Welcome to the works. In today's episode, we're taken to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease and the rising mosquito population. So when it comes to mosquitoes, how exactly are we combating them in the sky? Nobody complains about larvae. They complain about mosquitoes and specifically adult mosquitoes, female mosquitoes, the ones that bite you, right? But it's a lot easier to control adult mosquitoes by controlling the larvae. What we do is we use a larvicide product that attacks the larval in the swamps of the mangrove areas along the coast here. We stop their growth so they never grow up and become adult mosquitoes. Where loyal companions await, one place stands as their beacon of hope. The Pet Resource Center of Hillsborough County, where you can adopt your very own superhero. Adopt the dog, find your sidekick, and unlock the power of unconditional love. Suit up, show up, and adopt today. For more information, visit hcfl.gov slash pets. Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're going to head up to that dog call right now. So we'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at least dogs look like garbage. I mean, that's just not, 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. Getting where you need to go shouldn't be a struggle. That's why Hillsborough County offers Sunshine Line, a transportation service for residents who need a little extra help. If you have no mode of transportation, you may qualify for Sunshine Line's door-to-door service based on age, disability, or income. For those who live in the Hart service area, you may be eligible for an income-based bus pass program. Sunshine Line's trained drivers provide safe, shared rides, helping you to and from the vehicle and making sure you're secured every step of the way. Scheduling is simple. Just call 813-272-7272 to see if you qualify and start your application process today. Sunshine Line is here to keep you moving safely, affordably, and with a smile. Visit hcfl.gov slash sunshine line to learn more and get started today. Sunshine Line, Hillsborough's ride on the bright side. Welcome to 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, everyone, to the May 11, 2026 regular meeting of the Hillsborough County City County Planning Commission. 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 reception desk and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning Commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For action items, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the Planning Commission when recognized by the chair. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal or response. Planning Commissioners will ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second and discussion of vote will be taken. With that introduction, I'd like to ask Commissioner Kona to please lead us in the invitation and the Pledge of Allegiance. If you are able, please rise. Heavenly Father, with sincere gratitude, we ask for your blessings on the mission of the Planning Commission and that our meeting today, we bring together our different perspectives together and make decisions that are in the best interest of our community. Amen. Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Kona. With that, I'd like to ask the clerk representative to please go ahead and call the roll. Bowden? Here. Cardenas? Kona? Jemison? Here. Kugler? Here. Lankos? Lauk? Here. Sieben? Here. Sink? Orton? Berry? Here. Chair Joseph? Here. You have a quorum, sir. Thank you. All right. Next up is the approval of minutes for the following meetings. First up, we have Hillsborough County Planning Commission regular meeting minutes from March 9th, 2026. We have Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on City of Plant City plan amendments from March 9th, 2026. We have Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on City of Plant, 2026. We have Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on unincorporated Hillsborough County plan amendments March 9th, 2026. And Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on City of Tampa redistricting March 9th, 2026. Is there a motion? Commissioner Bowden? I make a motion to approve the minutes. All right. Commissioner Lauk? Second. All right. We have a motion of approval, second by Commissioner Lauk. Motion by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners before we take our vote? I'll signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up, we have public input for items not scheduled for action on the agenda. And we have one speaker who signed up in the public comment for that. And that would be Amanda Brown. And they should be virtual. HTV? Amanda, go ahead. Yes. Yes. Hi, this is Amanda Brown. I'm calling to voice my strong opposition to any dismantling of the urban service area. What I heard at the April 15th DOCC meeting was quite alarming. It sounds like the discussion is being used or could be used to specifically do away with the USA. We should not be opening this can of worms. We need to adhere to the comprehensive plan. We already have and just look at the process and overarching board policies. I just want to take a quick second to recall former County Commissioner Stacy White's tradition of opening land use of the prayer that recognizes land as a finite resource. Your stewards of that finite resource and your decisions have real consequences for those on the ground. With this in mind, if the board moves forward with the actions regarding the USA, I think we can make some policy reforms without adjusting the comprehensive plan and we're redoing or doing away with the USA. I'll remind you that this is a plan. We just spent significant public money to update. And so here are my recommendations. One, we need fair analysis of comp plan applications, staff reports and recommendations can and should clearly note where applications are both consistent and inconsistent with the comp plan to help you make make better motions and decisions to proper notification mandate signage and public outreach for all map and text amendments. That is appalling that some items like the recent corridor text amendments have happened without proper notice, like signs or public input. Three, we need an expansion moratorium. If a total USA overhaul is being considered, we must immediately suspend all current USA expansion studies for. We need better public access to planning commissioners at the very least. We need better public access to planning commissioners. At the very least, we need a contact form to ensure that you guys are accessible to the public. It sounds like some of you meet with BOCC members regularly. How can we gain similar access? Five, communication logs and conflict of interest protections. We need a way to track meetings with the developers and lobbyists by the members and staff and ensure that the board attorney and all consultants do not have ties to the development community that they are making decisions for. And six, the biggest point better data analysis and metrics and metrics as Commissioner Cohen astutely noted, we need to make decisions based on real on the ground data with analysis of the actual existing units and buildings, not just theoretical future land use. So, in summary, we have a growth management problem and solution to a perceived any perceived capacity gaps is not to dismantle our boundary policies, but to better manage them. I am concerned that the direction of recent board discussions reflects the shift away from planning principles the public expects and leads instead towards the easy path of doing away with the USA. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That was the only person signed up in the public comment for items not scheduled on the agenda. So. We will move right along to our briefings and presentations because we have no action items for this meeting. And our first presentation is 3A, City of Temple Terrace, Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Section 12-827, Easements. And the presenters are Krista Kelly and Kim Ford. Good afternoon, Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff. The item before you is a publicly initiated amendment to the Temple Terrace, LDC, Land Development Code, Section 12-827, Relating to Easements. This is a briefing, no action is required at this time. I will turn this over to Mr. Kim Ford with Temple Terrace's Public Works Department, and he will present an overview of the proposed amendment. Following Mr. Ford's presentation, both of us will be available for questions. There we go. Good afternoon, Kim Ford, Temple Terrace Public Works. We are here to present the code provisions for easements and including drainage easements, provide guidance and clarification regarding these easements for the homeowner and for the city's benefit. The city of Temple Terrace needs to do work in drainage easements to provide for drainage. Some of the areas are subject to flooding. The designs that we do are going to be permanent construction and will be in the easements in the property owner's property. But we need access to them and agreements with them so that we can maintain them. And the current code does not provide enough clarification for the owners to understand that we need access in and out to do the things that we need to do. We have a lot on one page. There's a little bit of redundancy. The first paragraph is regarding getting permits for permanent structures. It may be in an easement such as a fence or it needs to be frangible and no non frangible. And we need to make sure that it's not a fence or a shed that could be blocking the drainage that we're trying to provide a conveyance for. The owners is responsible for mowing and maintaining. The city is responsible for major repairs. The city may access drainage easements at reasonable times without permission. That's here in the center part of this code. Easements are recorded and transferred to subsequent owners. Just to go through some of the new revisions that we have. The drainage easements described as a legal right. And the owners are responsible for maintaining the easement area. The purpose, it grants the right for the city to enter the property, allows for the inspections and maintenance of the pipes, culverts, and ditches. It protects the property from flooding when we're able to maintain it adequately. The owner of the land is responsible for maintenance. This is in responsibilities and restrictions. Permanent structures may be prohibited. The easement is recorded. Removal of storage means that the owner needs to provide access for us. This particular item was elaborated on by several people, and the next one is the owner shall allow. That's the one that was added to. Many different kinds of things that go on in drainage easements that need to be cleared out of the way so that we can do our work. Any questions? All right. Are there any questions from the planning commissioners on this item? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for the information. Thank you very much, sir. Look forward to it coming back to us. Next up, we have Briefing B, PCCPA 26-01, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 103 and 107, Johnson Road. And the presenter is, again, Krista Kelly. Thank you. Again, Krista Kelly, planning commission staff. Today I'm presenting PCCPA 2601. The site is located at 103 and 107 Johnson Road. This is privately initiated and a small scale amendment. The site totals 2.25 acres approximately. The site is pending approval of a voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting a change from Hillsborough County Residential 1 to Plant City Gateway District. As you see on the location map, the site's located in the southern portion of Plant City. It is on the south side of Johnson Road, west of James L. Redmond Parkway and east of Apostle Iris Way Road. The site is approximately 2.7 miles north of State Road 60 and approximately five miles south of I-4. Here you see the subject site outlined in pink. As you can see, it is developed and it consists of two parcels. The parcel to the west is developed with a single family home. And the parcel on the east is developed with a community church and facilities in the back. As you can see, this area is a mixture of uses. To the north, there are more intense uses. Directly to the north of the site is Parkway Plaza. This is a retail plaza with a grocery store, bank, a medical facility. And to the northeast, you see more retail. It's just a mixture of car sales, veterinary services, that type of thing. To the west, along Johnson Road, you'll see that the area is predominantly rural residential, homes on large tracks and agricultural uses. Directly to the south is the first Baptist church campus. It's approximately 50 acres in size. And in fact, the subject site is surplus property from the church that they're dispensing of. As you see, to the southwest, there is a suburban scale subdivision that has gone in recently. And then to the east, across James L. Redmond, you see an open field. However, the aerial is a little dated. And currently, this area is developed with multi-family facilities. Here is the adopted future land use map showing the site currently designated Hillsborough County Residential 1. The blue line indicates the Plant City city limits. And as you can see within the city limits, the area to the north, south, and east are designated gateway district in Plant City. This is a map showing the proposed change and now the site showing as gateway district. This site abuts again the church, which is also gateway district and is across the street from gateway district properties generally encompassed by the Parkway Plaza. Currently, the site would allow consideration for up to two dwelling units, although it is developed, and up to 24,502 square feet of non-residential uses. If the proposed change to gateway district were approved, up to 32 dwelling units could be considered, and up to 34,303 square feet of non-residential use could be also considered. Overall, the proposed amendment will allow an additional 30 units and increase the square footage for non-residential use by 9,801 square feet. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one? I have a quick question. Sure. Jurisdictionally, it's in Hillsborough County or it's in Plant City? Currently, it's in Hillsborough County. They're concurrently processing a request for an annexation in the plan amendment. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Not seeing any, but thank you for the information. And we will move on to our next agenda item, 3C, PCCPA 26-02, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 302 Sparkman Road. And the presenter is again Krista Kelly. Thank you, Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff. This is PCCPA 26-02, the site's located at 302 Sparkman Road. Again, this is a privately initiated small scale amendment. The site's approximately 33.9 acres in size and it is also pending approval of a voluntary annexation currently being in the county until this is approved. The applicant's requesting a change from Hillsborough County Residential 1 and is requesting a change to Plant City Residential 6 and Residential 9. The location map again shows it on the south side of Plant City. It's kind of hard to tell here, but it's essentially across the street from the amendment I just presented behind the multifamily housing I had pointed out on the aerial. The site is on the north side of Sparkmans Road, east of James L Redmond Parkway, and west of Gerald Hall Road. I-4 is approximately five miles north of the site, and State Road 60 is approximately 2.7 miles to the south of the site. Again, the site's outlined in pink. As you can see, it's used for agricultural purposes at this time. To the west of the site, you see the open field, however, it is actually developed with multifamily complexes. To the east, you see rural residential uses and some agricultural uses. To the north, it abuts commercial uses. Again, those are the retail uses, car sales, veterinary service, restaurants, that type of thing. And to the south, the area reflects an agricultural setting. This is the adopted future land use map showing the site designated Hillsborough County Residential 1 at this time. As you see, the site abuts the gateway district in Plant City, which is delineated by the blue lines here. It abuts lands designated gateway district to the north and west and south. The proposed map shows that the site designated residential six on the eastern portion and residential nine on the western portion. The idea behind this by the applicant was to provide a nice transition from the gateway district intensity between that and the agricultural uses to the east and south. Currently, the site allows up to 33 dwelling units and approximately 369 square feet of non-residential uses. If approved, up to 270 dwelling units could be considered as well as 467, 616 square feet of non-residential use. In summary, the proposed amendment would allow an additional 237 units and an increase of 98,445 square feet of non-residential uses. And again, I conclude my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one? Yes, Commissioner Kugeluk. Thank you. I'm guessing that from your talk that Res 6-9 is less intense, less dense than the gateway. Yeah, the gateway allows up to 16 dwelling units per acre and also a higher floor area ratio. Okay. It's intended to be an urban gateway, a place where you know you're entering Plant City and it's urbanizing, so. All right. Any other questions from the commissioners? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for the information. And moving on to our next agenda item. We have PCCPA 26-03 comprehensive plan map amendment south of Thonata-Sassa Road west of North Woodrow Wilson Street. Presenters again, Krista Kelly. Thank you. Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff. PCCPA 2603 is a future land use map amendment. It's located south of Thonata-Sassa Road west of North Woodrow Wilson Street. It's a quarter mile south of I-4. And it's located in the city. It's privately initiated and a small scale amendment. It's approximately 13.12 acres in size. Currently, the site's designated Plant City commercial and residential six. And the applicant is requesting the site to be entirely designated commercial. As you see on the location map, it's on the western side of Plant City. It's south of Thonata-Sassa Road and west of North Woodrow Wilson Street. It's a quarter mile south of I-4. And it's adjacent to Baker Street to the south, which is also known as State Road 92. The aerial shows the site outlined in pink. As you can see, it's heavily wooded. There are quite a bit of wetlands on this site. The applicant has provided a delineation that will be addressed more at the zoning level. As you see, the areas adjacent to the site to the west and south are also areas that are heavily wooded and contain wetlands. However, to the north, running along Thonata-Sassa Road, there's very intense commercial uses off the interchange of I-4 up here. There's a Publix adjacent next door to the northwest and various retail uses. On this corner here, I want to point out, is a bank. And the bank property may be considered for access to the site. As you notice, this site, you can't see the sliver here, but there is a sliver between the site and the roadway. So the applicant is investigating how to obtain access through that site. As you can see to the east, across Thonata-Sassa Road, the area is predominantly residential. Here's the future land use map as it's adopted today. The bright yellow is residential six, and the red area is commercial. As you can see, all the areas surrounding Thonata-Sassa Road is commercial. The wetland area and the heavily wooded area is designated residential six. The proposed map now shows the site entirely designated commercial. Currently, up to 69 dwelling units or up to 156,510 square feet of non-residential uses can be considered. If approved, 41 dwelling units and 200,027 square feet of non-residential uses can be considered. The proposed amendment will result in a decrease in dwelling units and an increase of 43,725 square feet of non-residential uses. That's my presentation on this amendment, and again, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one? Not seeing anyone. Well, thank you for the information. Thank you. Look forward to it coming back and move on to our next agenda item. Section 3E, City of Temple Terrace, Land Development Code, LDC text amendment. Section 12-40, Definitions and Section 12-81, Reasonable Accommodation Procedures for Recovery Residences. And the presenters are Yanika Mills and Alyssa Livingstone. Good afternoon, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff. I'm here to introduce Alyssa Livingstone. We will be briefing the Recovery Residences Land Development Code amendment with you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Alyssa Livingstone, Senior Planner for the City of Temple Terrace. I'm here to present proposed text amendments to our Land Development Code regarding definitions, policies, and procedures that govern recovery residences. This update is designed to align the city's administrative procedures with Florida statutes and federal fair housing protections. Specifically, the revisions focus on Section 1240, Definitions, and Section 1281, Reasonable Accommodation Procedures. The text amendment proposes incorporating the Florida statutes definition of certified recovery residences to resolve ambiguities within the city's current land development code. This formal designation ensures statutory alignment at the state level. The proposed amendment to Section 1281, Reasonable Accommodation Procedures implements the requirements of Section 397.487 Florida statutes by establishing a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any land development code regulation that may prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence. In this section, a disabled individual is defined as someone who qualifies as disabled or handicapped under the FHA and or ADA, has a disability as defined by Section 760.22 Florida statutes. These individuals may request reasonable accommodations regarding the city's LDC and procedures as provided by the Federal Fair Housing Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To ensure administrative accountability, the Community Development Department will date stamp completed applications upon receipt. The city manager or the designee may request additional information within 30 days of the initial filing. The applicant then has 30 days to provide the requested documentation. Once an application is deemed complete, the city has 60 days to issue a final determination. If a request is denied, the city must provide evidence-based reasons for the denial, identifying specific deficiencies or actions required for reconsideration. To ensure predictable timelines, the code establishes the 60-day review period as a firm deadline. Failure to meet this deadline results in a deemed approved status unless a written extension is mutually agreed upon by both parties. These proposed amendments ensure that the city of Temple Terrace remains a compliant and inclusive community fully aligned with federal fair housing protections. By formalizing these procedures, we are providing certified recovery residences with a clear and consistent pathway for establishment under state mandated guidelines. Staff recommends approval of these text amendments to ensure our land development code remains a precise and effective tool for the city. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions? Comments from the commissioners? Not seeing any. Well, thank you for the information. Look forward to this one coming back to us. And we will move on to our final agenda item. 3F. TTCPA 26-01 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Southeast Quadrant of Harney Road and US Highway 301. And the presenter is Yanika Mills. Good afternoon. Again, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff. I'm here to present TTCPA 26-01, located at the southeast quadrant of US Highway 301 and Harney Road. This is a privately initiated amendment, small and scale. It's a little over 12 acres. And the applicant is requesting to change their future land use designation from Hillsborough County Community Mixed Use 12 to Temple Terrace Community Mixed Use 12. The site is specifically located on the south side of Harney, east of US Highway 301. It's just east of the Amazon Distribution Center, west of the Bypass Canal, as well as west of Interstate 75. And it also falls within Temple Terrace's designated future economic development area, which is intended to identify it as a community activity center. And it's intended to boost job growth. Here's an area of the site outlined in pink. Some of the uses in the area include, again, the Amazon Distribution Center, which is off to the west. We have some single-family located to the northwest. On this corner, there is a church. Just directly to the south of the site is a construction company. And then along Bowles Road, we have some vacant as well as single-family residential uses. And this blue dashed line designates the jurisdictional boundary between unincorporated Hillsborough County and Temple Terrace. Currently, the site is designated under Hillsborough County as Community Mixed Use 12. As you can see, other future land use designations in the area. We have more presence of Hillsborough County Community Mixed Use 12 directly to the east, the southwest. We have a presence of Urban Mixed Use 20 in the light purple to the northwest. And then we have public quasi-public in the light blue, which is designated the Tampa Bypass Canal. And then we have a presence of Residential 4 here in the light tan color. And then Residential 9 in the darker tan to the further northwest. And the applicant is proposing to change the future land use designation to Temple Terrace's Community Mixed Use 12. Currently, under the entitlements for the site, up to 146 dwelling units could be developed or 265,716 square feet of non-residential uses. The potential would remain exactly the same as far as units as well as the non-residential potential for Temple Terrace's Community Mixed Use 12. That concludes my presentation, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners? I'm not seeing anyone. Well, thank you for the information. I look forward to it coming back and move on to our next agenda item, our number four executive director's report. And the presenter is Melissa Zornita. Good afternoon, Melissa Zornita, executive director. At your seats, you should have a copy of my report. Just wanted to highlight a couple of things. Shortly after our last meeting, Chair Joseph and I had the opportunity to appear at the Board of County Commissioners regarding the letter that was sent from the Planning Commission on the urban service area. They had a good discussion. I shared with you all the video of the presentation that we made and the discussion that was had. At the conclusion of that agenda item, Commissioner Wistel indicated that he would bring back a follow-up agenda item for the Board's action. And no action was requested or taken on April 15th. So at the time of this meeting, there hasn't been any action taken. They've had some other big things on their plate that they're considering right now. But fully anticipate that that will be back in front of the Board for some direction on their consideration in the near future. We've had another round of the first round of meetings on the urban expansion area in the I-4 corridor that was in the middle of April. And then we've also been having a series of meetings on the Riverview Community Plan update that we've been working on in conjunction with the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authority. And they're looking at the extension of the Cross Town Expressway down to originally it was to Big Bend Road. Now they're looking all the way down to 674 and Sun City. So we have been have a survey out right now. We have a number of surveys out. I think we've got one in the I-4 corridor going on. And we've got one in the Riverview Community going regarding feedback on the updated goals for that community plan. And we're looking and working with Thea on the timing of the next phases of that update based on where they are headed and the timing of the PD&E that they're looking at for the extension of the expressway. Because we don't want the community plan to get too far ahead of where they are. We want that work to be very complementary with their study. Let's see. The other main thing I'll highlight is last week I had the opportunity to be a panelist at the West Shore Alliance Development Forum. That was a great event. A lot of energy around the West Shore area and it becoming more of a regional activity center with a lot of opportunity for residential growth. In addition to the business growth, they wanted to hear about how the Tampa comprehensive plan could be a part of that. And so that was great. They're very supportive of the direction that the update of the Tampa plan was headed in. And so hopefully we can get the Tampa comprehensive plan adopted. As an update on that, I sent you last week that we did send our responses to the Department of Commerce to each of their points on the policies that they identified as more restrictive and burdensome. What they indicated when we spoke with them several weeks ago at the beginning of April was that it could take several weeks to a month for them to review our responses and additional data and analysis that was provided and get back to us about that. So we have been trying to be proactive and scheduling a meeting with them and getting something on the calendar to kind of encourage them to move ahead and but we have not gotten something scheduled as of yet for later this month. So we are anxiously awaiting their review of what we've sent them and we'll continue to keep you all posted as we hear more from them. I would highlight under the information items that we did hear back from a quorum of you all that you could attend the joint meeting with Temple Terrace City Council on August 17th. So we went ahead and scheduled that from 4 to 530 that afternoon. It will be held out in Temple Terrace as soon as we get all the details around location we'll send that out to you. But that will be similar to the meeting that we held jointly with Plant City. We've been working on their visioning and have a survey that is open and through I believe the beginning of July and will have similar to we did with Plant City those initial results from the survey to share with you all and the Temple Terrace City Council. And some initial findings on themes for their updated vision and comprehensive plan and want to get feedback from you all at that time. So that's the intent of the meeting. We found it to be very successful with Plant City to have that joint conversation and wanted to do that again with Temple Terrace. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions, discussion items from the commissioners? Not seeing much excitement. We'll thank you for the information. Thank you. And move on with our agenda. Next up we have other business. Chair's business. I don't have any at this time. Old business. We do have some. The recommendation to establish structured public comment time limits. Yes. So we wanted to continue the discussion on that and see if there were any direction we might want to give staff or anything we might want to get in motion going here. We kind of pushed it from last meeting Commissioner Kona since you weren't here and make sure we get your input on this as we go forward. So hopefully everyone got the email from Mr. Robin on this and was able to look through it. Thank you Tracy for that giving us some obviously guardrails to keep us on the road as you always usually say keep us out of the ditches. So anybody have any thoughts or comments? Commissioner Kona? I know if you might want to lead. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate you bringing this back. I do think that looking at the information that staff sent and Tracy sent that we do have the ability to make changes if we wanted to. I think the board does have that under its purview. What I would kind of like to see and I kind of stress this the last time we had this discussion is that we had a time limit on the amount of public comment per agenda item. So if we give the applicant 15 minutes, we give staff 15 minutes. I think giving public comment on per agenda item 15 to 30 minutes depending on what we have I think is a good time limit and technically if we have a room that's filled with people and the chair chooses to or the board chooses to extend public comment for a particular item that is. But I do think having some sort of structured time limit where this board can actually get to work on determining land use for the people who are paying to be here. So that's just my comment, but I'll open it up to any other feedback that you guys have. All right. Any other thoughts or comments on that? Tracy, is that accurate? I thought from the information you had sent that you had recommended we don't necessarily put a fixed determinant limit on the overall time. You're correct, Mr. Chair, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum. Okay. Yeah. And looking at the memorandum, when I looked at it, I mean, I agree with you, Commissioner Kona, when we were first talking about it, I was like, I'm for that kind of capping it off. But looking at the information Tracy sent us on the state statutes and stuff, it didn't seem like that was necessarily the best way. But going through the other information, the thing I did like that he spoke about was setting a number. So, like, the first ten people get three minutes apiece. The next five people get two minutes apiece. And then after that, everyone gets 90 seconds. So that kind of controls how much time, you know what I mean? And I think he also said we may be able to vote to have people stand up and signify which side they're on. Obviously, we still have to offer people the opportunity to speak, but oftentimes that kind of, once people raise their hand in mass and show themselves, it kind of gives them an opportunity to say that I'm on this side or that, which is what we're trying to get across in all this. So I didn't know if you were, or if there were any thoughts or comments from the commissioners on any of that or the stuff Tracy sent. Yeah, Ms. Ornita. Can I ask a question for clarification? Because I guess I read Tracy's memo a little differently maybe than you did. Were you indicating that the time would get shorter at base? So, like, the first ten people would get three minutes, the next would get two minutes? Or that based on the number of people who have signed up, we would shrink the time for everyone? That's how I read it, so that's why I was curious. No, I actually did the former, which was, I believe, what Orange County has been doing as an example. I thought that was pretty creative on the part of their council, was the example that I put in there. But you can do variations on theme, so to speak. Okay. You could, you know, it was, that example was to get everybody thinking about it. And you can kind of mix and match that and make that work, regardless of the number. Yeah, I think, and I'm sure you jumped in because it's sort of a task for staff to handle when you're trying to figure those things out, keep a track of it. And that's an important part of this also. You know what I mean? It's, staff's going to kind of have to keep an eye on these sorts of things. I mean, obviously I do it here on the roll from the chair, but I mean, they all go through staff and the public comments sign up. So breaking those things up kind of makes a little bit more work for them. So, you know, I'm open to any sort of creativity, like Tracy said also. Any ideas? But I do, again, agree overall, like Commissioner Kona said, we need to do something. Because when we have a room full of people and they're kind of just saying the same thing over and over again, it can go kind of long. And we do have time limits on these meetings. Once it gets to be 10 o'clock, you know, we haven't had it happen before. But at that point in time, basically, I call to you all and see if we want to take a vote to continue the meeting. Or whether we want to push the meeting. So you're talking about pushing our business back and back and back based on how many people we have fill up the room. So I think Commissioner Kona is very salient in saying we have to figure something out here, you know, some happy medium. Commissioner Kona? Well, I appreciate the recommendation. But even if you were, I mean, how do you say, you know, the first 10 get 30 minutes if you're not actually setting a time limit, right? There has to be some sort of time limit when you're dealing with, oh, well, the first 10 get three minutes, the next get two. Like, so until 10 o'clock or until, you know, we decide that we're just tired of hearing it. I think a little bit of structure. I don't think there's anything in the law that says we're not allowed to put a limit on the amount of time. So I think it's in our purview to do that, and if we wanted to extend said time, we can. Now, obviously, this happens probably in three out of ten of our work. But those three potentially affect the rest of the people on the agenda and the rest of the people who are also paying to have their case heard in a timely manner as well. So I would be in favor of at least putting some sort of time structure that could be extended if it needed to be. Okay. Commissioner Lau. At the risk of being a little contrarian here to the first two comments, two things bring to mind. One, I think we need to be careful not managing to the outlier. And so five years on this body, I can think of maybe five or six times where we've been here really, really late. And it's been just candidly an egregious amount of time where we've had a lot of folks come to the podium. Item two in my brain that kind of springs, I would want to over-index towards ensuring that we afford every opportunity to the public to come forward and voice their considerations. So while I don't want to be here at 10 o'clock at night or 9.30 at night on the regular, I would be in favor of some sort of structured approach similar to what I've heard described that's happening in Orange County. But maybe a 15 minute lock, I'm not sure where my brain is on that. It's food for thought. Commissioner Sieben. You know, another potential, not to just throw out problems, but another potential issue is if a certain amount of people get three minutes, a certain amount of people get two minutes, how do we determine who gets how many minutes? That sounds like a logistical nightmare, just from a practicality standpoint. I was hoping to dump that on staff. It's going to make that Ms. Zornita's problem. Well, honestly, I just had a staff member chat me and say, well, what if all the proponents sign up for the first 10 and then the opponents sign up later or vice versa? You know, so it becomes a who signs up first and fastest, like, so it would, I don't know, almost be preferable to have some amount of time set aside for proponents and opponents or something like that, so that you at least know that they each get an equal share of time or I don't know. Yeah, the proponents come first or the opponents come first or whichever and the other side comes secondly so that you can do that. But then how do you sort them out? I agree, I think some of the same problems. Yeah, how do you sort out proponents from opponents, you know? Commissioner Coogler? Maybe a seating area like at weddings. Commissioner Sink? Isn't there an example up here somewhere that if they had over 30, it went down to two minutes? And then that kind of saves that, so you know you're going to save a half hour off if it goes from three minutes to two. If we kind of have a system in place where like, okay, we can control it mathematically on the number of minutes based on the people who sign up, that might be a great way to equalize it too. So maybe the three to two to one and a half or something or even one towards the end, because we're going to hear the same thing over and over and over. So maybe as the number gets higher, the minutes get lower, so we can kind of cap it. Commissioner Royton? That's what I was going to bring up. That's the school district that does that. We can get all of those that want to comment, and they count them out. If there's more than 30, they reduce everybody's time, so they're two minutes instead of three minutes. And they give them an hour and a half for the first 30, but if there's 35, it's going to lessen the time anyway, because then you have two minutes for everyone, not just some people. So it depends, I mean, we don't get 30 people, but maybe we could change ours to after 20, and then we'll reduce it to two minutes or something like that. But that's what the school district does, and it seems to work great for them. Commissioner Linkes? I was just thinking about sort of equity and making sure everyone feels that they're treated equally, and then also simplicity, and I really like this solution as just it's really easy to understand. There's a clear line, every case gets the same treatment, but we are adjusting for the time limit if we do have a lot. So I'm in favor of a cutoff where there's, after a certain number of folks, there's a more limited time. Commissioner Lowe. I'd be interested to hear Commissioner Kona's perspective on how that unfolded in application as a member of the school board. It sounds great, I think I would also be supportive of it, but just to hear kind of how it flows and what it actually looks like in practice. Yeah, I think the school district has a whole hour and 30 minutes that we had dedicated to public comment. Depending on the number of speakers that we had, we made that adjustment based on that. Now this is a little bit different because each agenda item is spoken to individually. The school district is all spoken to at one time during the public comment section. So I do think that it's fair for the public to be able to comment on each agenda item because I think that's really what, they're coming for one agenda item most of the time. So I think hearing them, so I do think setting some sort of parameter would make it useful. I do think people who are here in person should be heard first versus people who are online. I think that people who drive all the way down here to be heard, I think they should have the first priority to do so. But I'm for setting something. I'm totally fine with if we have to extend it on certain occasions. But in most cases, we're dealing with residents who are proponents of something that's on the agenda. And I do think because of the way the amount of land in Hillsborough County is limited, the ones that we do have in the most recent have become a little bit more contentious and are taking a little bit more time. And they're more complex for us to deal with as well. So having us as a team look at these and figuring out what's the best use of this land gives us the potential of not being worn out. And it doesn't serve the purpose of the rest of the folks who are on the agenda. If we get wiped out in the first two hours of a meeting on one agenda item, it doesn't give the other applicants a fair shake in my opinion. So my thoughts. Commissioner Brown? Yeah, I think another thing you're taking consideration, especially when we talk about a complex amendment, because the text amendment is also the map amendment when you get the same people that come up for the same three minutes. So whether you give them a minute or three minutes, it's 30 people. It's going to be 30 or 60 minutes just on one item. So we're talking about you have to think about you're going to multiply that. I like the idea if it's over 30, we curtail, you know, we shorten the time per person. Then that way we, you know, so if it happens to be an hour for the text amendment, then we know it's going to be an hour for the map amendment. So that helps to versus three minutes, 30 people, that's 90 minutes. So we're talking about 180 minutes. You know, that is a way to minimize the, you know, going too long. Commissioner Seaman? Is it against some sort of rule for, in those sort of cases, when there's a text amendment and a map amendment, to just have the first comments apply for the same people who are commenting? I know it's against our bylaws, but I don't know if it's against the state law. Tracy, that would be a question for you. It's generally required to evaluate public hearings on the evidence that's brought to the board for each one of them. So they stand alone separately. So the general rule is, yes, you do them that way. Okay, given that, I think maybe my suggestion would be if there are over 20 comments for the same item, everybody gets two minutes, just throwing something out there to start this. All right. Commissioner Linkes. I just wanted to build on this conversation. I know sometimes like the applicants present the different pieces together. So if there were some way to kind of seek a combined presentation and public comment on a text and a map amendment, I can't think of a single example of when we treated each of those differently. I understand that we'd have to come to a vote on them separately, but if we could potentially link those, I actually think it would provide clarity even to the public in some instances. I feel like many times folks don't know which one they signed up for and what that really means. So if there were some way to explore that, I do recognize it may not be possible. In those relatively isolated circumstances where that's done, it's usually done at the request of the applicant and with the consent of the board. So both sides are agreeing on the same thing. That can be done, yes. It's a little more technical in terms of how we go about it. But yes, that could be accommodated. And the only problem with that is we can accommodate it on the fly. Like when the applicant comes up, I can have the conversation and we can agree to it as a board with the applicant. But then the public has already planned for the two and so you're kind of, yeah, there's always somebody out in the tripart dance. So that's why I tend to not do that because it causes feelings on some parts or somewhere. Commissioner Kugler. Yes. Well, there's two sides, of course, to this. One is we're trying to gather information in the pulse of the community. That's really important for our decision making. But there's also the sense that the public wants to be heard. And I know at City Council in Tampa they do have a little speech that's read prior to the meetings about public comment and the decorum and the rules of it. And maybe convincing or at least urging people to think of the idea that if we are not worn out by so much time spent at it that we can make better decisions for everybody. And also that we'd like to hear generally as much as we can from both sides of the issue. That might ease their discomfort with being limited in time, cut down in time. Tracy, I have a question. To Commissioner Kona's point, the fairness of, you know, staff gives a 15-minute presentation. The applicant gives a 15-minute presentation. The applicant has an extra three minutes for rebuttal, notwithstanding them using some of their leftover 15 minutes in that response time. They have 18 minutes and then the public has, like, three hours to speak. Why is that considered fair to the applicant and to the staff? Like, shouldn't they all have sort of similar time limits? Doesn't the law say anything about that? There's not any specific law that addresses this procedure. Let's start there. I see it both ways, as you do. When you're dealing with somebody's rights to use their land, the notion is, at least in the starting point there, that they should have a fair opportunity and equal time to address their position and the staff's position. Public comment is kind of a whole other arena, if you will, that's layered on top of the process. We don't have what we call quasi-judicial matters in the Planning Commission. We did when I first started in the job, but the Supreme Court made that decision and said, no, plan amendments are legislative. They're not quasi-judicial, like zonings. Zoning hearings are conducted completely different. The testimony is taken from the various people who want to speak and considered by, in the case of the county, for example, the hearing master who stands as a sort of a quasi-judge to make the decision and write a detailed order that gets presented to the Planning Commission explaining the analysis and what was brought before them. There's also the record that's made. But public participation goes back to the whole notion of open government and having the public have the opportunity to comment within reason on anything that comes before the board or the various governmental boards. To Commissioner Kona, I didn't say this in my memo, and I didn't realize the perspective you were coming from when you had made those comments, but I would agree. I certainly agree with what the school board's doing in the context of this coming up in a general, public comment setting where you may have lots of people, but this is land use. And as I tried to explain, I hope I maybe I didn't do as good a job as I had hoped I did. You know, under Florida statutes with this body acting as the local planning agency for its respective local governments, it stands in the position of staff, really, for those local governments. It's not a general comment period, if you will, distinguishing the two. And my biggest concern as I began to dig into that was the fact that the agency should not be in a position where it's inconsistent with the requirements of the particular local government whose hearing it's conducting. Just to help you a little bit understand where I was coming from and that distinction. If we were talking about the comment period at the beginning of the meeting where folks can come in and speak about whatever's on the agenda, or even, I suppose, what's on their mind, then certainly, you know, capping of the time limit can, I would agree, is appropriate. All right, Commissioner, I'm going to go to Commissioner St. Chris, and I'll come to you. You just brought up something about state statute. What impact could 180 be on this, being that if you reduce the amount of time for people to speak, it makes it easier or less burdensome for the applicant, would that then be irreversible for us to change down the road? So if we're like, oops, this didn't work, or because of making it less burdensome, if we change it, would we be able to ever change it back, I guess would be my question. Because it would be less burdensome to the applicant at that point. Well, this is a by-laws change, not a comp plan change. Yeah, but it's still. The by-laws aren't ruled by 190, the comp plan is. So we're, the by-laws are ruled by the state laws that are outside of the comp plan things. Yeah, I don't think Senate Bill 180 would apply because it applies to comprehensive plans and land development regulations. Okay, not the process itself. Right, not the by-laws. Okay, that's what I'm just curious. I'm like, would it impact it? The authority to adopt by-laws is created in the Planning Commission Special Act. And so that's what we look to for what the limitations are on that. And it's basically for administration of the Planning Commission's meetings and business. Commissioner Conner. Yeah, so I think that we are within our legal jurisdiction to provide a time limit, because we are giving people the opportunity to speak on every single agenda item, should they choose to, if they want, right? So that's more than an hour and 30 minutes of time that we're allowing the public. I do think if you were to put a 30 to even, I mean, you can do 60 if you wanted to, but a 30 minute time limit on the amount of public comment we get on any one particular item, and you set it as a rule, I would say probably maybe a handful of times we'd have to extend it based on the amount. I think if you don't have a structure, we're going to continue to have the same amount of certain cases that will keep coming back, and it will be two hours of public comment, and we have a full agenda that day. And I think if you do it for one, you do it for everyone. And I think setting some sort of guidelines for each agenda item with at least 30 minutes of public comment, I don't think that really hurts. And if we have to extend it in certain times, we can, and that would be, you know, an outlier. But I think having something is better than continuing on the same way. It's just my opinion. All right. I have a question for you, Tracy. I read this and you didn't really say no. You said based on the gray area that you didn't recommend it. Commissioner Kona contends that it's not necessarily illegal for us to set a hard time limit. What's the, what's the, what, where does that fall? Is he right? Is it not absolutely legal? Is it illegal? Is it gray area? I mean, do we have, do we have the authority to do it, but it's not necessarily recommended? I mean, what's the, we obviously want to be in, within the law. So I'm trying to understand how is it within the law? Is it in gray area? Is it? It's not been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. There have, there is a case that, that does talk in great length about public participation, but it's not on all fours as we call it, um, with the nature of this public hearing and the process, because you're recommending body as rather than a final, uh, decision making authority. Um, the language of the statute is not very clear, but as I said in the memorandum, I can't reconcile the statutory requirements of 163 and the processes that are used by our local governments to, to tell you that I think it's an appropriate statutory interpretation to say you can do either. Okay. So it is a feasible possibility depending on how far we want to push it. So. That's a fair statement. Commissioner Linkus. I guess, um, my interpretation and that's all it is of the spirit of the law is that everyone who would like to speak should be allowed to speak, but that is reasonable to manage the time limits, um, for all involved to be respected. So I, I would be more in favor of something where everyone gets the two minutes or what have you, if there's a certain cutoff rather than a strict time limit, because if someone were to walk away feeling like they weren't allowed to be heard, I think that could be, that could be frustrating. And I don't think that's the spirit of what public involvement is aiming for. So I, I, I, I'm totally sympathetic to the idea of managing the timeframe so that everyone gets equal opportunities to, um, have their time respected and be part of the process. But I wouldn't want anyone to feel that they couldn't speak. Commissioner Lau. I concur with Commissioner Linkus. I think perhaps the best idea that's been floated out is scaling the amount of time each person gets relative to the number of public comment we're going to get that evening. So if we have 10, 20, 30, there's a scale and it flexes from three minutes to two minutes to a minute and a half versus a hard cap. And I think that solves the problem we're trying to address. I think, too, it might be good to flex it universally as opposed to, you know, that first, second, third group. So if it hits 30, then everybody only gets a minute and just keep it uniform so that way we don't have people arguing and fighting about who got in the queue first and those sorts of things. Yeah, Commissioner Lau. It may be difficult to mine the data for staff, but I would recommend, I would be in favor of staff coming back to us and giving us specific examples where we've had long evenings. Was that a function of 10 public comments, 20 public comments, 30 public comments? 30 is probably not the right number for our board. Maybe it should be less since we are going on a case-by-case basis. But I'd like to maybe base that in data before we… Yeah, I was going to say that, Ms. Ornita. I'd like to know how many past five years, what has the public comment been like? Is it 30 people? When we have those long nights, is it really… I think one night we were at, like, 50-something people or maybe not. But, yeah, knowing those numbers would be helpful. We will do our best to find them. I know in the last couple of years since we've had the electronic sign up, it's a little bit easier. But we will go back and see what we have in terms of the sign-in sheets and count that and bring back next month some data on what might be a good cutoff to start reducing the time. Because thinking about Commissioner Kona's idea of 30 minutes, you could do something like if it's more than 10, you need to reduce it to two minutes and that would be consistent with the 30 minutes. Right. Commissioner Kona? Yeah, I'm totally fine with adjusting the time limits and not setting a limit. But eventually, there's going to be a limit, right? So, I'm totally fine with that and making an adjustment. And that we say that initially, like, for over, you know, 10 public comments on one agenda item, this is what you get, this is what you get, if there's 30 public comments. I think having those guidelines set up initially would be very, very helpful. And as long as everyone knows the rules, then I think we're good. It's when we start, you know, changing those rules that it gets complicated. But I think having that, this board, and obviously, hopefully, we start taking people that are in the room first and then people who are online second, I think that would be helpful as well. I can do that. All right. Were there any other thoughts, comments? You got good marching orders, Ms. Zornita? Yeah. Something to bring us back. Okay. All right. Going once, going twice. Any thoughts, comments on this one? All right. And we'll look forward to this coming back again for more discussion. Ultimately, we're going to have to make a motion and a change to the bylaws on this, right? And that's going to take us two meetings? Yes. Once you all have a solidified idea, we'll put that in a regular agenda item that will be on two agendas. That way, the public has two opportunities to come and speak to it. Okay. Yes. Sounds good. All right. And on to our next agenda item, 5C, new business. Does anybody have any new business? Not seeing any. I'll move on to committee reports. Are there any committee reports? I have a committee report from the TPO. TPO met last week. We had a special meeting and then we're meeting again on Wednesday, so it's a fun month for the TPO. Our last meeting, we discussed the merger, the regional merger. First, we had a presentation from Waymo on autonomous vehicles coming to this area. That was a really good presentation. Might want to look into having Waymo come and talk to this board about that, too, because there were some pretty interesting questions that came out of that. They're not running their open program just yet. They're kind of just mapping out the county and the city, but we got some pretty good information out of them. And then we talked about the regional merger and we discussed a couple of letters have been going back and forth between the counties. There was a letter from Pinellas with some concerns about the voting apportionment, concerns that Hillsborough County had a little bit too much power. And they were floating some ideas on how to reapportion the voting of the merged MPO. A lot of good ideas got kicked back and forth, ultimately. And the disagreement centered on the port and the airport where those seats would come out of, who would pay for them. Some people wanted them to come out of Hillsborough County because they felt that Hillsborough County is where those authorities were and who ruled those authorities, even though they're state authorities. But what we decided to send back to the transportation merger group is basically Hillsborough County, keeping it the way it is, the way we've been discussing it, is that the port and the airport come off the top. We have 25 total, so we decided the port and the airport should come out of that 25 and the 23 remaining should be apportioned based on population of the three counties. Once each county gets their population based apportionment, they decide how they wanted to lay it out in the different departments and entities within the counties. So we went back to that, but Pinellas said that one thing that they would hope that we could do that would make them more amenable to the whole merger idea is that if Hillsborough County gave up one of its seats after apportionment to Pasco County, because Pasco County is the low man on the totem pole, that they would be more agreeable to doing the merger and going forward the merger. So the Hillsborough County Board of Commissioners, most of the county commissioners who were there were pretty much in agreement with that. The mayors were also in agreement with that, that it was a good show of faith on the part of Hillsborough to say, here, Pasco, you take one. We talked about population growth. Pasco has grown really fast, and they're probably, when we do the reapportionment again in a couple years, they're probably going to earn that extra vote anyway. So there was some back and forth on some other things, but ultimately that's what we decided upon, is to keep the two off the top, split it by population, and then Hillsborough County would give up one to Pasco County. So the discussion goes on. No final decisions have been made. This was just direction to TPO staff on how to go into the negotiations and talk about it. So we're still a long ways from approving anything final, but that was the update for the special meeting of the TPO. Any other committee reports out there? Not seeing any at this time. Then we are done here. We're behind our count for our next meeting. Our workshop meeting was supposed to start at 3. So I'm going to have to take a five-minute intermission here for people to leave the room and get out, and for HTV to switch over to our workshop feed. So we will be back at 3.20 for our workshop, and at 3.16 p.m. this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very briefly. 毒 requested to visit and if 괜찮able in the Mescanimo Falls nuri running the room. Go to the person.