point will push more cars onto these roads at the exact times they are already overwhelmed. The buses for this neighborhood will have to pull in and out onto Lithia, Pinecrest. Sometimes at 714 in the morning, it takes 11 minutes just to drive three miles from Channing Park on Dorman to Beavis Elementary. The applicant's map showing Pizza Hut to Aldi is 1.1 miles apart. Sometimes that can take 10 to 20 minutes to get through traffic during certain times of the day, especially during start and ending of school and during year-round sports season at the sports complex. This congestion causes people to reroute off Fishhawk Boulevard and drive through those southern neighborhoods affecting the safety where children are playing and riding their bikes just to make it out to dormant and back onto Lithia, Pinecrest. Many neighborhoods zoned for these schools consistent of so-called affordable homes built by developers such as West Bay and Casa Fresca and sold to out-of-state investors from New Jersey and other states. These owners aren't part of our daily community life. They don't sit in car lines or experience overcrowded classrooms, yet local families bear the consequences of development decisions driven by profit, not long-term sustainability. It's not about opposing growth. It's just about responsible growth and ensures schools and infrastructure are supported in reality, not just on paper. I don't ever speak publicly, but the congestion on Lithia Pinecrest drove me down Dorman Road to see their signs to be here tonight. So thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Carla Evans. Hello again. Thank you so much. Carla Evans, 18862 Dorman Road in Lithia. You have a very crucial job. As a teacher, I tried to help my students learn the importance of proper planning in any situation. The phrase proper planning prevents poor performance would help in each step of the planning process. In regard to the comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County and specifically for this request of the land use change for 190 acres in my community. May I ask you to think why the plan should be changed if the change would only bring more hardship to already substandard infrastructure and strained and stressed residents. The goal of this land use change is to cram more homes with more people onto a plot of land. Not exactly how their attorney would describe it, but this would not even be good for the potential future home buyers. Try turning left against traffic onto Lithia Pinecrest going against traffic in the morning or afternoon. Ask many of the residents here who waited years and suffered harm before finally getting a traffic light at Hawk Park Boulevard and Lithia Pinecrest. On the planhillsborough.org website, where anybody can sign up for any type of updates, we will see in big font, Creating Great Places. Changing the plan from 1 to 5 to Res 2 is not working towards creating great places. In fact, quite the opposite. If you listen to our pleas, allowing a higher density subdivision that a Res 2 could potentially bring, is not a positive change and would not align with my community at this time. We are all here because of the developer's whim to build with the priority of the highest profit margin possible in this location. Regardless of what important, prior, thoughtful, comprehensive planning that many of you had to do with, that was envisioned for our area. I am not against development, not even in this location. I urge you that if you ever allow a land use change, only allow one that is fair to our bordering AR 1 to 5 properties, and fair to all the tax paying residents who use these substandard roads, have kids in schools, depend on emergency services, and want to uphold our property values. If any change is allowed that has more negative impact than positive, does this not devalue a comprehensive plan? Thank you again for your patience and for all the time. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Next up we have a single named individual, Erin. E-R-I-N, is Erin here? No? All right. We'll move on to Adam Frye. My name's Adam Frye. I do not live on Dorman Road. I live on 10940 Browning Road. Everybody's heard a lot of the same comments and everything, so I'm not going to go over those. But I tend to give you a little bit more of a regular picture of what we're running into. There's a lot of safety concerns. My kids get on the school bus at Browning Road in Dorman. That is a regular school bus stop. Again, depending on what times of day, for the middle schools and the high schools, there's tons of traffic. And with all the traffic on Lithia Pinecrest, people are looking for cut-throughs, easy accesses, ways to go around, everything. The speed limit on Dorman and Browning is 35 miles an hour. There have been recorded speeds of 60 and 65 miles an hour for people trying to make up time to go around and get through these neighborhoods or to avoid Lithia Pinecrest. So with that, there comes many safety issues. There are folks that are riding their horses to get to the state park down there, up and down Browning Road, and cars are flying by. And, like, again, it's just nobody has any regard for those that live out there. And one other thing I wanted to bring up, the attorney mentioned that there are, I believe, wildlife patterns and stuff like that, where animals do travel and where they don't travel. This is not my photo. This was a friend of mine's photo. He does live in Lithia. I'm not going to mention his name, but if he wants to be at the next meeting, he can. I'm not sure if the Elmo will see the phone or not, but that is a four-foot field fence, and that is a beautiful Florida panther. She's here in Lithia, and she's a protected species, and she's following the animals that come through Lithia. Just yesterday I was on my back porch about 4.35 in the morning having a cup of coffee before I start my day, and all of a sudden my cat on the back patio went racing to the side. And then I heard some noise, and then here come the deer. The motion lights came on, and five doe went in between my barn and my lanai that are probably about 50 feet apart. So she's here for a reason, too. And there may not be actual patterns, or they say that there are patterns, but she's here for a reason. And this is why we're all here for the nature. So thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Almost done, folks. Just four more, three more people. We'll start off with Deputy Papillon. Sorry, I'm always going to call you Deputy Papillon. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That was the good days. Again, Ray Papillon, 10188 Metal Run Drive. We feel for the county, and we know that you guys are in a position that your predecessors might have put you into. But if you go back to my rookie days, 1987, like I talked about initially, most of my time was on the west side of the county. I lived on the west side for the whole 30 years I was at the sheriff's office. If you look at the growth on the west side of the county, Waters Avenue, Hillsboro, Sheldon, Gunn, none of those roads met. The development was coming in as the roads were being built. You could drive down a four lane road and come to a dead end wooded area. And on the other side of that, 50 acres away, yeah, they were coming this way, but it was being done in stages. On this side of the county, we didn't have the opportunity for that kind of growth because you have the old neighborhoods, Brandon, Bloomingdale, getting up into Lithia. You got to deal with the Alify River. You weren't able to do this on this side of the county. Hell, on the other side of the county, they picked up houses and actually moved them south where the Veterans Expressway is, and that didn't run all the way through. But they got the Veterans Expressway. They got all that. We couldn't do that on this side of the county. But you did what you could. You widened Bloomingdale all the way to Lithia. You widened Lumpston Causeway all the way to Lithia. You widened 301. 301 cannot be widened another inch in the history of this country. You can't widen it anymore. You did what you could. Lithia, there's other places for growth in Hillsboro County that does not have to be in this congested area. Even after retirement, I left Hillsboro County because I didn't want any more of this. I moved to my two acres up in Pensacola on an old helicopter landing pad. Big beautiful pool. Loved it. Two years later, fall in love with a woman that lives in Hillsboro County. So I'm back here. I'm back here at Lithia and Lumpston. I'm right there in La Calina. Honey, I'm choking. The neighbors right here. Big beautiful home. Neighbors right here. Gotta move. Gotta move. Well, didn't want to move because I didn't want my daughter to have to change schools. Burns to Bloomingdale. She made it to the senior year in Bloomingdale. We were out of there. Moved up to Lithia. I settled for my half acre in the preserve that I'm in thinking that, okay, that's what I mean. For the first time in my five moves in Florida, I'm more than 20 minutes from the Lowe's and Home Depot. And that kills me also. But that's a sacrifice that I wanted to make. So I'm opposed to any more growth up there because of the traffic and because of everything else that we've mentioned. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up, Jane Graham. And after Jane is Daniel Conrad. That is a tough act to follow. Good evening. My name is Jane Graham, attorney at Sunshine City Law, 16703 Early Riser Avenue, Suite 272 Land O'Lakes. I represent Preserve Rural Lithia, not-for-profit dedicated to protecting Lithia's rural character. You've heard a lot already, so I don't want to belabor the points, but I want to prime this so that you can see how exactly it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Future Land Use Policy 1.2.1 says that density in a rural area cannot be higher than one unit per five acres unless it falls under certain exceptions, which this proposal does not. Future Land Use 3.1.2 requires gradual transitions of intensity and density between different land uses. This does not. Something that has not been spoken about that much is that not only is this increasing the density tenfold, but it's increasing the potential commercial square footage on the site from 40,000 to 110,000 square feet. And that's really significant. Florida statutes require land use amendments to be based on survey studies and data, and here the data does not show the availability of facilities and services and capacity to serve this development. Specifically, as the staff pointed out, there's only one segment from Lithia Springs Road to Fishhawk Boulevard that will have some capacity as it's expected to be a four lane hot roadway from the existing two lane. Future Land Use 5.1.1 talks about compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and I would just say listen to what you have heard tonight and it's not just the photos but also the numbers. It is an abrupt transition from one unit per 7.6 acres on the southwest and east to two units per acre. It's clearly lacking in transition. Finally, the legal status of the comprehensive plan requires that a land use amendment is a declaration that the growth and development pattern initially sought by the county in a particular location is no longer appropriate. The applicant has to show that something has changed to justify the amendment and here nothing has changed. There must be a significant change in the circumstances affecting the suitability of the property. This was a rural area, it was, it is a rural area, and it continues to be a rural area that is deed restricted on the surrounding properties in perpetuity. And so for these reasons, we request that you deny it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Last, surely not least, is Daniel Conrad. Is Daniel here? No? All right. And that was it. I will turn it back over to you, Ms. Corbett, for a response. Can't be Corbett again. I'll try to be brief. Just one thing with respect to the commercial activity that Ms. Graham just mentioned. This site does not meet commercial locational criteria, so it was not something that really could be considered for commercial. And as far as demonstrating change, I think I provided in the separate presentation in the last amendment that there has been significant change over the years, which is recognized by your comprehensive plan. And with that, I'd just like to spend the next minute or so talking about Homes by Westbay, who's the applicant, only for the purposes that there have been some statements tonight that they're a bad actor or somehow out for profit or are selling their homes to investors. They are a Tampa-based developer. They're a private developer. Mr. Nunn, who's the CEO of the community, of the county, or of the company, sorry, lives in the area. He's lived in Lithia. He's lived in Valrico. They did believe that this was a thoughtful transition from the RP2 to the R2. We recognize that people respectfully disagree with that, but this is not something trying to come in and do the most aggressive development plan. We were trying to be thoughtful and just wanted to add that for the record and respectfully request your finding of consistency. Thank you. All right. Now over to the planning commissioners for questions, comments, discussions. I'm not seeing a lot of excitement. Oh, commissioners? Dun, dun, dun. Every time. For staff, I have a question about the map. Just to make sure that I'm looking at it correctly. The property to the west, that is R1, correct? Are you talking about west in between the urban service area and the property? Yes. I believe some of that is residential one. It is mostly agricultural rule one to five, but there's pockets of residential one. Got it. And then it looks like just north of it, too, outside the USA, that is also a resident. Is that R1, too? Yes, that is residential one. That was actually a plan amendment in 2017 to go from agricultural rule one to five to residential one in the rural area. It was HCCPA 1704. Okay. It just looks like it would make more sense for that to be a transition to R1 versus R2 in there to scale down development as air density as we move south. So thank you. Yep. No problem. All right. Are there any other comments, thoughts, questions from the commissioners on this one? I want to remind everyone again that we are going to go against staff's consistency finding. We're going to need policies. We do have the same policy from the last one. Obviously, that's still available to us, but just a reminder to the motion maker that you will need to make that policy part of the motion that you make. So are there any other thoughts, questions, comments, discussion points at this point in time? I'm going once, going twice. I see a lot of head shakings and tired looks, so I'll close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Sink. I would like to make a motion to find HCCPA 2606 inconsistent based upon 3.1.2 for gradual transitions, intensities and densities between different land uses. All right. We have a motion of inconsistency finding by Commissioner Sink, citing policy 3.1.2. Commissioner Linkus. I'll second. All right. We have a second to that motion of inconsistency finding by Commissioner Linkus, again, citing policy 3.1.2. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote? I'm, of course, going to kick it to a roll call, but just a reminder, this is for an inconsistent finding, and I will turn it over to the clerk's representative for that roll call vote. Bowden. No. Cardenas. Jemison. Yes. Linkus. Yes. Sieben. Sink. Yes. Joseph. No. Motion carries. Four to three. Commissioners Bowden and Sieben and Chair Joseph voted no. All right. Inconsistency finding. Thank you very much for the information. Folks, please try and leave the room quietly. We still have our next item coming up. I know everybody's going to be filtering out. Please try to do it quietly and quickly. Allow us to keep moving on and have a good night all. And next up on our agenda as we continue on this fun celebration tonight is item 2F HCCPA 26-08 comprehensive plan map amendment 10051 through 10057 East Fowler Avenue and 10220 Harney Road and the presenter is Alexis Myers. I'm here to present HCCPA 26-08 located at 10051 to 10057 East Fowler Avenue and 10220 Harney Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 1.28 acres. The applicant is requesting to change the future lane use category from residential forward to light industrial planned. This is the general location map. The site is in the rural area and within the limits of the Tonota Sasa community plan. It is located north of Harney Road and south of East Fowler Avenue. Here is the area of the site. The site is outlined in pink. The subject site consists of light industrial uses that are not able to be considered in the current rest for a designation on the subject property. Currently the site the subject site is on commercial general existing land use is not legally consistent with nor recognized under the existing zoning district or the designated future lane use category. The subject site also consists of single family residential and vacant land. The site is in FEMA flood zone X. Single family homes are located directly adjacent to the subject site to the west as well as to the north across East Fowler Avenue and to the south across Harney Road. To the east there is an automotive repair facility on the parcel with commercial general zoning along with a convenience store with gas pumps at an intersection of East Fowler Avenue and Harney Road. Additional light commercial uses are located north of East Fowler Avenue, agricultural to the south and east across Harney Road. Now we have some photos. This is looking onto the subject site from East Fowler Avenue. This is also looking onto the subject site from East Fowler Avenue. Now this is looking west from East Fowler Avenue to the light and heavy commercial uses. The subject site is out of frame to the right. This is looking east from East Fowler Avenue and this is looking south from East Fowler Avenue to the single family use that's across the site. Currently the future land use designation is residential 4. The res 4 category allows 4 dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. The designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multipurpose projects. Other future land use categories shown in this map include suburban mix use 6 to the north and residential 1 to the south. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to light industrial planned. The LIP category allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. 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 the predominant uses including subject offices, warehousing, and retail uses. Next are the impacts. As far as the existing conditions, currently under res 4, the site could consider up to 5 dwelling units or 13,939 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed LIP designation, the site could consider 41,817 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density, allow greater commercial intensity, and introduce light industrial uses. Agency comments have been received and can be referenced in attachment C of your packets for informational purposes. There were no formal objections received. Comments were received by the Hillsborough County Water Resources Department, the Hillsborough County Development Services Department, the Hillsborough County Community and Infrastructure Department, and the Hillsborough County Fire and Rescue Department. The following policies were considered by Planning Commission staff in evaluation of the amendment. While formulating our recommendation, PC staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed request. Though the request is related to some general policies, staff found four main areas of inconsistency. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment does not adequately demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding development pattern as envisioned by future land use section objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3, given the proximity and prevalence of the single family residential uses. The introduction of the LIP designation would allow for a level of intensity, operational activity, and potential external impacts that are not consistent with the established residential character. Future land use section policy 3.1.2 emphasizes that transitions between different land use intensities should be gradual and achieved through thoughtful site design, including the use of buffering, screening, and careful limitations of allowable uses. In this instance, the subject property is primarily surrounded by areas designated as RES 4, reflecting established and intended pattern of low density residential development. Moving directly from RES 4 to LIP represents a significant and abrupt increase in allowable intensity without an immediate land use category to serve as a buffer or a transition. The proposal also fails to meet the compatibility and neighborhood protection standards set forth by future land use section objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1. The introduction of the light industrial uses at this location will result in development that is inconsistent with the surrounding area and contrary to the policy framework intended to preserve and protect established residential communities. The proposed future land use amendment conflicts with the goals and guiding principles of the Tonota Sasa Community Plan, particularly with respects to preserving rural character, supporting compatible development patterns, and maintaining the quality of life valued by the community. With this, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation for ACCPA 2608. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening. My name is Colin Rice, attorney of the law firm of Older Lundy, 1000 West Cass Street. I did submit an electronic presentation if that's available. I have paper too, whatever is easier. Oh, right here. That's not me. Here we go. So, again, here on behalf of the applicant, Green Tech Property Solutions out here in Harney and Fowler. I want to appreciate staff's time and consideration in this application. So, we've heard a lot about compatibility so far, so I'll walk you through some of our slides and justifications for why we feel this will result in a very compatible project. So, again, the specific request is a small scale. Again, this is 1.28 acres map amendment to go from R4 to light industrial planned, light industrial planned. So, to orient you, we are here, of course, in Tonota Sasa between Harney and Fowler with frontage on each. Harney continues to connect to US 301 to the northeast. Zooming in a bit, you can see the R4, and we kind of converge into this triangle as the two streets intersect. There's some SMU 6 to the north and east as well. So, zooming in, this is an aerial of the current site. We're wedged, again, between Harney and Fowler. To the immediate, I guess I'll use my cursor. To the immediate east here is an auto repair business, and immediately adjacent is convenience retail gas station pumps. So, this is, I'll go into some site pictures, too, first. It's important to show you the contextual situation within this neighborhood. This is facing south from Fowler, and this is facing north from Harney, to give you a sense of the existing condition. And then here we have the auto repair business, and the immediate foreground, and to the right is the convenience retail and gas station. And so, LIP is unique, which I'll speak to briefly here, and appropriate for this circumstance in that it specifically requires, in the comprehensive plan, that you tail such a request with a plan development rezoning, which we have applied for. I know we're not speaking specifically about that, but it's important that you know that that is also in process. So, the objectives here, at the outset of thinking about light industrial plan, I think really makes a lot of sense for this area. It's where the need for a site plan would be beneficial to ensure land use compatibility. So, it's exactly what we're striving to do. Category use in transportation routes in areas without a concentration of industrial uses such as ours, where various concerns and impacts to adjacent development can be addressed through site planning. You heard staff mention there are no written objections in the record. We've had nothing but friendly, positive interactions with all of our neighbors as well. And specifically to, you know, two of the compatibility reference points within the staff report, 3.1, 3.1.2, you can account for these sorts of things through careful site planning. The Board of County Commissioners is not going to approve a rock crushing facility out here. That's not what we're seeking. We're trying to do this thoughtfully and be mindful of the adjacent residential. And the things that can be specifically managed in a site plan include overall intensity, setbacks, the type, width, and opacity of buffers, your uses, reasonable conditions, hours of operation, environmental features. All things we're carefully taking into account. And some of the things that could go there now, it's zoned commercial general, include brew pub, car wash, tavern, bar, lounge, major vehicle repair, medical office, ambulance service, recyclable metal recovery facility. None of those would require a site plan. So I want it to be reinforced that this is a step that we're taking to ensure compatibility. So we have no objection from a slew of agencies here. We have no objection that we know of to any neighbors unless somebody is here to speak. And a couple more comprehensive plan policies for us to consider are land use goal 7 and objective 7.1. We want to retain local businesses and encourage economic opportunity within certain parts of the county. This is a balance to strike along with careful site planning. Don't disrupt and provide opportunity at the same time. So again, to conclude, we and any future owner of this site is committed to a site plan. And that's a big deal. It's a big process with tons of review and a lot of safeguards available to the community. Not currently residential and wouldn't really be suitable for residential. We're in that strange web. I'd encourage you to consider the job and employment circumstance here. And again, it is immediately adjacent to auto repair and gas convenience store. So with that, I'll conclude. I know it's been a long night, but I'm more than happy to answer any questions we have. Thank you. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment on this one. So I am going to turn it. Oh, yeah. Commissioner Sieben, that's right. You heard that, right? I'm going to turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this item. We have. I did want to say, you know, I kind of tend to disagree with staff on this one. You all know me. I'm the lover of light industrial. I always want to try and save industrial in the county and in the city. I think the LIP is a good category for that. And it seems like this is a pretty decent spot. Obviously, we can't talk about site planning things. That's not our purview. But I do like the fact that, as was mentioned, that, you know, the Board of County Commissioners will get more than one bite at the apple on this one. They get to kind of direct how the site will get developed, although we have no say in that. So I tend to sort of lean to allowing these kinds of things. That said, I'm not passing my gavel anymore for this year because it's got me in enough trouble. So I'm not going to make any motion on that. But I definitely would support approving light industrial here. All right. Are there any other thoughts? Commissioner Bowden. I'm looking at the everything around there was R4, right? So we're talking about the gas station, the auto repair, plus this other place. What are they non-conforming? No. In the residential for land use category, it allows for non-residential uses at major intersections under the locational criteria. So the commercial uses are allowed in that location. In the plan, it sets a distance from the intersection in which they can be considered, and applicants can also ask for waivers to that distance. So there's a range up through commercial general uses that are permitted under the residential for. It's that they want something more intensive than that, that they need to ask for the light industrial plant. Commissioner Sink. I'm going to write on that question a little bit. So there's a difference in the amount of square feet that they're allowed to have being from R4 to light industrial. Does anyone on staff be able to tell us what that difference is? Or was it in the presentation and I missed it? Well, there is a difference in the floor area ratio. And according to Alexis' report, under the residential for, it's a 0.25 floor area ratio, which equates to 13,939 square feet. And under the light industrial plant, they get a 0.75 floor area ratio, which is 41,817 square feet. Right. Were there any other questions? Oh, Commissioner Linkus. I'm sorry. Again, I usually kind of fall in line with staff on a lot of these things. But as someone who lives near this area, I just feel this might be an area that would be worth looking into. Because I'm understanding that there are a lot of industrial uses nearby and I can see how it would make sense to begin to rethink this area. And this seems like a thoughtful approach in an area at an intersection that's pretty high trafficked to support a business that has been there for a while. So I'm inclined to think that some flexibility might be appropriate on this one. Wow. I just don't know what's going on today. I just – I give up. I don't know. Commissioner Cardenas? You know, I'm just going to say I feel the same. It's right in the corner. It's a local business. It makes sense. All right. Well, just a reminder, if we are going to go against staff again, we do need some policies. And I am not making the motion. So that's going to have to come from somewhere else. But I'm sure Ms. Ornita can help out with that if we do want to go in that direction. But in the meantime, are there any more thoughts, comments, questions, discussions of this one? I will say as this discussion has gone on, don't forget the P, the LIP means planned. So it does have to go through another couple processes here before so they can't just put a car crusher out there and start doing what they want. You know what I mean? People get bites at the apple before this gets to become what it is. So it always gives me a little bit of comfort when the applicant is willing to submit themselves to that sort of process. It shows that they're not trying to hurry through and just put what they want out there. That's taking on a lot of risk for them and having to go through all these other processes. So, again, I can't say what it's going to be at the end of the day. That's going to be decided by other people. But it does give me a little bit more security knowing that, again, there's going to be more eyes on this thing as it goes forward through development. All right. Were there any other thoughts, questions, or comments from the commissioners? It seems like everybody wants to go betty-bye already. I'm tired. So going once, going twice. I'm going to close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from my commissioners on this item. If there's anyone on the policies, Ms. Zornita may have some. Do you have any to suggest, Ms. Zornita? Sure. In the staff report under other related policies, staff identified objective 4.1 about efficiently utilizing land to optimize economic benefits while ensuring choice of living environments and protecting natural resources. And then policy 4.1.1 that talks about having land use categories to implement that. Then the applicant mentioned 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 about compatibility and transitions of land uses. All right. There's a bevy of policies that could go of it. What do you know? All right. So we will send it back out again, looking for motions. Anybody wants to make one? Commissioner Sink, the man with the hot hand tonight. I'd like to make a motion to find HC CPA 2608, plan amendment consistent based on 4.1.1. All right. Did you want to add any others to there? Are you just happy with the one? And we'll throw in FLUS 3.1.3. All right. 4.1.1 and 3.1.3. And Commissioner Sink is making a motion of consistency finding. Is there a second out there for him? Second. Commissioner Cardenas with the second. The man with the quick hand. All right. So we have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Sink citing policy 4.1.1 and policy 3.1.3. A second to that motion by Commissioner Sink. I'm going to send it to the clerk's representative because I don't know how this vote's going to go. So we'll do a roll call. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jemison? Yes. Linkus? Yes. Seban? Sink? Yes. Joseph? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. I just don't know what's going on anymore tonight. All right. Thank you for your time. All right. Last but not least, ladies and gentlemen, action item 2-H, HC CPA 268. 11 comprehensive plan text amendment corridor preservation plan map update. And the presenter is Katrina Corcoran. You're still here. Hi. I'm still here. Good evening, Katrina Corcoran and Planning Commission staff. I'm here tonight to present HC CPA 2611. This is a text amendment to the quarter preservation plan map. I will try to be brief and thorough as I go through this this evening. This background on this request, this is publicly initiated. The applicant is Hillsborough County's Community and Infrastructure Planning Department. This is a text amendment adding an interchange, which is the Fort Hamner interchange to the adopted quarter preservation plan map. I'll note that although this is a text amendment, there are no policies associated with this amendment. This interchange is also a potential connection to the proposed Fort Hamner Road, which I'll go over in more detail later in this presentation. Some background on this quarter preservation plan map. You see the current adopted map here. This is map one in the mobility sections map series. Background on the quarter preservation plan map itself. It's utilized to protect future right away from encroachment, provide connectivity, and ensure transportation quarters are adequate to serve planned growth and development patterns as defined in the future land use section. The map identifies the number of additional lanes needed on existing quarters or for new roadway connections needed to serve future growth. It also shows intersections and interchanges identified for either grade separation or reconfiguration. And you'll note those are the circles that you see in red and blue. In coordination with the LDC, the quarter preservation plan map is utilized to establish setbacks for development and provide clarity about development potential within future right of way. In terms of the LDC, this map is utilized to enforce section 5.11 on transportation corridor management. The proposed interchange that would be added to this map is on the Little Manatee South community plan or within that community plan and the urban expansion area UEA. I'll note that although the interchange is within the UEA, it is not specifically being studied as a part of that study. This slide shows the applicant's proposed changes adding that interchange. You'll note it here in Southern Hillsborough County. Again, this is publicly initiated text amendment that would add this interchange within existing I-75 right away to the quarter preservation plan map. This interchange is not currently constructed and it is proposed in the area south of the Little Manatee River and north of the Manatee County line on I-75. I'd also like to note that the quarter preservation plan map does not dictate the exact location of the interchange. The location is yet to be determined and will be decided outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process. This just shows a slightly more zoomed in look at the proposed interchange. The amendments interchange is a potential future connection to the proposed future roadway, Fort Hamner Road, which would connect from the Hillsborough County line all the way to US-41. You can see that is the Fort Hamer Roadway right there. Again, not currently constructed and the roadway is part of a separate privately initiated text amendment to the quarter preservation plan map that was adopted by the BOCC in January and effective this March. In terms of agency review, we did receive no objections. We have pulled out some comments that are relevant to staff's analysis and existing conditions in the area here. I'll be going over the Transportation Planning Organization comment related to the interchange being in the 2050 Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as the Environmental Protection Commission or EPC's comment about the area containing wetlands. So starting off with the TPO's Long Range Transportation Plan, this interchange is within the ALRTP's unfunded needs. You'll note that I've pulled some items from the ALRTP here, including a description of the interchange, the costs, it is part of the unfunded projects, and you can see the circle here indicating that it is part of those projects in the ALRTP. Also 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. As the EPC noted, there are wetlands near the proposed interchange. To orient you, this is the Hillsborough County Line, this is I-75, and this is Valroy Road. Currently, with the proposed alignment for Fort Hamner Road, the interchange would be somewhere in this general location that you can see my cursor moving. The EPC's comments noted that a wetland delineation survey is necessary to verify the avoidance of wetlands and other surface waters impacted for the proposed interchange, and this must be approved prior to any permitting. Protecting, enhancing, and mitigating environmental impacts are important considerations noted throughout the plan. It requires coordination with the EPC to protect and ensure no net loss of ecological values provided by wetlands and other surface water. Staff are noting these comments to explain existing environmental conditions in the area. However, the EPC's comments and the plan's policies do not directly prohibit interchange construction in this area. Additionally, because the interchange is currently not constructed and no engineering or design of the final alignment has been completed, it stops understanding that the configuration could be shifted in line with the EPC's comments and with the LDC's transportation quarter management regulations without needing to adjust the interchange location on the quarter preservation plan map. Final engineering and approval of the construction and alignment of the proposed interchange would occur outside of the comprehensive plan amendment process. Finally, the proposed interchange is near significant wildlife habitat. Again, this is I-75 Valroy Road in the Hillsborough County line here. Significant wildlife habitat is present to the southwest and northeast of the proposed interchange's general location. The comprehensive plan states to minimize adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive lands. These issues can best be addressed through the roadway engineering and design process. With that, staff review all of the policies and objectives within the comprehensive plan when making this review. These policies listed here relate to the previous comments provided by the EPC on wetland impacts and requiring coordination with EPC. That would be the environmental and sustainability policies as well as the intergovernmental coordination policies. The mobility section policies here speak to environmental considerations. Finally, the Little Manatee South Community Plan speaks to supporting minimizing impacts on natural areas and encouraging preservation of existing natural preservation areas and creeks. With all of that being said, staff found the proposed request consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Looking at the capital improvement section as well as the future land use section, the plan supports the provision of infrastructure, excuse me, needed for growth and development. Looking at the mobility section, as noted previously, the proposed Fort Hamner interchange is within the LRTP and the comp plan directs the quarter preservation plan to be in alignment with the long range transportation plan. Additionally, one of the policies listed encourages infrastructure planning for UEAs while this interchange is not being studied as a part of the UEA study specifically. The intent of this policy is to recognize that initial planning efforts may occur prior to the finalized recommendation of UEA studies and their subsequent implementation. Finally, and last but not least, we have the Little Manatee South Community Plan. The proposed interchange is within that community plan and the community plan's vision statement discusses specifically supporting 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. This unique consideration differentiates the Little Manatee South Community Plan from other rural community plans. And additionally, this plan recognizes the importance of enhancing infrastructure. With that, Planning Commission staff recommends that HCCPA 2611 be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. The plan's support of necessary infrastructure for growth, the recognition of potential urban services, and an interchange within a rural community plan support the addition of Fort Hamner interchange to the quarter preservation plan map. The applicant is here this evening and available for questions. I'm also happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Did the applicant have a presentation or just throwing it out there? I don't have a presentation per se. Christopher Fellerhoff from Community and Infrastructure Planning. Ms. Corcoran's presentation was very thorough. But given the adoption of the road itself into the quarter preservation plan recently and the need for clear connectivity there, we thought it was important to update to include the interchange. I'm happy to take questions also. Thank you. All right. We had one person sign up for public comment. That was Amanda Brown. Going once, going twice. All right. No public comment on that one. So I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this one. I did have a quick question just for me. It seems weird that we have to even go through this. I didn't realize it was in the LRTP, although I probably should, but I haven't read through all those documents. I tend to only read through Planning Commission documents like a madman. But if it's in the LRTP already, shouldn't it just automatically been, like, placed into the corridor preservation map? Why do we have to go through these jostulations, like, by administration? Shouldn't it just have popped in there or something? Sure, sure. So since the map is already adopted, to make any changes to it, we do have to go through the comprehensive plan amendment process. And Chris can speak to this, but I know that they're working on a more full update of the quarter preservation plan map. But I think they're still working on that. Okay. And my second question is, oh, you want to go ahead? Did you have something to say? No, I was just going to say, under state law, you can't have the plan automatically changed. Okay, because it's the comp plan, not just the map. I got you. It's embedded in the comp plan. Yep. Interesting. A personal curiosity that I had was, is this thing going to, I noticed that we keep inching it closer to the border with Manatee County. And obviously, I'm Hillsborough all day, so I'd rather see it land in Hillsborough. But I'm wondering, how sure are we that it's going to land in Hillsborough? I hear a lot of talk about wetlands and this and that down there. I mean, is this really going to come to us? It feels like it because there's money, you know, that was put towards it. It's an LRTP. It's not in any advanced stage of design or anything like that. I get that. But it feels like it's headed this way. Did FDOT say anything about this is what I'm curious about too. Do I need to call Secretary Hall? What's the word? So I can't speak with definite certainty about the location of the interchange. That's not determined with this plan amendment. But I do know that as a part of adding this amendment to the quarter preservation plan map, our understanding and with the LRTP where it says that it will be, it is within Hillsborough County. Now I can't say that it'll stay there for certain, but that's my understanding. I have to talk to Justin about that. And District 7 is working on the study. So I think it's moving in that direction. Good. No offense to any manatee people watching or Hillsborough here. All right. Are there any questions, other comments from the commissioners? Does everybody just want to go home and go to bed at this point in time? Yeah? All right. I will close the public comment on this one and open it up to the commissioners for motions on this item. Commissioner Jemisin. Make a motion to find HCCPA26-11 consistent. All right. Commissioner Sink. I second. All right. You got a second from the hot hand, man. That's pretty good. We got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Jemisin. Second to that motion by Commissioner Sink. I'm going to risk a vote on this one. Would all signal, if anyone has any questions or comments or statements, not seeing any, then would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. And at 9.55 PM, this meeting is adjourned. Good night, everyone.