mosquitoes because they are a threat to public health. There are many mosquito born illnesses that they can pass on to humans and other animals, therefore we want to mitigate their populations and we're only spraying whenever we have justification and that could come from our surveillance data or from our inspectors who go out and are looking at different larval production sites every single day. We don't have a spray schedule because everything we do is based on data that we collect. So it's based on the number of mosquitoes that we find in our traps every day, it's based on what the inspectors are finding out in the field, if they're finding a lot of breeding, they'll obviously treat then, but we don't have a set schedule because everything is based on data that we find. We don't do any individual spray requests. You can always submit a request for spray, a request for a property inspection, or report any standing water that you have around your house and we'll come send out an inspector. They'll come look at that area, see if it's breeding, and then based on the data that they find, we'll see if that area is eligible for treatment, but we don't do treatment based on special events. We're spraying right at sunset because dawn and dusk are the most active times for mosquitoes, so in order for our treatments to be the most effective, we obviously want to treat when the mosquitoes are most active and we're going to be able to mitigate the population best at those times. Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're gonna head up to that dog call right now. 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 through 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. Welcome to the works. In today's episode, we're going beneath the surface with Hillsborough County's jet-back and underground camera crew. Stormwater systems are made of ditches, swales, ponds, reservoirs, thousands of miles of pipe. Our guys have been face-to-face with alligators in the pipes, snakes. We've pulled out cell phones, computers, anything you could think of. It is really a two-part system utilizing the jet-back to clean the pipe and then the robotics to inspect it. These inspections also give you a better idea of what can be repaired or replaced, which definitely reduces costs. These guys cleaned last year over a hundred miles of pipe alone. It is essential with all the sediment, vegetation, litter that goes into these stormwater systems that you keep them flowing. We can mitigate stormwater damage to not only our assets but to citizens' property as well. And just keep the county as a whole safer. A meeting 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 everybody to the October 12, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan Amendments. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room 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 there's your 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 plan com org. For those of you who are not familiar with our process, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give a 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 response. Planning Commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second in discussion of what will be taken. To all participants, please note that tonight's hearing concerns proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Presentation should not include matters related to zoning applications and site plans that are not before the Commission. Zoning conditions are not relevant to plan amendments and may not be considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's purview in making a recommendation is limited to consistency or inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. With that, I'd like to please ask the clerk to call roll. Good evening. Bowden? Here. Cardenas? Jemison? Here. Kugler? Linkus? Lauk? Here. Sieben? Sink? Here. Orton? Here. Rodriguez? Here. Joseph? Here. You have a quorum, sir. Thank you. All right. Action Items 2A has been continued to the October cycle, so we will not be hearing that one tonight, just in case anybody was here waiting for that one. And Action Item 2D, HCCPA 26-24 was also continued to the October cycle, so we will not be hearing either of those this evening. And we will start off with Item 2B, HCCPA 26-21 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 3071 East Trapnell Road. And the presenter is Alexis Myers. Good evening, Commissioners. Alexis Myers, Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 26-21, located at 3701 East Trapnell Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 8.89 acres. The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from Agricultural Estate 1-2.5 to Rural Light Industrial. This is a new future land use category in response to the Board of County Commissioner's direction given last year. This new Rural Light Industrial category allows for the consideration of uses that are more intensive than the neighborhood serving commercial, but not as intensive as the full range of light industrial or heavy industrial uses. This is the general location map. The subject site is in the rural area and not within the limits of a community plan, but it is within the limits of the plant city visionary boundary. It is located west of South County Line Road, south of East Trapnell Road, and east of Old Mulberry Road. Here is a full area of the site. The subject property is outlined in pink. The subject site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The surrounding areas within unincorporated Hillsborough County includes some vacant and agricultural lands, as well as some single-family residential. To the west of the site, south of East Trapnell Road is a church. To the north of the subject site, within the plant city boundaries, the surrounding development pattern includes a mix of residential and light industrial uses. To the east, within the Lakeland and Polk County areas, the surrounding land uses include residential and commercial development, as well as residential suburban and business park uses. Here's some photos of the site. This is looking at the subject site from East Trapnell Road. This is looking at the subject site to the south of the site. This is looking at the subject site to the south of the site. The subject site is to the right. Currently, the subject site is designated as agricultural estate 1 to 2.5 on the future land use map. The agricultural estate 1 to 2.5 future land use category allows one dwelling unit per 2.5 gross acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. The typical uses in the agricultural estate 1 to 2.5 category includes farms, ranches, residential, neighborhood commercial, offices, and multipurpose projects. Other future land use categories shown in this map include residential 1 to the north and public semi-public to the northwest, commercial, industrial, and transnational areas to the north within the plant city boundary, rural business park center, city, neighborhood activity center, residential low, and residential suburban within the Polk County boundary, and community activity center, conservation, public, and institutional residential high and residential low within the Lakeland boundary. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to rural light industrial. This newly created rural light industrial category includes a 0.25 floor area ratio and allows no residential development. But for limited accessory residential such as an on-site security guard. This category allows for the consideration of limited light industrial uses, which is defined as uses that are compatible with rural residential development, patterns that do not produce significant noise, dust, odor, smoke, or vibration as specified in the Hillsborough County Land Development Code. Examples include small-scale manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly of refined products, as well as warehousing or wholesale operations. Next are the impacts. As far as existing conditions, currently under Agricultural Estate 1 to 2.5, the site can consider up to three dwelling units or 96,812 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed rural light industrial designation, the site could consider up to 96,812 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density and would not change the maximum potential of non-residential intensity. However, the amendment would increase the allowable range of non-residential uses due to the consideration of commercial and system zoning districts uses and limited industrial uses as described on the previous slide. 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 four main areas of consistency. The request is consistent with Future Land Use Section Objective 1.2, which identifies the rural area as an area intended for long-term agricultural uses, large-lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas. Future Land Use Section policy 1.2.1 generally limits density in the rural area to one dwelling unit per five gross acres, with exceptions for specific high-density development patterns. The proposed RLI designation would eliminate the residential development potential currently available under Agriculture State 1 to 2.5. It would not introduce additional residential density into the rural area. Instead, the rural light industrial provides a non-residential option, specifically intended for rural areas, where use is more intensive, or I'm sorry, where use is more intensive than neighborhood serving commercial, but less intensive than traditional industrial uses may be appropriate. Objective 3.1 and policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding community and provide appropriate transitions between different land uses, such as site planning, buffering, buffering, screening, and considerations of factors, such as access, parking, landscape, lighting, noise, and odor. While the site is within the rural area, the surrounding development pattern includes agricultural and residential uses, as well as industrial and commercial uses, particularly within the plant city boundary to the north. The RLI category allows, I'm sorry, also requires a new site planned controlled zoning district, such as a plan development, which would allow for compatibility and site design to be evaluated at a time of development. Future land use section objective 4.5.1 and 5.1.8 recognize agriculture as an important economic resource and historic component to the community and support existing agricultural uses. Future land use section objective 6.1 supports development patterns that balance growth and environmental stewardship and long-term resilience, while future land use section policy 6.1.1 requires land development to preserve and protect the attributes and functions of the natural environment. Most of the site is within the FEMA flood zone X, with a small portion in flood zone A, and the northeastern portion may contain wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed amendment does not authorize development or eliminate the requirement to address these environmental conditions through development review. With this, 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. And this concludes my presentation for HCCPA 2621. Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Got it. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. My name is Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451 St. Petersburg. Here for HCCPA 2621. Thank Ms. Myers for a good presentation. We're located at the far extreme west, where the powers of the Planning Commission Board of County Commission start to dim, but you're still still in charge out there. 8.89 acres located right on Connie Lang Road, as you can see here. And looking closer at the site, this is at the property appraiser has it. You can see a larger structure on site, which would not change. The issue is the agriculture state one by 2.5 to rural industrial. And just FYI, there is a companion PD rezoning with this request. I think the staff has presented to you what the RLI future landings category requires and does require a site plan control zoning district. So you're ensured that the uses will be well restricted and well conditioned as it goes through the zoning process. Just for reference, this is the PD plan. Again, the footprint remains the same. County Line Road is a busy arterial road with carrying 23,000 vehicles per day. This is the existing building. Currently, the use is John KY or K9, since the neck got cut off there, K9, thank you, which is a boarding daycare training with a lot of open air areas and facilities. As you can see, this is from their website. So it's a pretty active, very loud use and you can see that there's open kennels. So in regard to the RLL standards, I would say to what's proposed is going to be much more in line with not causing noise or impacts or auto or hearing impacts. When I was out at the site, there's a lot of dog barking. It was really loud. And the proposed use will be replacing this use that's out there today. Access will be limited from Trapnel. Access will be from County Line. Now, as you look to the north, as you can see, the uses are pretty substantial for open storage, not permissible, but it's open storage, trucks, vehicles, and things of that nature. There's also a pretty good distance between this structure and the closest residential structure, which is almost 300 feet and well between the two structures. And then the rest of the property is buffered by wetlands and forestation, which is pulled from the National Wetlands website. So looking at those northern residential, you can see that's pretty significant with large truck vehicles and all different kinds of equipment materials. Here's the view on the ground. Abutting to the east is also a very intensive site. Large trucks, semi-trailers, tractors and equipment. Again, that's abutting on the east and pretty much abutting on the south as well. You can see a lot of storage of open vehicles. Under the garage, you can see a number of vehicles as well. So as your staff has indicated, based on the view analysis, they found it is compatible, consistent with applicant, uh, applicable goals, objectives, and policies, uh, logical and supportive land use change that promotes orderly growth and development within the county. Uh, when I checked with your staff and looked online, I think it was a few days ago, there were no comments or anything submitted that I was made aware of. So that was chairman board members. We appreciate your attention. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment on this one. So I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions on this item. Not seeing a lot of excitement and I will let it go once and going twice. I will close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this one. Commissioner Sink. I motion to find HCCPA 2621 comprehensive plan map amendment 3701 East Trapnel Road consistent with the comprehensive plan. All right. Commissioner Lauk? Second. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Sink. A second to that motion from Commissioner Lauk. Are there any questions, comments, or discussions from the commissioners before we take our vote? So not seeing any, I'll signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Board. All right. Next agenda item, 2C, HCCPA 26-22 comprehensive plan map amendment 10610 Davis Road and Cricket Lane. And the presenter is Willow Mickey. Before I begin, I just want to mention that I passed out a public comment to everyone's desk. This was received to us on October 8th and I had mistakenly filed it in a different folder, so I just wanted to make sure everyone was able to see that. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Willow Mickey with planning commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 2622 located at 10610 Davis Road in Cricket Lane. This request is a privately initiated small-scale map amendment. It is made up of four parcels that total approximately 13.8 acres. The request is to change the land use designation from Residential 6 and Residential 12 to Residential 16. This plan amendment is part of the July 2026 cycle located in the urban service area and is within the limits of the Eastlake-Orient Park Community Plan and is also partially within a surface water resource protection area. Here is an aerial photo of the site with the site outlined in pink. It is located east of Davis Road and south of McRae Road. Within the vicinity of the site there are single-family residential uses to the east and north with multi-family uses to the south. To the north and northeast there are public communication utilities owned by TECO. Here are some site photos. We are looking at single-family detached residential that is across from the site. This photo is looking down Davis Road from Cricket Lane. Here we're looking onto Cricket Lane from Davis Road. And then we're looking onto the site from Cricket Lane. And here's a photo further down onto the site from Cricket Lane. The site is in the Residential 6 and Residential 12 featuring these categories. Both categories allow for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed-use development. Surrounding land uses include Residential 6 and Residential 12 to the north, east, and south. To the north and west the site borders the city of Temple Terrace which has a feature land use designation of public semi-public. To the south the Temple Terrace jurisdiction includes a Residential 18. The request is to change the site to Residential 16 which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed-use development. This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested change. Currently under Res. 6 and Res. 12 the site could be considered for up to 91 dwelling units and 165,745 square feet of non-residential. The change to Residential 16 would allow for the consideration of 220 dwelling units and 300,563 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment will result in a potential increase in development potential by allowing the consideration of higher residential density and greater commercial intensity. The proposal has been reviewed by the commenting agencies which you can find in your packet under the agency review section. There were no concerns or formal objections. 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 six main areas of consistency. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Future land use section objective 1.1 relates to the urban service area. Specifically 1.1.5 looks at the appropriateness of future land use map amendments that increase the density or intensity within the USA to the degree that it changes the land use classification from suburban to urban. A portion of the subject site is currently designated Res. 6, which is classified as a suburban category, and the applicant is requesting Res. 16 in urban category. The policy lists three criteria that the change should be evaluated on, which the request meets. The request is consistent with future land use section objective 3.1 and its associated policies on compatibility. The proposed Res. 16 is compatible with the adjacent categories surrounding the site and will provide a transition between the use and the surrounding areas. This potential for an increase in density is compatible with the surrounding area as there is similar or higher density within the vicinity of the site. The proposal is also consistent with objective 3.2 and its policies related to community plans. The site is in the East Lake Orient Park community plan. The housing section of the community plan emphasizes the goal of expanding home ownership and affordable housing opportunities to accommodate a diverse population across a range of income levels. Similarly, the economic development section identifies the importance of supporting business growth and creating employment opportunities. Objective 4.4 and 4.4.1 relate to compatibility within the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Res. 16 would provide a transition between the existing Res. 12 and the higher density Res. 18 designation. Additionally, a portion of the site that is currently designated as Res. 12 has the same allowable FAR as the proposed Res. 16 category. With these considerations in mind, the introduction of the Res. 16 feature land use category would there be consistent with the intent of these policies. Additionally, water element policies 1.3.10 and 1.3.12 relate to activities permitted within a service water protection area. No additional areas can be designated with industrial land and as industrial areas are not one of the proposed uses under the category, the request is consistent with this policy. 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. That concludes my presentation. I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Commissioners, good evening. Jake Kramer with Barbas Kramer. I'm going to bring up our planner Anna Rittenauer quickly here, but I just wanted to point out two unusual parts of this or aspects of this application. One is that you saw from staff's application or staff's presentation. This property is really it's nestled into Temple Terrace, even though it's in unincorporated Hillsborough County. And so that's why we felt this this particular category would be well suited for a property that's surrounded on three sides by uh, Temple Terrace, uh, in in you have multifamily on the south as well as institutional uses on the other uh, on the other two boundaries. The other unusual aspect that I don't don't want to steal Clayton's thunder is uh, this is uh, this is an unusual uh, use where we're trying to provide a neighborhood environment for uh, people with developmental disabilities. And so I'll let you hear a little bit from Clayton about what this uh, the programming that Project Focus provides. Thank you. Thank you. Anna Rittenauer with Barbas Kramer. Um, yeah, so Jake alluded to our client PMG Affordable partnered with Project Focus to plan this development. PMG Affordable is an affordable housing developer and Project Focus is bringing the mission to the project. So this is 13.8 acres south of Fowler, west of 75. It's mostly vacant today with a few single-family homes on the site and to the north. Um, and then Tico owns the property, most of the property to the north and to the west. It's within the urban service area, within the Eastlake Orient Park community plan. Um, I also just wanted to state that the the plan's housing goal supports affordable housing for a diverse population and range of incomes and its economic development goal supports business growth and jobs and staff found that the amendment is consistent with both of those. Uh, so the request is for a small-scale amendment as staff stated from Res 6 and Res 12 to Res 16. Temple Terrace Res 28, Res 18 is directly to the south and so we feel that this is a step-down transition property for the single-family to the north. Um, policy 1.1.5 sets three tests for moving from a suburban to an urban category. Available services, compatibility, and the community plan and staff found that we met all three of those. So Res 16 is what's going to make project focus vision possible and I want to let Clayton talk a little bit about what that means. Uh, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Um, as Anna mentioned, my name is Clayton Clemons. I'm the executive director of Project Focus. We're a non-profit here in Tampa Bay that has been providing pathways to independence for individuals with developmental disabilities. This has been done through education, workforce development, and community integration. All the programs that were created by our founders, some of them here tonight, were done out of need as they're either directly impacted or indirectly impacted by developmental disabilities. And so as our founders have seen the need arise in education and workforce development, we now come to the precipice of also seeing the need in housing. And so our goal and our mission is to provide a solution here in Hillsborough County, which we believe is currently in need of a solution like this. And we would be honored to have your support moving forward. And I'm happy to help answer any questions as we continue the conversation. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes our presentation. I'll take any questions if you have them. Thank you. All right. We did have quite a few people sign up for this one. So I will just go through those individuals, start with those individuals here. And I will start with, remind everyone it's three minutes per person. I'll start with Eric Eisenberg, Eisenbaugh. Hi, my name is Eric Eisenberg and I'm the chairman of Project Focus. And we just, uh, I won't have to go into the same thing that Clayton said, but it's very, it's a very unique situation that we have that we're creating here. And we, we think we have a lot of support from all over the community. And I think it's something that's going to benefit the community very well, but I'll let more people speak for us. I won't take up all my time. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Elizabeth Eisenberg. Hi, this is Elizabeth Eisenberg. Um, we, we, we love to, um, support our, our project focus. Um, yeah, um, support project focus. Thank you. Next up, we have Jonathan Saffold. My name is Jonathan for project focus and I love to live and independently for living skills. Thank you. Next up, Tammy Saffold. Okay. Next up, Loretta Gala Lopez. Good evening, everyone. Just want to say a couple of quick words. Um, we've been working with this population and, um, we established our project focus about 13 years ago. We have a school, we have an adult day program, um, a lot of different, um, nonprofit, um, entities that really kind of are serving this population really well. And it's really important for them. They're all under the ages right now of 30 years old and they're all needing places to live and places that are safe and places that are affordable for them and places that allow them to have access to transportation and, um, shopping, not someplace that's out in the country somewhere, but someplace that's right in your home, um, that allows them to really be part of the community. So that's what we're trying to build and that's what we're hoping that you guys will support. Thank you. All right. Ma'am, can you please say your name for the record? Loretta Gallo Lopez. Thank you. Next up, Josephine Eisenberg. All right. And last but not least, Clayton Clements. All right. All right. That is all we had in the public comment. I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Kramer, if you want to know. All right. Everybody's waving. All right. So I will turn it over to the planning commissioners now for questions, comments, discussions of this item. So you're moving commissioners saying no. All right. I did have a couple questions myself. Um, this area seems a bit distant from public services. I mean, I understand that there's sewer and water there, but are there any buses run up and down Davis road or what kind of transportation assets is, is the site close to? I don't have the transportation comments, but they are, um, I wonder if someone could pull up. I don't know who's here with access, but we did receive comments from community infrastructure and also transportation with no concerns, but I can't remember exactly the exact. It looks like MC's moving. Melissa's running. Sorry. Oh, it's okay. Um, the, let's see. So from the TPO, we heard that, um, uh, well, the closest regulated roadway at the level of service is Morris bridge road. Um, and it looks like, um, there, Davis road has sidewalks, but no bicycle infrastructure. Um, and it doesn't look like there are any planned improvements on those roadways. Let's see if I can get to that. And where is the nearest commercial kind of corridor from the project site? One of the statements made was, you know, about giving people access to these things and putting them in areas where they could conveniently get to these things. Davis road seems pretty suburban. And when we're going to an urban use development intensity, I just wonder if this is the right place or if this is a stretch, I think it's, you know, the project is commendable. I think it's a really great project, but the R 16 seems really heavy for me in this area. Is there, is, is there no lower land use that could have been able to achieve the project as the R 16, the kind of what it, what it absolutely has to be or else the project is economically and feasible? Yeah, it's, it's, it's a big step, especially with residential stuff all around it. You know, it's, it seems more suburban than it does urban. I, part of it's the concept. Um, I mean, we did actually spend a lot of time with the city of temple terrorists considering annexing and we would have been at a higher category there would have been at their 18 category. So we thought this was a better step down actually. Um, but maybe we could, Clayton, would you come? Because I, I think I'd maybe like you to hear a little bit more about the neighborhood environment that we're trying to create because that's, that's a big part of the concept is not just proximity to services, but actually what we're bringing to this environment together. Yeah. No, and you're correct. It's correct to ensure that we don't want to create any type of isolation for these individuals. Um, currently we're located in the city of temple terrace in a neighborhood environment with access to heart services. Uh, Davis road also has heart services on the road, which gives us access to the Hillsborough sunshine line heart, uh, plus door to door service as well, which will be intricate for the, the community to, to, uh, move forward and have that access to the community. Um, to the north of the property as well, you have Fowler, which does have that commercial density we're looking for. We partner with the university of South Florida and their mental health counseling department. We want to continue to collaborate with them. And then to the south, you have the Amazon facility off of temple terrace highway as well. Um, within the community itself, our goal is to not only have housing opportunities for these individuals, but also supports if necessary, uh, for these individuals to continue to refine workforce development skills, um, community integration, those life skills that really help support being independent. And so while we seek to have apartments also in the community, our goal is to have non-residential space that's adequate for, um, commercial prop, uh, commercial partners to activate with a cafe and market concept similar to the cup. If you've been, uh, to coffee, uniting people here in downtown Tampa, um, or the feeding Tampa Bay market over here, uh, down on 50th street. And so our goal is to replicate a workforce environment. So individuals have access to those, uh, resources, but then access to the greater community as well. Okay. All right. Yeah. My concern again, isn't so much about your project. I think your project, I'm okay with your project in my mind. It's about the intensity, density and intensity that we're moving to on that, that site, you know, if the site was ever to change hands in the future, it's got those entitlements now going forward in the middle of that residential area. So that's, that's, what's given me a little bit of pause at a personal level, you know, and I mean, I think the project's commendable again, I, I get it. And I think it's, it's a great project, but I, you know, it's once it changes, we can't just change it back after, after you all leave, if God forbid you have to leave at some point in the future, you know what I mean? Any developer could come in right after that. And what they're building there is at our 16, right around those, you know, kind of suburban homes. So, right. And, and I know that that only a piece of this you all can consider, but we are filing a PD and we've, we, we've committed to development services staff that this will go paired with the PD when it goes to the board. So there will at least be that level of assurance. So everybody's going to know what they're going to get. Okay. All right. Were there any other questions or we don't know? All right. Are there any other questions or comments from the commissioners about discussions and not seeing any, then I'll go ahead and close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this one. Commissioner Sink. I move to find, uh, HCCPA 2622 comprehensive plan amendment 10610 Davis Road and Cricket Lane to be, um, consistent with the comprehensive plan. All right. Is there a, Commissioner Jemison? A second. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lauk, a second to that motion, or sorry, Commissioner Sink, a second to that motion by Commissioner Jemison. Any questions, comments, questions from the commissioners before we take our votes? Not seeing any, then I'll signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. So that's one against. We'll kick it to a roll call just to get it on the record. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Jemison? Yes. Lauk? Seben? Yes. Sink? Yes. Joseph? No. Motion carries five to one. Chair Joseph voted no. All right. Five to one. You got it. Congrats. Good presentation. All right. Our next item of business on this one is item 2E, HCCPA 26-25 comprehensive plan map amendment 11017-11101 East U.S. Highway 92, and the presenter is Lillianne Linehan. Good evening, Commissioners. Lillianne Linehan, Planning Commission staff, and I'm here to present HCCPA 26-25, which is located at 11017-11101 East Highway, U.S. Highway 92. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale, and approximately 6.77 acres, and the applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential 9 to suburban mixed use 6. This is the general location map. The site is located within the urban service area in the limits of the Stafford-Mango Community Plan, and is located south of East U.S. Highway 92, east of Williams Road, and east or west of East Mobley Villa Drive. Here is an arrow of the site. The site is outlined in pink. The site currently has a mobile home park, and you'll notice that the current urban service area boundary is to the north and the blue line. There's light commercial uses to the north, east, and west of the site, with some heavy commercial to the west. And there are single-family uses located to the east, west, and south of the site. And there are public, quasi-public, institutional uses to the north, and one educational use directly east of the site. This is looking at the subject site from U.S. Highway 92. This is also looking at a portion of the subject site from U.S. Highway 92. This is looking east along U.S. Highway 92 from the front of the subject site. This is standing on the subject site looking north across U.S. Highway 92. This is looking to the property directly east of the subject site. And this is the current future land use map map. You'll see the site currently has a designation of residential nine, and it only covers a portion of the three parcels. The residential nine category allows for nine dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed-use development. And other future land use categories near the subject site include Suburban Mixed Use 6 to the north, Residential 9 and Community Mixed Use 12 to the east and west, and Urban Mixed Use 20 to the west. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to Suburban Mixed Use 6. This category allows for six dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. The Suburban Mixed Use 6 designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial, multi-purpose, and clustered residential and or mixed-use development. Under the residential nine future land use designation, the site could be considered for a maximum of 60 dwelling units, or 147,450 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed future land use designation of Suburban Mixed Use 6, the site could be considered for a maximum of 40 dwelling units, or 147,450 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment would decrease the potential residential density and leave the maximum commercial square footage unchanged, but would increase the allowable range of uses, and a lot including the introduction of commercial intensive and light industrial uses. The proposed amendment received no formal objectives and a full list of comments was provided in the report packet, and 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 three main areas of consistency. Future land use section objective 3.1 and policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding area, and compatibility is defined as the characteristics of different uses, activities, or designs that allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. This proposed map amendment to Suburban Mixed Use 6 is consistent with this policy direction based upon the existing development pattern of the area, which currently includes light commercial uses to the north, east, and west of the site, with some heavy commercial to the west of the site, single family to the east and west and south, and public quasi-public institutional uses to the north, and some educational uses to the east. This proposed change will allow for the consideration of commercial uses that are more intensive than neighborhoods serving and industrial uses. It's important to note that this commercial intensive and industrial uses are currently permitted on the northern portion of the subject site that is currently designated as Suburban Mixed Use 6 on the future land use map. These uses also may be considered in the surrounding future land use categories along the U.S. Highway 92 corridor and designations such as the Community Mixed Use 12 and Urban Mixed Use 20. The change in future land use of this property from Residential 9 to SMU 6 is sensitive to the existing and intended development pattern of the area and provides for a gradual transition of uses while aligning the change along a corridor with the potential for more intense commercial and industrial uses. Objective 7.1 intends to promote businesses that provide diverse employment opportunities, businesses that promote an appropriate jobs and housing balance, and in locations where people can live near their workplace. The intent of this policy is to ensure that there are enough jobs in the area to support the local population, and given the location of the site along a commercial corridor and close proximity to residential neighborhoods, the amendment is consistent with this objective. Goal 2 of the Seftor-Mango Community Plan seeks to enhance community character and ensure quality residential and non-residential development. Some of the strategies include discouraging commercial encroachment into the residential areas between the U.S. 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard and south of Martin Luther King Boulevard and prohibiting flex provisions within and into the Seftor-Mango Community Plan area. The SMU 6 category would not be encroaching into the specified residential area as the future land use category still allows for the potential of residential density and development. While there is a decrease in the total maximum of potential residential, it is not entirely removed. Goal 3 of the Community Plan encourages commercial development to be directed to the U.S. Highway 92 and Martha and Luther King Boulevard corridors, and these parcels are situated along U.S. Highway 92 where commercial development is intended. The proposed MAP amendment would expand the Suburban Mixed Use 6 future land use to fully encompass the existing site rather than having all the parcels with split future land use designations. This amendment will allow for more opportunity and utilization of the site for commercial uses along one of the specified corridors found within the Seftor-Mango Community Plan and is therefore consistent with this policy direction. Based upon all of this, 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? Good evening. My name is Celia Carruthers with Oxbow Engineering 4206 National Guard Drive Suite 1, Plant City, Florida 33563. Before you today is CPA 26-25, which is a request to amend approximately 6.77 acres from residential 9 to SMU 6, and there's a companion PD with a CPA request. A little about the site is within the urban service area and within the Seftor-Mango Community Plan area. It is currently zoned PD, CG, and AR, which was omitted from the slide. So my apologies. The proposed uses are listed on the slide, which are compatible with the proposed SMU 6 future land use category. Just a little bit of history. This site was before you earlier in the year under CPA 25-38, which was approved and then later approved by the county commissioners. Portions of the western and center parcels, this area here, were previously amended from R9 to SMU 6. After the approval of this application, the eastern parcel was put up for purchase after the property owner was found in violation with several code enforcement cases open, referencing inappropriate extension of an asphalt driveway and inappropriate commercial truck parking. So the approval of the CPA and lumping it in with the remaining SMU 6 area would allow us to move forward with the development, which would be consistent with Hillsborough County Land Development Code requirements and alleviate these concerns. Historically, this site has been subject to a split zoning and future land use. As you can see on the map, there's kind of a commercial corridor that runs along US 92. This trend goes back further. This map in particular is from 2016. I felt it to be just the most clear to include. But the future land use follows this historic zoning boundary, whereas the previous SMU 6 area is oriented towards US 92 and the previous R9 and existing R9 on the eastern parcel are south of where this boundary is. So this is our subject site right in this area. It's clear that the commercial oriented uses abut US 92, which reflect a pattern and guidelines for how we are gearing and orienting our development towards US 92. So this CPA seeks to amend the future land use to encompass the remaining and additional site that was picked up under SMU 6, which makes these desired uses implementable within this property area. And these are some of the photos of the site. The west and central parcels are mobile home park. And this is the eastern parcel that was an addition. There's a commercial office and on the lower picture, if you look in the back, you can see some of that vehicular storage, including tractor trailers and RVs. Zooming out, we see this site is nearby to several flue categories of varying densities and intensities directly to the south and southeast are residential neighborhoods in R9 and R4 respectively. Immediately to the north is that cluster of SMU 6, which extends south of US 19, hence that split flue that we see on the future land use map. And then further to the northwest and northeast is CMU 12, so a more intensive mixed use, and UMU 20 to the west. This is abutting the site directly to the west. It appears to be a crane school, so a bit higher intensity commercial with a lot of heavy machinery on site. And then abutting to the east is a daycare facility. One point that staff made within their report regarding neighborhood compatibility that I felt was particularly poignant was that compatibility is not the same as, but rather maintaining character of existing development. The SMU 6 category that's requested provides a transitional density between low density residential to the south and higher density mixed use future land use areas along that commercial corridor. It also aligns with uses that are already allowable within the SMU 6 area, so we're just requesting an expansion of the mixed use area to make that feasible. This site is located within the Sefner-Mango community plan area and is consistent for a number of goals and strategies that I was able to identify. With regard to enhanced community character, the use is compatible with the goals of this portion of the community plan and the surrounding mixed use future land use categories. And it directs that development to US 92 as desired by the community plan and supports infill development, particularly within the urban service area. And then in regards to safety and mobility, approval of the CPA would afford us the opportunity to make improvements that are needed. I know I can't particularly reference the companion PD specifically. However, the improvements that are proposed would not be feasible without the expansion of the SMU 6 area which makes this development possible. And then just some additional policy to support related to economic policy in the comprehensive plan. SMU 6 will afford us the opportunity to provide employment adjacent to residential areas specifically. And the comprehensive plan also supports industrially oriented opportunities within mixed use categories. And ultimately staff found this request consistent and I just hope that you'll be able to find the same. I was not made aware of any written opposition to this application, but I thank you for your consideration and I'm happy to stand for questions. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this item, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, thoughts on this one. Not seeing much excitement going once, going twice. I'll close the public comment on this one then and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Is there a motion out there? Commissioner Jemison. Mr. Chair, I move to find HCCC CPA 2625 conference of land amendment consistent with future land use. All right. Commissioner Lough? Second. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding from Commissioner Jemison. A second to that motion by Commissioner Lough. Any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Next item of business, 2F HCCPA 26-26. Comprehensive plan map amendment 13750 Reptron Blvd. And the presenter is Tyreek Royal. Hello, commissioners. Open up this PowerPoint. Good afternoon. Tyreek Royal, planning commission staff. And today I'll be presenting HCCPA 2626 at 13750 Reptron Blvd. There were a number of public comments submitted over the weekend and today they've been added to SharePoint, all of which were in opposition of the request. This request is privately initiated small-scale map amendment with approximately 37 acres. The request is to change the land use designation for neighborhood mixed use and research corporate park to light industrial plan. The location of the site is a northwest portion of unincorporated Hillsborough County. It's part of the July 2026 cycle within the urban service area and then the limits of the northwest community plan. Here on your screen you can see an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink. It's located north of Racetrack Road east of McCormick Drive. The site is adjacent to Pinellas County. Nearby uses within Pinellas or public and natural land. Here's some photos of the site. This is looking south on Reptron Blvd with the subject site to the right. You can see Racetrack Road further in the distance. This is looking west on Reptron Blvd with the subject site in the view. This is looking north on Reptron Blvd with the subject site being to the left. And finally this is looking east on Reptron Blvd with the subject site behind the camera. Here you can see the adopted future land use map. The site is located within a research corporate park in the neighborhood mixed use for future future land use categories which allow for the consideration for agricultural activities residential neighborhood commercial and mixed use development along with research and development activities research corporate park uses related educational facilities electronic component production light restricted manufacturing warehousing office uses including corporate headquarters which are not subject to locational criteria and multi-purpose and cluster residential and or mixed use projects. And on to the proposed the applicant is requesting a change land use designation for neighborhood mixed use for an RCP to LIP. The light industrial plan allows for the consideration for agricultural light industrial uses such as processing manufacturing recycling and storage of materials of predominant use including support offices warehouses and retail uses. The proposed amendment will eliminate any potential residential density and allow for higher commercial intensity. The commercial intensity will increase from approximately 770,000 square feet to approximately 1.2 million square feet. The proposed plan amendment was sent out for agency review. There were no formal objections although the community infrastructure planning department did comment that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed future lane use on the most and on most of the impacted road race segments except for segments of racetrack road and line bog avenue to reptron boulevard and from reptron boulevard to count countryway boulevard. While formally our recommendation pc staff reviews all related policies regarding the proposed requests. There were requests related to several general policies i found the following main areas of consistency. The proposed amendment is consistent with fluid objective 1.1 which establishes urban service areas primary area for directing growth. The site is also located along a county collector roadway and directly adjacent to a county material. The proposed amendment would therefore direct future development to an area identified by the compromise plan for urban growth. We utilize the 16 public infrastructure and transportation facilities. The proposal is also consistent with fluid objective 2.2 and its associated policies which recognizes that a range of permissible uses within a future lane use category is intended to reflect the character uses permitted within that designation and all permissible uses are accepted in every location within the category. The subject property is currently developed with light manufacturing uses and light industrial development established immediately adjacent to the property subject site to the west and south. Given this existing use of the property and the surrounding development pattern staff finds that the functional character of the light industrial plan designation is consistent with the existing development pattern in the immediate vicinity. The proposal is also consistent with fluid objective 3.1 and its associated policies which directs new development to recognize existing community and be designed in americ compatible with the surrounding character and neighborhood. The surrounding area contains both residential and non-residential development however the subject property is directly adjacent to established light industrial business park uses to the west and south and is currently developed with white white manufacturing uses. The proposed light industrial plan designation would therefore be consistent with the established industrial character of the immediate area. With that planning commission staff recommends the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals objections and policies as the owner of corporate hillsborough county comprehensive plan that concludes my presentation. I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening Cammie Corbett with the law firm of Gardner Brewer-Hudson. To be efficient with everyone's time, I am simply going to ask to reserve my time for rebuttal. All righty. All right. We had quite a few people sign up in the public comment for this one so I will start off with those in person and we will start off with no well let me register Caroline G wants to list her opposition to the project but she doesn't want to speak so we will go to David N. Is David N here? All right. Good afternoon. Thank you guys for volunteering. I understand you guys are all volunteers. My name is Dave Namick. I am a resident of West Hampton. I respectfully ask you all to find CPA 2626 inconsistent with the hillsborough county comprehensive plan and recommend maintaining the existing land use designations. I am a current scout leader, a former volunteer firefighter, a past HOA president. I spent three and a half years working with the county commissioner and other county staff to get the intersection which is part of what we're talking about today improved to be safer after a fatality and numerous other accidents. The experience and and others taught me the important lesson we must address safety concerns before another tragedy occurs and not after. Much like you, I make my decisions with the safety of our community in mind especially when it's the safety of our children. Here's what makes this proposal particular particularly concerning. Reptron Road is the only road leading into our community. More than 1000 residents depend upon it every day and the traffic at the racetrack road intersection with Reptron already reaches gridlock at several times. We have no other entrance into our community. Our children must also travel this road to get to school. There are no bike lanes on this road. I want to point that out to be clear. Under the school district's two mile plan for transportation rules, they do not get busing in all of our community. Most of our 10, 11 and 12 year old students do not qualify for busing and therefore they must ride their bikes or walk down this road to get to school. Sidewalks on this road are also not consistent. They are not on both sides of the road. If you wish to travel this road by sidewalk, you must cross the road at least two times and you'll be walking directly on the property that we're talking about today as part of it. Now consider increasing industrial activity at the head of our community entrance. More commercial trucks, industrial operations, warehousing functions, convene additional traffic, greater congestion, and increased risk to pedestrians. Where is the plan for road improvements, sidewalks, crosswalks, and alerting technology? And where will this all come from to accommodate this needed activity? The previous owner, Kimball, used this property relatively lightly. So the proposed increase, although it's only saying a 56% from 773,000 to 1.2 million would be substantially more than Kimball was actually doing. The comprehensive plan calls for neighborhood compatibility, gradual transitions between land use and protection of established neighborhoods. Trees and buffers do not solve gridlock. They do not protect children walking along industrial traffic. Commissioners, we are not opposed to development. We are asking for development decisions to account for real world conditions that we experience in our community. I know from my years of working with community officials that the safety concerns deserve attention before and not after. We should not wait until another accident happens to recognize a foreseeable safety problem. I respectfully thank you all and ask you all to keep to make CPA 2626 inconsistent with the Hillsborough County planning comprehensive plan. All right, sir, that's your time. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We had Dennis R. who didn't want to speak but wanted to register their opposition to the item. And next up, we had Martin S. who didn't want to didn't choose if they wanted to speak. Oh, no, doesn't want to speak but wanted to list their opposition. We have Angela Wright. Again, didn't want to speak but wanted to register their opposition. And Steve Kona. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for taking the time to hear this today. I didn't think I'd be back this quickly, but I'm back. So Steve Kona, a resident of the West Hampton neighborhood. I'd like to thank all of my neighbors for showing up today. We ask that you find this amendment inconsistent with the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. I think earlier this evening, you saw a proper use for light industrial. I don't think this is the case for that as well. I think the land use that is currently there is suitable for what the owner wants to do. So having been served on a commissioner on this board, I found it a little troubling that in the staff presentation, there was no mention of the residential community that is actually right next door, right behind it. And then all of the single family homes that are behind there as well. So my understanding is that this property owner wants to expand leasing opportunities by attracting a broader range of industrial tenants. I understand that business motivation, but it should not come at the expense of established neighborhoods. I believe this amendment raises serious concerns under these previous comprehensive plans. So if I can give you some to find this inconsistent, it would be objective 3.1 policy 3.1.3 neighborhood compatibility, also policy 3.1.2 gradual transitions, and third objective 4.4 neighborhood neighborhood protection. Um, the staff relied, uh, saying that, you know, this would be a barrier to the, to the homeowners with heavy vegetation. Those are conservation areas. The HOA property owner justified compatibility, but trees don't eliminate truck traffic noise, lighting, or the impacts of potential outdoor, uh, industrial storage. Uh, this amendment would increase the maximum non-residential development potential by approximately 56%. The existing designation already provides substantial development opportunities. Commissioner spent my entire career advocating for responsible economic development. I understand the importance of industrial properties, but expanding leasing opportunities is not by itself justification for changing long-term land use policy, uh, next to a very established neighborhood. We should not open the door to outdoor industrial storage and additional traffic where families live and work. I respectfully ask, my former colleagues, uh, to find this amendment inconsistent with a comprehensive plan. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have in person Joseph R. Oh, who didn't want to speak, but wanted to register the opposition. For speakers, we have Brianna Miller. All right. Kevin Robb. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and uh, commissioners. Uh, appreciate your time today. What can I say about the neighborhoods on Reptron Boulevard? We saw some of the imagery, uh, at the beginning of this presentation that showed how beautiful and tranquil this neighborhood is. Um, it's perfect for families. What it is not, it's not crowded. It's not dense. It's not loud. It's not bright. It's not industrial. There is a place for industry and those places are already appropriate and zoned for industry. And those are not in bedroom communities. Uh, I think Mr. Namek and Mr. Kona already, uh, voiced a lot of the, uh, issues that make us feel that, uh, this is inconsistent with the comprehensive county plan and its negative effect. It will negatively affect our children, school transportation, density, increased traffic, noise, sight lines, pollution, ecology, and conservation as it relates to the wetlands, uh, floodplains, trees, native education, and the animals we adore in the neighborhood, such as wild turkeys, deers, owls, and more. They're going to go away when there's industry in the area. I share those concerns, but I actually wanted to talk to you tonight about the human factor. Yes, we're talking to you today as consistent, uh, constituents to you as our public officials. But beyond that, I wanted to appeal to your human side. The residents of our communities choose our neighborhood for its nature, its beauty, and its serenity. For decades, we have enjoyed it as a beautiful and lovely place to raise our children. In fact, when I moved in, I was told that due to the heavy conservation of the area, major construction and industry could never occur here due to the, uh, protections afforded the area. This is why I chose to purchase my home and raise my children in the West Hampton area. In fact, I and all of our neighborhoods have invested a large chunk of our life savings into maintaining and promoting the beauty of this neighborhood. The expansion and change of this property to an industrial use will destroy the piece we have invested in. Our property value and our life savings will be destroyed and likely cut in half once an industrial zone creates not only an eyesore, but a danger to residents only a hundred of feet, hundreds of feet from our neighborhood entrances. As we dodge 18 wheelers, endure industrial hum, and watch the beautiful nature of the area disappear. I ask each of you, if this was your neighborhood, your home, and your children's pathways, would you approve this project? I'm going to venture that you wouldn't. And if it's not right for you, why would you think it's right for us? I ask you to consider, uh, that question as you ponder this case and cast your vote. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, can you please say your name for the record? Can you come back? State your name for the record. I'm sorry. Kevin Robb. Thank you. All right. Check one more and then I'll get to you. Kevin McDonald is Kevin McDonald in the room. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Kevin McDonald. I'm the president of West Hampton homeowners association. We, uh, and West Hampton is at the end of Raptron Boulevard. If you guys didn't see it on the map, but, uh, we opposed HC slash CPA 2626 and request an unfavorable recommendation. West Hampton is an established community of 152 single family homes that has been here for approximately 25 years. We rely on Raptron Boulevard for access. Our key concern are our children's safety and elementary school and middle school are within approximately one and a half miles. Our children walk and bicycle along the Raptron Boulevard daily and a high school bus, uh, serves our neighborhood for pickup and drop off. Uh, the applicant's report describes intermittent sidewalks and additional truck traffic would increase children's exposure at driveways, crossings, and sidewalk gaps. The submitted materials do not demonstrate an adequate assessment of school travel or bus operations. We should not increase industrial permissions before establishing how children will be protected. The traffic report also identifies only 95 feet of existing turn lane length at access B against a calculated requirement of 220 feet, including storage and deceleration. It says the extension is not feasible. Uh, that constraint needs a demonstrated solution. The site plan lists truck terminals, distribution centers, outdoor storage, vehicle repair, material recovery facilities. The county must evaluate these permissions and their operating impacts rather than rely on descriptions of high tech manufacturing. The applicant also requests a northern building setback of only 10 feet compared with a 60 foot requirement. It's narrative identifies for a 40 foot building. Planning staff has already raised residential compatibility concerns. HOA owned land and trees should not substitute for permanent protections on the applicant's property. Reptron Boulevard is county maintained. Heavy commercial traffic could increase pavement wear and public maintenance costs, which also deserve review. To date, the new owners have not contacted our association to discuss these changes. Finally, the application contains inconsistent building area figures. An environmental review could change the layout. Proposed land use designation would also create substantially greater potential development capacity beyond the immediate expansion. We respectfully request an unfavorable recommendation. Children's safety, reliable access, and residential compatibility should be demonstrated before additional permissions are granted, not addressed after problems arise. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Ma'am? Well, thank you very much for allowing me to talk today. I didn't register. My grandma was in hospital. I apologize if I didn't register in time. But here today, I'm here not as a resident for West Hampton community, but also a Florida civil engineer licensed civil engineer professional here. And most of all, as a mom, a mom of a seven-year-old and an 11-year-old boy. The 11-year-old has ADHD and he has to scooter along Repton Boulevard to the middle school because the school does not provide a bus for us. So, based on my professional experience, and I'm not going to read from my thing because I'm talking from my heart, is that I have a lot of concern as a civil engineer. This road is very narrow. It doesn't have proper sidewalk. We all know when we are dealing with the commercial traffic and commercial trucks, they have blind spots when they turn. That causes a lot of danger to the kids, especially when you're talking about boys. Any of you have boys, you would understand. So, aside from that, as mentioned, as our neighbor mentions, this is a preserved area. We have a lot of wildlife. This is a small picture, but a few days ago, we had this mother duck and the ducklings going around the Repton Boulevard. And one of the neighbors posted this and said, please drive carefully when you leave the community today. So, can you imagine with the kids' safety and all this wildlife being disturbed by these commercial trucks and commercial activities? So, with that, I'm just going to cut it short, and I just want you to reconsider approving this amendment as a mom. I appreciate it. Thank you, ma'am. Can you identify yourself? My name is Mercedes Acundan, and I'm a professional civil engineer licensed in Florida. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That was everybody we had signed up in person. So, now I will go through our list of virtual individuals. And we will start off with Jonathan Kaye. Is Jonathan Kaye on the line? Yes. Jonathan Kapsis. Can you guys hear me? Yes, please. Go ahead. Perfect. I'll keep it short. I think Steve Kona and Mr. McDonald spoke very highly of why we as parents do not oppose and think that this amendment is not consistent with the land use stagnations. For the number one reason of the protection of our children who need to walk to school down Reptron Road, and the sidewalk goes directly in front of this building and needs to cross it twice, two times. I would say for there to be a situation occurs directly because of this change in the plan and the number of vehicles that would be traveling this road. And I feel like our number one objective should be to protect our children and the future of Hillsborough County. So, thank you. Thank you. I'll yield the rest of my time. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Christina B. Is Christina B on the line? Hi. How are you? Hello. My name is Christina B. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. My name is Christina B. I'm not a residential neighbor. I happen to be the commercial neighbor right immediately adjacent to this property. So, I am a commercial landlord and we own 200,000 square feet, known as Park 6 where Ellie's Deli's is. And we have six buildings there. And I'll start out by saying I am a commercial real estate developer and landlord. So, candidly, I'm very much in support of commercial growth. It's the business I'm in and the livelihood that my company has. With that being said, I am in 100% opposition to the FAR that this plan is calling for. The properties, including our own, are properly satisfied and zoned what they should be, light industrial. All of our buildings do well. It goes well with the community. My biggest concern, and you'll hear from our property manager, and we have photos to show this, is it doesn't even have to be a hurricane. The lake that is owned by this owner, which is a new owner, it's not the prior owner, the original owner of the building. It completely floods out our entire business park and it doesn't even have to be a hurricane. I'm talking about just a heavy rain. We have pictures we can submit. So when we saw, candidly, when our commercial neighbors are looking for development, I'm personally usually happy because brand new product typically means rents can grow, right? And that's the business I'm in. However, we have a $35 million asset that immediately it touches, and this property puts our property in jeopardy. Just with the building that's there, our project would be underwater with their lake overflowing onto our property if all the area is impervious and asphalt and built upon. And I think between the traffic that the other folks talked about, but believe me, I'm very much in support of commercial development, but as the owner right next to them and as a commercial real estate landlord, I think our use and the light industrial is proper. Going from what they are to $1.2 million is absurd. And the group that bought it is out of state. They're a real estate investor coming into Florida, which everybody is doing, and they're managing a fund. And part of the sale OM was possibility for higher FAR. And I know they paid about $22 million for the property. But I mean, the reason why there's so many treed area on that site is because we're in Florida. We get a lot of rain and they're flooding out all of our parks. It's not just our parks, it's Tri-County as well. All right, ma'am. That's your time. Thank you for your comments. All right. Next up, Westcott Tool. Westcott on the line. Hello. Yes. Can anybody hear me? Yes, please. Go ahead. Okay. My name is Westcott Tool. I'm with Jones Lang LaSalle. I am the property manager there for Park Six. I work with Christina and I just wanted to voice my opposition to this planned amendment. Basically, just kind of piggybacking on what she said. The research that I've seen in this staff support report with the environmental protection resiliency and environmental considerations just don't really dig into the issues that we have there at the property. Like Christina said, there is significant runoff from the adjacent property that floods our parking lots, floods our buildings, just in the national thundershower. We're concerned that the development will cause some even more runoff. And the research done about the environmental impacts of the wetlands and the floodplain there are just not sufficient enough to move forward with this amended plan. So we actually would just like to voice opposition and we'd like the board and the commission to reconsider this amendment and at least pause it to get a better understanding of what's going on in that area with the environmental impact that this development could have. All right. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you for your time. All right. Next up, we have three individuals who did not want to speak. Stephen Brooks, Stephen or Stephen Brooks, Michelle Brooks and Christopher Kano did not want to speak, but they all three wanted to register their opposition. Next speaker we have is Vinu S. Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. All right. My name is Vinu Sangui and I'm a senior citizen at Southampton, which is less than 250 feet from the proposed plan amendment area. I dare say less than 100. I commend and support in entirety what my neighbors just said before me. I also support what Christina from Part 6 said with regards to the significant flooding and runoff. I respectfully oppose the comprehensive plan amendment HCCPA 2626. I urge the county to carefully consider the detrimental impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, infrastructure capacity, traffic congestion, stormwater management and the environment. Any amendment should demonstrate clear and long-term benefits to the community without placing any additional burdens on existing residents. After speaking with neighbors, I'd like to highlight our main concerns surrounding the following and not in particular order. Noise, traffic, flooding, public safety and security, air pollution, air quality, any odor, cleanliness and dumping, illegal parking, water or electricity usage and tariffs that may be affected. And to add to Christina's point, during the Hurricane Milton, which followed Hurricane Helene in 2024, the intersection of Rapp Cron Boulevard and Racetrack Road was flooded for slightly over a week. And this is a major concern to the residents of Southampton and I'm pretty sure Westampton as well. There are approximately 364 homes with over a thousand residents which will be affected in the South and Westampton neighborhoods, which share the same access road, adjacent properties with similar land use, which are larger and not fully tenanted, already exist to the West and Southeast of the proposed plan amendment area. Until these concerns are adequately addressed, I urge the county to reject this amendment and prioritize responsible, sustainable growth that protects our quality of life and recommend this proposal being unfavorable. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, now we have a bunch of individuals who just wanted to register their opposition. Deidre S wanted to register her opposition. Gerard Kay wanted to register opposition. Matt Kay, Monica Kay, Matthew Kay all wanted to register opposition. Richard D wanted to register opposition and Sapna M wanted to register opposition. And that is all we had signed up in the public comment for this one. So I will turn it back over to you, Ms. Corbett, for response to rebuttal. And we'll make that 18 minutes because she reserved her 15 minute presentation time. So 15 plus three gives you 18. Hopefully I won't talk that long. Cammie Corbett with Gardner Brewer-Hudson. First, I want to just do a little bit of history on this property. Sorry. This property was part of the Tri-County Business Park. This is an old regional development of regional impact. And it was originally developed for industrial, commercial, and office. There was no residential when the original DRI was established. And that was in 1999. It was actually approved for 3.52 million square feet. In 1994, there was a specific phase of phase one that was approved. And that's at the time when the existing building that's on the site, and I'll show you some photos in a minute, was actually constructed. So the existing light manufacturing use has been on site since 1995. So in 2000 is when residential was added to the DRI. And at that time, when you did a plan amendment or a DRI amendment, it had a lot of review and scrutiny. Department of Community Affairs had to look at it. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council had to look at it. And the board had to look at it. And all of them evaluated how are we going to deal with this in a relationship with this industrial and commercial uses that we approved for economic development in the county and balance it with adding this residential. And this is always the fear with adding residential near industrial is that once the industrial is there, but if you allow residential encroachment to come in, then the residents then oppose the industrial in the future. And so ultimately, what was concluded that it was a good thing to have the uses in proximity to each other so people could be close to jobs and housing and so it avoided sprawl. This was the oh, and then in 2006, essentially what happened the 2000 2000, the uses were added this the property was then sold to a residential developer. And then in 2006, after the residential communities were built out and there was no more land vacant land for industrial, they amended the DRI order by what's called an essentially built out agreement saying we've built everything that we were supposed to build. We've mitigated all of our impacts and we don't need all that industrial, but the industrial property, the 38 acres can retain its development rights and develop under the county's code as long as it's not part of a DRI. And so in the EBO agreement, they had this exhibit and that exhibit shows the what was then the PD plan that showed the existing light industrial manufacturing use. And this was what was called Map H. And those were the uses that were governing the site and left at the time of the EBOA. This is a photograph of the site as constructed in 2006. And you can see at that time, there's not residential there here. I'll get to you guys. And then this is 2012. So you can see it's been there for a long time. And this is 2006, which are the photographs you saw from staff where you can barely see the facility from the external side of the community. And then here's the larger zoom out and you can see West Hampton's up here. And so when our client purchased the property, they were researching what the land use entitlements were. And to our surprise, we found this hodgepodge. This is a hodgepodge of future land use categories. Light industrial directly on this side, which has the same intensity that's permitted on the category we're asking for, that light industrial allows 0.75. The LIP allows for consideration up to 0.75. So we have research, corporate office park, and we have NMU4. Both of those categories allow future development and allow intensification of this site. We acknowledge that. So traffic problems, light, noise, all of the compatibility issues that were raised are all things that will occur if this site changes from what it is today, regardless of the land use category. But our client is an industrial user. They intend to lease to industrial users. They have an industrial tenant. And so they wanted to establish the light industrial category here on this site and the right to continue the use that they've had for 30 years and possibly expand somewhat in the future. And the site is constrained by wetlands. It's almost 50% wetlands. And there are no plans to impact those wetlands. Actually, I don't think it would even be possible because, as you can see from this aerial, this is part of a very significant system. It's not something, not a pond that you can just go impact for no reason. So the development impacts that are in the staff report are how they always do it. They do it on the total acreage. They don't take into consideration that when you have more than 50% wetlands, you can't develop all based on gross density. It has to be the upland times 1.25. So the actual permitted intensity is far greater than what's needed. We considered when we talked with staff in the pre-app about, do we go to an SMU 6? Because that's a 0.5 FAR. We could have, but we didn't think that accurately represented what we were asking for. What we're asking for is to be able to continue our use and continue this site as light industrial, which is why we chose the LIP category, not the LI category, even though there's LI directly adjacent to us because the LIP requires us to do a plan development. And this is exactly what the LIP category was created for this type of situation where you might have neighbors that you have to be mindful of. And I can't talk to you or it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk to you about what we're doing on the site plan or what the zoning is or isn't. But a lot of the things that are being talked about can be talked about during the zoning and for the board to consider in conjunction with this PD. But in looking at this, if the board feels more comfortable with an SMU 6 intensity, then we would be happy to have you consider SMU 6. So, so you, but you're really only changing, can we redevelop at 0.5 or can we redevelop at 0.75 between those two categories? Because SMU 6 does allow light industrial and light industrial from a traffic perspective is much less intense than commercial, retail, grocery, and all of those things are eligible for consideration under the existing NMU 4 up to 110,000 square feet. So unlike all of the amendments that you heard earlier today, where people were proposing land use amendments to change the land use pattern of what's on the ground, we're actually filing this land use category to preserve what we have. And we're not asking to introduce anything other than what we have in what was been planned since 1989. So this one is a little bit different. I do acknowledge that depending on what we're proposing in the PD, that there may need to be further conversations with the residents about all of the issues that they raised. And our client is certainly willing to do a community meeting. But at this stage, we're trying to select a future land use category that makes sense. And I just don't think that this hodgepodge makes any sense. And so whether we make the entire site SMU 6 or we make it LIP, we would respectfully request that you find the request consistent with your staff report. And I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Over to the commissioners now for questions, thoughts, discussion on this one. Commissioner Sink. I guess I'm a little bit confused about preserving what we currently have, that statement. Like, so what they're currently doing is not allowable under their existing land use. Is that correct? Um, well, I don't know about that. It depends on exactly what is being, what is being done today. Research corporate park allows for, um, some, a mix of office, uh, corporate park. There's some, some allowance for some other non-residential uses that, um, um, obviously they can complied with the future land use at the time when the, the DRI was done. There also are a number of tools in the comprehensive plan, such as the flex of a land use category that, um, like they could flex the LI that's to their west, that they could flex the research corporate park to, to allow them to do more non-residential entitlements that are more intensive. So I'm not sure exactly. Uh, but I, I think it, I, I would say that they complied with the plan at the time that they were approved. Do you want to add to that Ms. Corbin? I was just going to add the, the, where the inconsistency happened was the, the DRI. So when the, as long as the DRI was in place, right, they really didn't need to be concerned about what happened with the future land use because they were vested through the DRI. But because the DRI is no longer controlling, they got left behind with this sort of mess. And the main reason why the DRI went through the EBOA process is because the DRI development rights were transferred from the industrial user to the residential developer who didn't want to have to file annual reports and do all of those things. So I don't think there was an opportunity for them when the comp plan was going through to really analyze or have a conversation with the planning commission about what should our future land use proper category B because they felt they were protected through the DRI development order. Good for now. And go to Commissioner Locke. I'm sure there's still more time for questions. Question for staff. I see the maximum floor area goes from 773,000 to 1.2 million square feet. Given the wetlands that are on this property, do you think that's a feasible number? I have to go back and look at the total upland acreage. But like Ms. Cammie Corbin said, we will calculate the total upland acreage multiplied by 1.25. And that's the wetland facility calculation board. But without having the actual upland acreage, I can tell you exactly the square footage that would be allowed. And under the existing PD, there's quite a bit of buffering that's required. So with this change to light industrial, would we be impacting that? Or is that a second? I know the answer, but I want you to say it for the community. Would that impact the requirement for buffering at this point? Or would that be in the PD process? So the light industrial plan would, I believe with this, we have to double check with the late development code. But there's minimal requirements for setbacks, buffering, screening. Plan development would give us more of an opportunity to make sure there's mitigation measures in place whenever it comes to development and rezoning. And the additional square feet, can you quickly itemize what different uses may come and come to bear? Yeah. So currently, there are industrial uses that can be considered on the site. This would be more industrial specific. So uses such as open storage could be considered on the site, which currently cannot. Thank you. I was just going to add to that list that the Research Corporate Park allows light restricted manufacturing and warehousing offices, corporate headquarters, related uses that are commercial oriented, like hotels and restaurants, educational facilities and research and development activities. So it's just a more specific subset of light industrial, but also of commercial uses that are allowed within that land use category. The light industrial plan would open that up a bit to more processing and manufacturing, as Tyreek said. Commissioner Sink? For SMU 6, does that allow outdoor storage as well? Yes. Suburban mixed use 6 allows residential, neighborhood commercial office uses, research corporate park uses, and light industrial. So it allows kind of like soup to nut. I mean, you also can do agriculture in there. So you can kind of do any use. The difference would be that the light industrial uses under SMU 6 are limited to a 0.5 FAR, whereas under light industrial planned, it's a 0.75, right? That's great. Thank you. I did have a couple questions. Ms. Corbin, I know one thing that confuses me is if it has those capabilities now, why would we need to go to the LIP? Why doesn't the owner just use what it has now to do what they plan to do? So the original thinking was that we would just ask for a consistent category with what we thought it should be from a logical, pure looking at it from a planning perspective, either having a light industrial but submitting the LIP so we could do the requirement of the the plan amendment or the SMU 6, which was the thought process. As we've gotten deeper into it and we're looking at it, we might be able to consider those other tools in the land development code to see if we can accomplish what we want to accomplish through flexing. That takes the neighborhood somewhat out of the process. And I don't think, again, I just frankly doing this as long as I've been doing it and seeing this future land use map in the state that it's in, I just think it's patently unfair to landowner to leave it with this mix of land uses that no one could reasonably predict what was supposed to be be there. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense for this to have to have this this mess of a land use situation. I think it was not well done and well executed. Who knows what was GIS mapped and what was parceled out. But I really just think it's really, really bad planning to leave it in this state. I don't, I don't disagree with you and don't sit down because you're going to answer my question here. Let's take SMU out of the question. Let's take LIP out of the question. And I agree with you. I'm a GIS addict. They know this about me. She, even in my briefing, they were like, Chair Joseph, we don't know what's going on with this map. So I don't disagree with you. You're exactly right. It is a mess up there by the maps. Let's set the maps aside. My question is, given the category of land use that is there today, as we stand here, why can't the owner do what they need to do with that? If it gives them access to all these things Ms. Zornita just listed off, why can't they just do it within that framework? Why do we, why do we have to do anything? We'll clean up the maps. We're the planning commission. I'll get her right on that. But I don't think you can clean up the maps without a mapping method. You can't just move this stuff around. We can publicly initiate one. My question is, again, let's set aside the maps. I agree with you. Why can't the owner do what they need to do with what's there today? That's my question. We might be able to. I'll just be directly honest with you. We very well could do it, but we thought it was a better overall entitlement route for the site to kind of go back to what we had with the DRI, which was codify that this is intended to be light industrial. And that's the rationale. I mean, it's really that plain and simple that we felt like, we really felt strongly that this landowner should have a cohesive land use category. And we thought that LIP was actually the most restrictive because it requires, it requires a plan development. We're taking off the table residential. I mean, SMU six, you could bonus up to nine and now you're looking at multifamily at 200 units to the acre and or 200 units for the, for the development. So there, there are different, there were reasons we selected LIP instead of the SMU six, the less intense, but, and again, we just think that they should be entitled to have a cohesive land use category and not be messed with left with us. And I don't disagree with any of that. There's a lot of, there's a lot of truth in what you talk about, but it seems like this has caused such a stir with the neighborhood that you might have, you know, stirred up the water for trying to be a good Samaritan where it didn't necessarily need to be stirred up, which it wouldn't may have got stirred up on the backend, right? You'd have done what you needed to do and they'd have been yelling bloody murder on the backend. But when you're doing what's well within your already given rights and you're not asking for changes, you know what I mean? They, they're kind of stuck with what they're stuck with. And you, I agree with you again, that this gives them another bite at the apple through the PD process. So they, you know, but sometimes they don't want to hear that, you know what I mean? So. Right. But respectfully, this planning commission is here to make plan good planning decisions. They're not here that every time an affluent neighborhood organizes and comes to you and say, please don't approve this, that all of a sudden we're worried about things we weren't worried about all evening when we were going from a low density to a high density multifamily. And we're going to light industrial and put in rural light industrial in the area. Nobody asked a question about a road. Nobody asked a question about a sidewalk. Nobody asked a question about anything. And the only difference is we have an affluent neighborhood well intended. I appreciate them. I understand it's a beautiful neighborhood. I understand why they want to protect it, but that's what this body is to do is to evaluate the comprehensive plan, evaluate the tools that we all have to work with and render a recommendation based on your comprehensive plan, not based on whether residents are fearful that in the future, it might be incompatible when this plan use category allows you the opportunity to put in protection another bite at the apple to allow them to have another bite at the apple to see exactly what's going to be here. How much? Is it 0.75? Is it 0.3? Is it 0.4? So that, that essentially is why I think that we, we decided to proceed this way and not just worry about will we have opposition or not? Because if every, the only way we're making decisions around here is, is there opposition or not? I don't think that that bodes very well for the agency. Okay. Hang on for just one second. We, I was just informed that I forgot a person who was holding virtually to give a comment. So I'm going to circle back and let this one individual make their virtual comment and then we'll, we'll get back at it. All right. Is that cool? All right. Um, Sharon Ringo. Um, my apologies, Sharon Ringo. If you're still on the line, I sincerely apologize. Didn't see you down there at the end of the list. If you're there, please go ahead. You have three minutes. Yes, please go ahead. Can you hear me now? Yes. Hi. Um, thank you so much. I've been very patient. My name is Sharon Ringo and I am a resident of the South Pampton community, uh, adjacent to West Pampton off of Reptron. I've been here since, uh, 2012 and I've been in the entire community since 1994. I'm a senior citizen. My children are long gone from the neighborhood here, but I walk daily up and down Reptron with the children and I'm concerned about the traffic potential here. Uh, this has already previously stated the road you have to crisscross and it's just not conducive to, um, trucks and, and additional traffic. I, um, respect what this, the lawyer that they've said and all this, all this use and so on and so forth and to address what they're saying now about, you know, coming back or on the back end or the front end or whichever end. The thing of it is, is that if there was proposed things in 1994 or however the land was designated to use, like the community that I'm in was not completed until, uh, 2012. Uh, West Hampton was completed a couple of years before that. So we were not as community involved with whatever planning was going on at that time back in 95 or, or whatever at 89. But we are now as, as homeowners and residents of this area, we are here now and we want to protect our community. We want to keep our children safe. And I am also personally very concerned about the Westlands, wetlands all in the area, the Booker Creek Preserve, Preserve. We have many, many, uh, wildlife animals, um, on, on the property and I want to keep them safe as well. The road does flood in, in, uh, Rektron and racetrack, uh, in heavy rains or, uh, a hurricane. And so that's also another, uh, potential issue. So with all of this said, and not to beat a dead horse, but everything that all of our other neighbors have said, I please implore you, commissioners, please reject this. Please vote. No. If the, the new land owner wants to come up and bring other things to the table and something that we as homeowners can come back and address, then so be it. But right now today, please vote. No, I respect your time and I appreciate what you do. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, Ms. Corbett. I'll have you come back up and give you a chance to respond or rekindle our discussion, get us back on track. It's only fair to you. I mean, we didn't let one more speaker speak. So no, I appreciate that. And I appreciate you letting her speak. I would have hated to have had her been frustrated and not had that opportunity. Just reiterate to you that again, I think that it is good planning to have a cohesive land use on this site. We think we've limited what we've requested. Yes, there are questions. Yes, we can have a community meeting. We can talk about what we're planning with, with the folks. I think once we sit down and have that conversation and they see what's actually coming ahead, it will quell some of the fears and considerations and we will have taken off the table some of other uses that would be available that would probably be more impactful. And I'm happy to answer any further questions anybody has. Let me ask you one thing before you sit down. You speak of good planning and needing to clean up the map and what this body set here to do. Wouldn't good planning be to look at the area broadly and come up with what the category should be? I get I get your recommendation and your owner's recommendation of what they feel the land use category should be. But if we want to talk about cleaning up the map without and doing what's right, shouldn't there be some sort of, as we like to say, study of the area to see what needs to be there going for you? Isn't that what good planning is or is good planning whatever your owner says it is? No, I don't think I don't think that I think that it allows an existing long standing business that's been there that is now leased up and operational and it protects your industrial lands, which your goal seven of your comprehensive plan requires you to do, requires you to protect industrial land and not doing so and doing a study and saying, nope, this should all be residential now does the exact opposite of that. In fact, I believe the property, this property that's now SMU six came, was light industrial and was allowed to transition. And that was cited in the 2020 industrial land study as further encroachment of residents, potential further encroachment on industrial lands. And so I don't think so. I think protecting the industrial lands is is a big part of your comp plan policies. All right. Commissioner Lauk. Question for the applicant. With the land use research corporate park, which has been on the sport for five years, I don't think I've ever seen that one. Why did we why did you not look at deploying that across the entire? It's even more intense. It allows a 0.1, 1.0 FAR. So we didn't want to go more intense, right? We didn't want to make, we didn't want to say we're going to, we really don't honestly don't need the 0.75. That's why I said the 0.5 would be, is more than adequate to cover what we need, but I think it introduces new issues. But our RCP would be one FAR. Okay. Are there any other questions, thoughts, discussions of this one? Everybody a second here. Commissioner Lauk. I'll pontificate a little bit. I think the situation as it exists today has been tenable for both parties. I think this is a case where I really, really want to dig into the PD and ensure that the neighborhood maintains its existing buffering setbacks that the roads are addressed and all kinds of infrastructure is tackled, but it's just not our place to do it. So the question before us is this is the highest and best land use for what's there today and what we want to see there tomorrow. And it's, it's something I'm going to support very, very reluctantly. And I, but I would encourage the neighbors and the next step in this process of the PD to come out in force and ensure that what's there today continues to exist. All right. And that reminds me to remind everyone that if we were going to go in opposition to this one, staff found it consistent. So we would need some policies. Former commissioner Kona rattled off a couple that could be used, but I just wanted to remind everyone of that just in case I was going rogue out there. Are there any other questions, comments, discussion items, thoughts from the commissioners? Before I shut this one down, I'm going to let it go once going twice. I'm going to close the public comment on this one and open it up to the commissioners for motions on this item. Commissioner Lau. I usually know where it's going to go, but we're going to throw this out here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we find HC CPA 26 dash 26 comp plan amendment for 13, 750 Reptron Boulevard, consistent with the comp plan and forward to the governing body for further consideration. Commissioner Sink? I second. All right. We got a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lauk. A second to that motion by Commissioner Sink. Are there any questions, comments or discussions of this one before we take our vote? I'm going to turn it over to the clerk for a roll call on this one. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? No. Jimison? No. Lauk? Yes. Seben? Sink? Yes. Joseph? No. Motion carries four to three. Commissioners Cardenas, Jimison, and Chair Joseph voted no. All right. You got a split one, Ms. Corbett. All right. Presentation. Thank you to all the neighbors for coming out. This isn't your last bite at the apple. It still has to go to the Board of County Commissioners for its final review. So thank you for your time and for coming out. Next up, we have our final agenda item, 2G, HCCPA 26-27 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 3030 Cockroach Bay Road. Presenter is Alexis Myers. Good evening, Commissioners. Alexis Myers, Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present HCCPA 26-27, located at 3030 Cockroach Bay Road. This is a privately initiated map amendment that is large in scale. I'm sorry, small in scale and approximately 6.9 acres. The applicant is requesting to change a portion of the subject site's future land use designation from Agricultural Rural 105 to Light Industrial Plan. This is the general location map. The subject site is in a rural area within the limits of the Little Manatee South Community Plan, as well as the South Hillsborough County Plan. It is located northwest of South US Highway 41 and south of Cockroach Bay Road. Here is the area of view of the subject site. The subject property is outlined in pink. The property is part of a municipal solid waste, yard waste and composting facility. Other light industrial uses are also to the west, east across South US Highway 41 and farther south. Light commercial uses are to the east across South US Highway 41. Agriculture extends to the north across Cockroach Bay Road, west and farther south. Vacant land is to the west, east, south and farther north. Residential uses are farther east, across South US Highway 41 to the south and north. And public quasi-public institutional uses are to the east and south. The coastal high hazard area is to the west across Neyland Road Drive and to the north. Here's some photos of the site. This is looking at the subject site from Cockroach Bay Road. This is looking south from Cockroach Bay Road. The subject site is to the left. This is looking east from Cockroach Bay Road. The subject site is out of frame. And this is looking north from Cockroach Bay Road. The subject site is to the right. Currently, the subject site is designated as Agricultural Rural 1 to 5 on the future land use map. The Agricultural Rural 1 to 5 future land use category allows one dwelling unit per five gross acres and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25. The typical uses in this category include farms, ranches, feedlots, residential, neighborhood commercial offices, industrial uses related to agricultural uses and mining related activities. Other future land use categories shown in this map include residential 2 to the east across south US Highway 41 and light industrial plan to the south. The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use designation to light industrial plan. The light industrial plan category allows a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. However, no residential development is allowed but limited accessory residential such as an on-site security guard. This category allows for the consideration of agricultural, light industrial uses such as processing, manufacturing, recycling, and storage of materials as the predominant uses including support offices, warehousing, and retail uses. Next are the impacts as far as existing conditions. Currently under AR 1 to 5, the site could consider up to one dwelling unit or 75,141 square feet of non-residential uses. Under the proposed LIP designation, the site could consider 225,423 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed amendment would eliminate any potential residential density, allow greater commercial intensity, and introduce the potential for intensive commercial and light industrial uses. 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 staff found for main areas of consistency. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. The request is consistent with the intent of future land use section objective 3.1, policy 3.1.2, and policy 3.1.3 as it represents an appropriate extension of the county's future land use framework and would allow for development in a manner that can be integrated with surrounding uses while maintaining compatibility and protecting community character. The proposed amendment is also meets the intent of future land use section objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 by providing for development that is compatible with the surrounding land use pattern, appropriately transitions between varying development intensities, and accommodates future growth in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment is also consistent with the further intent of goal 5 of the little manatee south community plan as well as goal 1a of the south hillsborough county plan as outlined in the livable community's elements of the comprehensive plan as it would allow for economic development for the area. Planning commission staff recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated hillsborough county uh comprehensive plan and this concludes my presentation for 2627. thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation? Good evening. thank you isabel albert um i actually don't have a presentation because i thought that stop was going to do a really good job um but also this is a very interesting area down there uh you know on one side i know it's all ar but it's actually all agricultural manufacturing uses there the site is currently um working or used as a manufacturing facility this is why we had to go with the lip but we wanted the p just to you know make sure that we would address any compatibility issues which there's none if you look and there's lip along that corridor the rest too on the east side is mostly um hillsborough county owned it's a very interesting when you look at the history in there um and also uh you know it's we're outside of the coastal high hazard area but we are adjacent to you know uh heavy road as well as um train tracks and everything like that so uh i hear if you have any questions and i'd be glad to answer them all right thank you we didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment on this one so to the commissioners for questions comments discussions of this one not seeing much movement or excitement then i will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up two motions from the commissioners went out there commissioner loud thank you mr chair i move hccpa 26-27 uh we find comprehensive with the consistent i'm sorry it's late consistent with the comprehensive plan and forward to the governing body for further consideration all right commissioner jemisin second all right we have a motion of consistency finding by commissioner lauk a second to that motion by commissioner jemisin there any questions comments from the commissioners before we take our vote not seeing any then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye aye those opposed that motion carries unanimously all right that was our last agenda item for the evening so at 7 33 p.m this meeting is adjourned good night everyone