CAPTIONING
JULY 12, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS


***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the 
***following meeting.  It should be used for informational 
***purposes only.  This document has not been edited; 
***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words 
***that did not translate.
	
	
	
[SOUNDING GAVEL]
>>BRUCE CURY: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE FIND SEATS.
THANK YOU.
LET ME CALL TO ORDER THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY-COUNTY 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY THE 12th, 2010.
AT THE REAR OF THE ROOM, WE HAVE A SIGN-UP ROSTER.
PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS THERE.
YOU HAVE DEVICES THAT MAY BE AN ANNOYANCE DURING THE 
MEETING, I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TURN THEM OFF.
WHEN YOU COME TO THE LECTERN TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY OR OTHER 
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION, PLEASE STATE YOUR 
NAME AND ADDRESS BEFORE YOU BEGIN.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME, THEN LET 
ME SAY TO YOU PLEASE FEEL COMFORTABLE.
YOU'LL BE TREATED WITH RESPECT, AND IN EXCHANGE, WE HOPE 
AND EXPECT THAT YOU'LL TREAT OTHERS IN THE SAME WAY.
FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH OUR PROCESS, 
LET ME OUTLINE IT FOR YOU.
FIRST, YOU'LL HEAR THE PARTICULAR AMENDMENT CALLED.
THEN THERE WILL BE A 15-MINUTE PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF 
THE STAFF, THEN 15 MINUTES WILL BE GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT, 
THEN THREE MINUTES WILL BE GIVEN TO EACH PERSON THAT CARES 
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION OR AMENDMENT, THEN 
THOSE PEOPLE THAT WOULD SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, THEY WILL BE 
GIVEN THREE MINUTES, AND THEN IF THERE'S OPPOSITION, THEN 
THERE WILL BE THREE MINUTES GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT FOR 
REBUTTAL.
THEN WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMISSION.
PUBLIC COMMENT WILL THEN BE CLOSED, AND THEN, UPON A MOTION 
AND A SECOND AND DISCUSSION, THE MATTER THAT YOU BRING TO 
US FOR DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE.
HAVING SAID THOSE THINGS, LET ME ASK COMMISSIONER DOUGHTY 
TO LEAD US IN OUR PRAYER AND PLEDGE.
>>DEREK DOUGHTY: LET US PRAY.
FATHER, WE JUST THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITIES OF THE DAY, 
AND WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE OF SERVICE TO 
THIS COMMUNITY AND TO OUR FELLOW CITIZENS.
WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD BE WITH THIS COMMISSION THIS EVENING 
IN ITS DELIBERATIONS OF THE MATTERS BEFORE IT, THAT WE GIVE 
DUE COURSE TO EVERYBODY THAT COMES BEFORE US.
AND FATHER, WE JUST, AGAIN, ASK THAT YOU BE WITH OUR 
PEACEKEEPERS AROUND THE WORLD, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE, 
THAT YOU WATCH OVER THEM, THAT YOU CARE FOR THEM AND 
PROVIDE FOR THEM AND BRING THEM HOME SAFELY TO US.
IT'S IN JESUS' NAME WE ASK IT.
AMEN.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
>>PEDRO PARRA: MADAM CLERK, MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL?
[ROLL CALL TAKEN] 
	>>THE CLERK:  WE HAVE A QUORUM.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.
I SEE ON THE AGENDA THERE'S APPROVAL OF MINUTES, BUT I 
DON'T THINK WE HAVE MINUTES.
MOVING, THEN, TO ITEM NUMBER 2, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 10-14, TEXT AMENDMENT, 
INTERSTATE-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: GOOD EVENING, CHAIR CURY AND MEMBERS OF 
THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS HEATHER LAMBOY WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION 
STAFF.
I AM HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU BOTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 
AMENDMENT 10-14 AS WELL AS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10-
15.
IF IT PLEASES THE CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN UP THE 
HEARING FOR BOTH AMENDMENTS AT THE SAME TIME.
>>BRUCE CURY: LOOKING AROUND AT THE MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMISSION, I SEE THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
PROCEED THAT WAY.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FIRST CONSIDERED THE I-4 GREEN TECH 
CORRIDOR PLAN AMENDMENTS ON MARCH 22nd, 2010, AND AT THAT 
TIME, FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT, MADE A RECOMMENDATION -- A 
POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS.
AND THEN ON APRIL 5th MADE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MAP "B" 
OF THE MAP AMENDMENT, WHICH IS NOW CALLED THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MAP, WHICH WAS FOR THE NARROW 
CORRIDOR OF THE TWO CORRIDORS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THAT 
TIME.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD A HEARING ON MAY 
6th, 2010, AND AT THAT HEARING, THEY DECIDED TO CONTINUE 
THE CASE TO THIS CYCLE.
THEY CITED CONCERNS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION, THE PROPOSED 
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND A DESIRE FOR MORE INPUT FROM THE 
VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING STAFF AS WELL AS THE FOLKS 
FROM THE CORE STUDY TEAM AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, BOTH THE 
BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THE CITIZENS ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
SO AS A RESULT --
>>BRUCE CURY: IF I MAY, PLEASE, THE ISSUES THAT WERE 
REFERRED TO US FOR DECISION WERE TRANSPORTATION AND --
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE THREE OVERARCHING ISSUES -- FIRST, 
THE LARGEST ISSUE WAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA.
THERE WAS NOT MUCH PROTEST TO THE PROPOSED AREAS WITHIN THE 
URBAN SERVICE AREA.
SO THEY WANTED STAFF TO STUDY THE ISSUE FURTHER IN THE 
GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA AND ALSO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT 
THE TRANSPORTATION CONCERNS ALONG THE CORRIDOR.
>>BRUCE CURY: WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES AD 20 OR 30?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: ONE IS TRANSPORTATION; 80, 20, OR 30 -- I AM 
TRYING TO SYNOPSIZE THIS SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS RELEVANT.
TRANSPORTATION, 80/30 --
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE 80, 20, 30 THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO 
ARE ACREAGE OR SITE SIZES IN THE GREEN TECH STUDY AREA, AND 
THE TRANSPORTATION CONCERN WAS RELATIVE TO HAVING A 
TRANSPORTATION PLAN ALONG THE CORRIDOR TO HELP MITIGATE 
IMPACTS ON EXISTING ROADWAYS THAT HAVE BEEN STATED AS BEING 
OVERCONGESTED AS IT IS NOW.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
PLEASE PROCEED.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THANK YOU.
SO STAFF EMBARKED ON A SERIES OF MEETINGS, AND WE MET WITH 
THE CORE STUDY TEAM TWICE, BOTH ON MAY 27th AND AFTER THE 
BOCC WORKSHOP ON JUNE 17th.
WE HAD THE WORKSHOP WITH THE BOCC, OF WHICH YOU HAVE THE 
CAPTIONING IN YOUR PACKET THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW.
THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION AT THAT WORKSHOP ABOUT 
THE MINIMUM SITE SIZE, AND WHAT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY 
THE BOARD -- BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND MAYBE NOT BY 
OTHERS -- AND THAT WAS SOMEWHAT INCONCLUSIVE IN TERMS OF 
THE OVERALL CONSENSUS AMONG THE BOARD.
SOME MEMBERS PREFERRED THAT WE TOOK A CLOSER LOOK AT THE 
RATIONALE FOR A LARGER SITE, AND THEN OTHER MEMBERS JUST 
WANTED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE SITE IN THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA.
WE HAD AN OPEN HOUSE AT BURNETT MIDDLE SCHOOL ON JUNE 29th, 
AT WHICH WE SPOKE WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT SOME OF THE 
MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE BEING PROPOSED TO THE PLAN 
AMENDMENT, AND YOU HAVE WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 
AND FROM THAT OPEN HOUSE AS WELL AS THE FLIP CHART MEETING 
NOTES THAT WE -- WE COLLECTED AS WE HAD OUR GUIDED 
CONVERSATION.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAVE THIS HEARING TODAY AND THEN 
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR 
JULY 22nd.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS PART OF A LARGER PROJECT, OF WHICH THE 
PLANNING COMMISSION IS AN APPLICANT.
WE ARE FACILITATING PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR NOT ONLY 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BUT THE CITY OF TAMPA AS WELL AS THE 
CITY OF PLANT CITY.
THE CITY OF PLANT CITY HAS TRANSMITTED ITS I-4 GREEN TECH 
PLAN AMENDMENT TO DCA ALREADY.
THAT WAS ON JUNE 14th THAT THEY APPROVED THE TRANSMITTAL.
THE CITY OF TAMPA IS SCHEDULED TO VOTE ON IT ON JULY 22nd 
AS WELL, AND AS I'VE JUST REVIEWED THE -- THE LAND USE 
OVERLAY FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND THAT SCHEDULED.
I'D JUST LIKE TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BACKGROUND SO THAT YOU 
CAN REMEMBER WHY WE ARE DOING THIS.
TO BEGIN WITH, WE'VE HAD A SERIES OF OPPORTUNITIES TO 
REVIEW OUR ECONOMY AND TO DETERMINE WHAT DIRECTION WE WANT 
TO GO IN.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IS TRYING TO ENHANCE THE LOCAL ECONOMY 
AND CREATE JOB OPPORTUNITIES.
THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS TASK FORCE MADE A SERIES OF 
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ONE WAS TO HAVE A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY 
THAT WAS DIVERSE WITH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT DEPLOYED 
A MULTIJURISDICTIONAL APPROACH, AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO 
DEVELOP STRATEGICAL ALLIANCES.
THESE PLAN AMENDMENTS DO JUST THAT.
ALSO, IF YOU'LL RECALL, THE ONE BAY EFFORT TOOK A LOOK AT 
THE CURRENT TREND WHICH IS IDENTIFIED ON THE LEFT FOR 
DEVELOPMENT AND AN ALTERNATIVE, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED 
THROUGH THE VISIONING PROCESS.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN 
THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY OVER 10,000 PEOPLE IN THE ENTIRE 
PROCESS WAS TO HAVE CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO 
PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, OPEN SPACES, AND 
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY AS WELL.
TAKING IT TO A LARGER AREA, THE SUPER REGION CONFERENCE 
THAT JUST RECENTLY OCCURRED IN ORLANDO, WHICH COVERS THE 
ENTIRE I-4 CORRIDOR, THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL 
OF DESIGN DID A CHARRETTE WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AS WELL 
AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS FROM ALL ALONG THE 
CORRIDOR.
AND THE INTERRELATED ISSUES ARE THAT WE HAVE 
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND TOPOGRAPHIC ISSUES; 
INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS THAT EITHER NEED IMPROVEMENTS OR 
NEED ENHANCING.
THERE ARE ECONOMIC LINKAGES BETWEEN OUR COMMUNITIES.
THERE ARE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LAND USE ISSUES THAT WE 
ALL SHARE IN COMMON.
AND THERE'S A SHARED CULTURE AND HISTORY ALONG THE I-4 
CORRIDOR.
THERE ARE 38 ECONOMIC CENTERS, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY 
TEND TO PREDOMINATE AROUND THE URBAN CENTERS, BUT THEY ARE 
LOCATED ALL ALONG THE CORRIDOR AS WELL.
AND THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS HAVE A LARGE IMPACT 
ON HOW THOSE ECONOMIC CENTERS FUNCTION.
SO THE GROUP CAME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO, WHICH 
THE EMPHASIS IS GROWING UP, NOT GROWING OUT.
ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THIS IS A LONG-TERM PLAN 
REPRESENTING A PLAN THAT GOES TO THE YEAR 2050 OR 2060, NOT 
TO 2025.
SO IT WILL TAKE QUITE SOME WHILE FOR THIS GROWTH TO OCCUR.
WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED, THOUGH, IT BE DISCOVERED THERE 
CAN BE 44% LESS LAND CONSUMED, 1 MILLION ACRES CONSERVED, 
AND BILLION DOLLARS OF DOLLARS IN SAVED NEW ROAD COST FOR 
THE SUPER REGION THROUGH THE UTILIZATION OF MULTIMODAL 
TECHNIQUES, TRANSIT -- CORRIDORS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH 
TRANSIT, AND THE LIKE.
WE ALSO HAD AN 18-MONTH I-4 ECONOMIC CORRIDOR STUDY TO 
FOCUS ON HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND ITS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, 
AND THAT INVOLVED STAFF FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, THE CITY 
OF TAMPA, THE CITY OF PLANT CITY, AS WELL AS THE CITY OF 
TEMPLE TERRACE.
THIS IS THE MAP THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION THE LAST CYCLE, AND NOT MUCH DISCUSSION HAS 
BEEN -- THERE'S NOT BEEN REALLY MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION MAP.
AND SO STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGE TO THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.
THE LAND USE OVERLAY IS -- FUNCTIONS SO THAT THE EXISTING 
LAND USE OVERLAY REMAINS -- OR CATEGORIES REMAINS, AND THE 
OVERLAY CAN BE ONLY APPLIED WHEN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ARE 
MET.
IT PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION FOR PROPERTY 
OWNERS AND DOES NOT TAKE AWAY ANY EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS.
THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:  IN THE URBAN 
SERVICE AREA, THE MINIMUM SIZE IS 5 ACRES; IN PLANT CITY, 
THE MINIMUM SIZE IS 5 ACRES; IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, WHICH 
HAS DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES IN TERMS OF THE LAND USE 
DEVELOPMENT, THE MINIMUM SIZE IS 1 ACRE; IN THE JOINT 
PLANNING AREAS, THOSE AREAS WITHIN UNINCORPORATED 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY THAT ARE PLANNED COLLABORATIVELY, 
EITHER WITH THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE OR THE CITY OF PLANT 
CITY, THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE SITE IS 20 ACRES; AND IN THE 
GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, THE MINIMUM SIZE OF A SITE AS 
PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF IS 80 ACRES.
AND FOR THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, A DEVELOPMENT 
AGREEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ILLUSTRATE HOW COSTS 
REGARDING DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COVERED.
JUST TO REMIND YOU, THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT ARE 
LAID OUT IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND THEY ARE LAID OUT IN 
DIFFERENT AREAS JUST LIKE THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE SITE.
FIRST OF ALL, THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT EMPLOYMENT 
CENTER, WHICH IS PRIMARILY URBAN AND WOULD BE IN THE CITY 
OF TAMPA.
ALSO, THE CORPORATE VILLAGE, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY TIED 
TO TRANSIT BUT WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE HIGHER INTENSITY 
MIXED-USE TYPE OF CORPORATE CENTER.
THE CORPORATE CAMPUS OR BUSINESS PARK, WHICH IS MORE 
SUBURBAN IN CHARACTER, WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA ON A LIMITED BASIS.
THE INDUSTRIAL PARK WOULD BE PERMITTED IN ALL OF THE AREAS, 
INCLUDING THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA.
FINALLY, THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, 
WHICH WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA 
ONLY.

	SO THE HOT ISSUE REALLY HAS BEEN THIS GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA.
IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE ALONG 
THE CORRIDOR TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT POTENTIALLY THERE 
COULD BE DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR REGION.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WE 
HAVE COMMUNITY PLANS THAT ARE EITHER IN THE PROCESS OF 
BEING ADOPTED OR HAVE BEEN ADOPTED ALONG THE I-4 CORRIDOR.
THEY INCLUDE THE EAST LAKE-ORIENT PARK COMMUNITY PLAN; THE 
SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN, WHICH YOU WILL HEAR TONIGHT; AND 
THEN BRANDON IS JUST A LITTLE BIT TO THE SOUTH, BUT YOU 
WILL ALSO HEAR ABOUT THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN.
AS WE HAVE PROPOSED THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, THE 
MINIMUM SIZE OF THE SITE IS 80 ACRES.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES MUST BE EMPLOYED, AND 
THERE MUST BE AN ILLUSTRATION OF ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION, 
INFRASTRUCTURE, AS WELL AS WATER AND SEWER.
STATE LAW DOES PROVIDE FOR SOME LIMITED DEVELOPMENT IN THE 
RURAL AREA ASSOCIATED WITH JOB CREATION.
FOR RURAL AREAS, THE AMOUNT OF LAND DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE 
PLAN INDUSTRIAL USE SHALL BE BASED ON SURVEYS AND STUDYING 
THAT REFLECT THE NEED FOR JOB PLACEMENT, AND THE NECESSITY 
TO STRENGTHEN AND DIVERSIFY THE LOCAL ECONOMY AND SHALL NOT 
BE LIMITED SOLELY ON THE PROJECTED POPULATION OF THE 
COMMUNITY.
SO WE DO HAVE THE RATIONALE FOR THIS BY THE STUDY THAT WAS 
PRODUCED, THE I-4 -- IT WAS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STUDY 
AS WELL AS THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS TASK FORCE STUDY, WHICH 
IDENTIFIED THE NEED FOR IMPROVING THE JOB AVAILABILITY IN 
OUR REGION.
FURTHERMORE, WHY DO WE NEED AN 80-ACRE SITE IN THE GREEN 
TECH EXPANSION AREA?
OBJECTIVE NUMBER 1 IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSES 
GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
AND ALTHOUGH IT'S REFERRING TO POPULATION, IT DISCUSSES HOW 
80% OF THE POPULATION IS EXPECTED TO BE IN THE URBAN 
SERVICE AREA; WHEREAS, 20% OF THE POPULATION IS EXPECTED TO 
BE IN THE RURAL AREA, AND ALLOWS FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A 
CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE IN THE PLAN.
WELL, THAT CAN ALSO BE APPLIED ROUGHLY ON A JOB BASIS AS 
WELL.
LIMITED EMPLOYMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE RURAL AREA.
BUT WITH MANY MORE STRINGENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 
ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
ALSO, ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER ARE THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT 
COSTS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED.
ABOUT A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS WAS THE ESTIMATE IN THE I-4 
ECONOMIC CORRIDOR STUDY, AND THAT DOES NOT EVEN CONSIDER 
SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE.
THE MPO HAS HELPED US IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS, 
AND THE EXISTING ROADWAYS NEED ADDITIONAL RELIEF, SO THERE 
WILL HAVE TO BE SOME SORT OF ADJUSTMENT MADE RELATIVE TO 
THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
FURTHERMORE, IF UTILITIES ARE EXTENDED, THE LINES MUST BE 
MAINTAINED, SO EVEN IF THE DEVELOPER PAYS FOR THE UTILITY, 
THE LINE IS GOING TO BE DEEDED OVER TO THE COUNTY, AND THEN 
THE COUNTY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR THOSE LINES.
AND WHAT WAS TOLD TO ME BY UTILITIES ENGINEER WAS THAT IF 
YOU HAVE ONE USER THAT IS ON A LINE THAT IS APPROXIMATELY A 
THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY OR EVEN 
MORE, THEN THAT LINE HAS TO BE FLUSHED ON A REGULAR BASIS 
BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CONSUMPTION.
AND SO THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF WATER ARE 
WASTED, AND TYPICALLY THE UTILITIES WOULD NOT THEN GRANT 
THAT EXTENSION LIKE THEY DID WITH THE SCHOOL -- AT 
STRAWBERRY CREST HIGH SCHOOL, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED THERE.
THEY ARE STILL ON A WELL FOR THAT REASON, BECAUSE IT'S NOT 
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.
SO WE SHOULDN'T TAKE AN APPLICANT DOWN THE WRONG PATH WHEN 
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COUNTY.
IN ADDITION, WITH 80 ACRES, YOU CAN MITIGATE IMPACTS.
THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT BUFFERING, CLUSTERING OF 
NONRESIDENTIAL USES AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES.
THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMING, 
THEREFORE ENHANCING THE AESTHETIC QUALITIES OF THE AREA, 
AND IT AVOIDS A FRAGMENTED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
THERE ARE SOME PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS THAT ARE 
MADE ACCOMMODATION FOR IN THE POLICY LANGUAGE, SO IF THE 
COUNTY FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH AND IT HAD THE ECONOMIC 
RESOURCES BY WHICH TO ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH A 
PRIVATE DEVELOPER, THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE 
COUNTY TO DO THAT.
THE I-4 CORRIDOR STUDY IDENTIFIES THE CORRIDOR FOR 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY -- ABOUT 40% OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S 
GROWTH.
60% OF THE GROWTH STILL WILL OCCUR ELSEWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE 
CORRIDOR.
AND THEN OF THAT 40% -- NOW, THAT INCLUDES THE CORRIDOR 
FROM I-275 TO COUNTY LINE ROAD.
OF THAT 40%, THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA WILL INCORPORATE 
ABOUT 5% OF THE OVERALL GROWTH.
THE EMPHASIS TRULY IS IN THE URBAN AREAS OF THE COUNTY.
I'M ALMOST DONE.
THE SECOND ISSUE, THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY, IS WE HAVE 
DEVELOPED A POLICY TO DEAL WITH THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE 
BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE TO 
DEVELOP A TRANSPORTATION PLAN JUST IN A MATTER OF LESS THAN 
EIGHT WEEKS FROM WHEN THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY CONTINUED 
FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO TODAY.
SO THIS WOULD BE AN IMPLEMENTATION STEP IN WHICH 
TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD BE DEVELOPED FOR THE I-4 
CORRIDOR.
IT WOULD HAVE A FOCUS ON MULTIMODAL DEVELOPMENT, WHEREVER 
THAT CAN OCCUR, IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND WOULD 
PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, MEASURING 
IMPACTS, AND IDENTIFYING THE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES.
SO IF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WERE TO OCCUR, THEN THOSE 
PRIORITIES WOULD BE SPELLED OUT IN THAT DEVELOPMENT 
AGREEMENT.

	THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION HAD SEVERAL 
COMMENTS IN THIS DRAFT AND ACTUALLY INCORPORATED SOME 
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN 
IMPROVEMENTS, AND SO THAT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THESE 
POLICIES AND IS ILLUSTRATED IN THE RED TEXT.
AND IT IS TIED ESPECIALLY TO DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENTS IN 
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
LAST TIME THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 
WASN'T SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT AS A TOOL THAT COULD BE 
USED, AND SO THEREFORE, THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TEXT 
OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TIMING AND PAYMENT OF 
INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S A COMMON PRACTICE THAT'S ALREADY IN USE IN THE 
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.
OTHER CHANGES INCLUDE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE 
ACCIDENTALLY PUT GOAL INSTEAD OF OBJECTIVE, AND SO THAT WAS 
CHANGED.
WE REMOVED A REFERENCE TO THE PORT BECAUSE THE CITY OF 
TAMPA DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE THE I-4 PORT PLAN AMENDMENT AT 
THIS TIME.
THEY JUST DECIDED TO PURSUE THE --
>>BRUCE CURY: MS. LAMBOY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S 
RELEVANT TO THE TWO ISSUES BEFORE US?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I AM ALMOST DONE, SIR.
I HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE.
I'M JUST GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE RED MARKINGS IN THE 
POLICY LANGUAGE.
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH.
WE HAVE A TIME FRAME WHICH MUST BE PARCELED OUT EQUALLY TO 
EVERYBODY.
PLEASE BRING IT TO A CLOSE.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: OKAY.
I WILL.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THEN A REFERENCE TO THE FLORIDA GREEN 
BUILDING CODE BECAUSE THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE INSTEAD OF 
THE LEED STANDARD.
ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THERE HAD 
BEEN A REQUEST TO THE 80 ACRES FOR AN EXCEPTION PROCESS BY 
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
AT THE LAST WORKSHOP, I DID NOT GET MUCH FEEDBACK ON THREE 
DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES THAT THE CORE STUDY TEAM DEVELOPED.
THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY WANTED A LOWER SITE SIZE THAN 
ANYTHING ELSE.
EXCEPTION PROCESSES DON'T TYPICALLY WORK VERY WELL, AND 
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DCA 
WILL NOT HAVE -- NOT VIEW FAVORABLY A MUCH LOWER SITE SIZE 
THAN THE SIZE THAT IS INDICATED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 
STAFF.
SO THE PLAN AMENDMENT ADDRESSES LAND USE AND EMPLOYMENT 
OPPORTUNITIES ALONG THE CORRIDOR AND PROVIDES FOR 
PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT.
THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THANK YOU, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: WHO WILL SPEAK IN FAVOR?
>> COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE I-4 CORRIDOR 
PLAN, BUT NOT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 
CHANGES.
WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE FACT THAT STAFF HAS MADE 
SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT --
>>BRUCE CURY: MAY I PLEASE KNOW YOUR NAME?
>>PETER ALUOTTO: I'M SORRY.
PETER ALUOTTO, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, SIR.
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  THOSE THREE AREAS ARE, OF COURSE, THE 80-
ACRE MINIMUM, THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY, AND THE FULL COST 
RECOVERY FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.
MR. REGISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILL ADDRESS THE 80-
ACRE ISSUE.
I WILL TALK ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUE.
AND MS. HARVEY, WHO IS PASSING OUT OUR RECOMMENDED 
LANGUAGE, WILL ADDRESS THE EMERGENCY SERVICES PROVISION.
>>BRUCE REGISTER:  GOOD EVENING.
BRUCE REGISTER WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE A FEW COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE 
SUGGESTION THAT WE REDUCE THE 80-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR 
ELIGIBILITY FOR THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA TO 30 ACRES.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT ONE OF THE GOALS --
>>BRUCE CURY: MR. REGISTER, THAT WOULD BE AN INCONSISTENT 
POSITION WITH THE STAFF.
>>BRUCE REGISTER:  WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CONTINUE OR WOULD 
YOU LIKE ME TO --
>>BRUCE CURY: NO, SIR.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WAIT UNTIL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SPEAK.
>>BRUCE REGISTER:  I AM SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM.
>>BRUCE CURY: I HEAR WHAT'S COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, BUT 
THAT IS -- I HEAR YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE SPEAKING CONSISTENT, 
BUT IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE STAFF'S POSITION.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TO GATHER THOSE PEOPLE FIRST THAT 
HAVE A CONSISTENT POSITION AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE AN 
INCONSISTENT POSITION.
STAFF'S POSITION IS 80 ACRES.
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  SO YOU'D LIKE US TO BE IN OPPOSITION?
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE OPPOSITION.
I DON'T WANT YOU PRO OR CON.
THAT IS YOUR CHOICE.
HOWEVER, I'D LIKE TO -- I DON'T WANT A MOTLEY PRESENTATION.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE THOSE THAT WOULD SPEAK IN FAVOR SPEAK 
FIRST, THOSE THAT SPEAK IN OPPOSITION SPEAK SECOND.
THAT IS OUR NORMAL PATTERN OF PRACTICE.
>> SO IT'S ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
OKAY.
WE'LL COME BACK LATER.
MS. FLOTT, COME UP.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR -- NO, NO.
STOP.
STOP.
IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR, THEN LET US HAVE 
SOME ORDER.
OKAY?
PLEASE BE SEATED.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
ARE THERE THOSE THAT WOULD SPEAK IN FAVOR OF A POSITION 
TAKEN IN THE AMENDMENT OR APPLICATION?
>> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS CAMI CORBETT FOR THE RECORD.
100 NORTH TAMPA STREET, SUITE 2700, TAMPA, FLORIDA.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, MOREY CARTER AND 
ASSOCIATES.
THEY OWN A 94-ACRE PARCEL OF PROPERTY BETWEEN THE -- IN THE 
GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA JUST WEST OF McINTOSH.
I AM HERE TO FULLY SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S 
AMENDMENT THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY STAFF CLARIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE 
AMENDMENT THAT THIS BOARD FOUND CONSISTENT LAST CYCLE.
THE OPPOSITION TO THIS -- TO THE AMENDMENT REMAINS THE 
SAME.
NO DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, NOT NOW, 
NOT EVER, NOT IN 50 YEARS, NOT IN 80 YEARS.
EXCEPT THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS ARE IN PLACE THAT WILL 
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT, AND NOT ONLY WILL IT ALLOW DEVELOPMENT, 
IT WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN WHAT IS NORMALLY CONSIDERED TO 
BE A SPRAWL PATTERN, ONE UNIT TO THE ACRE WITHOUT URBAN 
SERVICES, NO WATER, NO SEWER.
THIS PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE FOR AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER TO BE 
LOCATED WITHIN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA WITH VERY 
LIMITED CONTROLS.
MY CLIENT IS IN FULL AGREEMENT AND IN FULL SUPPORT BECAUSE 
THEY ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF AN OVERALL PLAN AND A VISION 
FOR THE CORRIDOR.
AND I WANT TO THANK STAFF, ALL OF STAFF, PLANNING 
COMMISSION STAFF, PGM STAFF, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF.
THEY HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD OVER THE LAST TWO, TWO AND A 
HALF YEARS TO BRING THIS TO YOU.
THIS IS NOT A FLY-BY-NIGHT AMENDMENT.
THIS WAS NOT DREAMED UP WITHOUT THOUGHT.
THIS HAS BEEN GIVEN A LOT OF THOUGHT, A LOT OF STUDY, AND I 
URGE YOU TO FIND IT CONSISTENT.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
WHO ELSE DESIRES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR?
>> GOOD EVENING.
KRISTEN TOLBERT, BRICKLEMYER SMOLKER & BOLVES, 500 EAST 
KENNEDY BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA.
I WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS AS WELL.
I ALSO HAVE A CLIENT THAT HAS PROPERTY IN THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA, AND WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE, AND IN THE 
FUTURE, THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE PART OF THAT AREA IN THE 
I-4 CORRIDOR, SO WE WOULD JUST STATE OUR SUPPORT OF THE 
GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. CORBETT.
ARE THERE OTHERS THAT WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR 
OF THE POSITION?
ARE THERE THOSE THAT WANT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE COME UP.
>>BRUCE REGISTER:  AGAIN, MY NAME IS BRUCE REGISTER.
I'M WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO SUGGEST A REDUCTION OF 
THE 80-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA TO 30 ACRES, WHICH, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER 
MINOR MODIFICATIONS, WE WOULD FIND THIS PLAN TO BE AN 
EFFECTIVE TOOL TO HELP US ACHIEVE SOME GOALS, NOT ONLY FOR 
THE COMMUNITY PLANNING INITIATIVE, BUT ALSO FOR OUR 
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUTURE.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT A PLAN THAT THE GOAL WAS 
INTENDED TO PROVIDE A PLAN THAT WOULD GIVE US SOME 
EFFECTIVE METHOD TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY AND MANAGE DEVELOPMENT IN AN 
ORDERLY AND DESIRABLE FASHION ALONG A HIGH-VALUE ASSET 
ALONG OUR COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S THE I-4 CORRIDOR BETWEEN 
PLANT CITY AND TAMPA.
THERE ARE THREE FUNDAMENTAL SAFEGUARDS INHERENT TO THIS 
PLAN THAT WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CONFIDENCE THAT A 30-ACRE 
THRESHOLD FOR PARTICIPATION WILL ENSURE THE QUALITY OF 
DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL ENHANCE, NOT DEGRADE THIS COMMUNITY.
THE FIRST, THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WILL RESTRICT THE TYPES 
OF USES TO MORE COMPATIBLE USES THAN THE EXISTING ALLOWED 
USES, SUCH AS MSU-6 AND RESIDENTIAL, AND HAVE THE EFFECT OF 
ENCOURAGING TRUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN JUST 
SPORADIC DEVELOPMENT.
SECONDLY, THERE ARE RIGOROUS STANDARDS IN POLICY 50.7 THAT 
WILL LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL TO 20% OF 
THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PROJECTS, AND THE CONFIGURATION FOR 
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO CLUSTER AND NODAL 
TYPES THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL, AND THE 
STRIP-TYPE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PROHIBITED.
THIRDLY, THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCEPTABLE RETURN ON 
INVESTMENT WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE WILL DEMAND A 
COMPARABLY HIGH VALUE -- EXCUSE ME -- HIGH-QUALITY 
DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL CORRESPOND WITH A HIGH RETURN ON THE 
DEVELOPMENT YIELD FOR THE PROJECT TO BE DEEMED FEASIBLE IN 
THE PRIVATE MARKET.
FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DISADVANTAGES 
OF KEEPING THE 80 ACRES IN PLACE.
YOU WILL FIRST HAVE A WHOLE HOST OF UNINTENDED 
CONSEQUENCES.
PRIMARILY, YOU WILL RESTRICT PARTICIPATION.
YOU WILL LIMIT -- YOU WILL DIVIDE THAT COMMUNITY IN TWO 
FASHIONS, ONE THAT WILL RELY ON THE OLD STANDARDS WITH LESS 
DESIRABLE OPTIONS, AND THE OTHER WILL HAVE THE MORE 
DESIRABLE OPTIONS THAT WE ALL FIND ARE COMMON IN OUR GOALS.
SECONDLY, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT IT'S DIFFICULT TO 
ASSEMBLE LAND.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT THERE ARE A LACK OF ELIGIBLE 
PARCELS THAT WILL RENDER THE PLAN UNREALISTIC IF THE 80 
ACRES IS TO BE REMAINED.
IF EXCEPTIONS ARE COINCIDING WITH REZONINGS, THAT WILL MAKE 
COMMITTING TO THE CRITERIA ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE END 
USERS IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FIELD, THEY'RE VERY RARE 
AT A REZONING.
PRIMARILY, END USERS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN IMPROPERLY ZONED 
PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE ZONING IN PLACE.
PERMIT READY IS AN IMPORTANT BYLINE IN ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU DEPEND ON AN EXCEPTION AT THE REZONING TO SUCCEED IN 
YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO 
MISS THE BOAT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. REGISTER.
>>PETER ALUOTTO:  PETER ALUOTTO, PLANNING AND GROWTH 
MANAGEMENT.
I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION.
YOU ARE ABOUT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF 
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON A CORRIDOR PLAN, AND IN THIS PLAN, 
THERE ARE ONLY THREE TRANSPORTATION POLICIES -- ACTUALLY, 
TWO IF YOU'LL ELIMINATE THE ONE OF CONCURRENCY BECAUSE WE 
ALREADY HAVE CONCURRENCY.
SO I'D LIKE YOU TO IMAGINE IF YOU WERE A BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONER AND HOW YOU WOULD INTERPRET POLICY 50.9, WHICH 
TALKS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION.
THE WAY I READ IT, IT SAYS THREE THINGS.
IT SAYS THERE OUGHT TO BE A TRANSPORTATION PLAN IN THIS 
DOCUMENT, AND IT'S NOT HERE.
IT SAYS ONE COULD BE DONE IN 18 MONTHS.
THEN IT ALSO SAYS, COUNTY, DO IT YOURSELF.
WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 
CAN'T BE DONE IN EIGHT WEEKS, BUT THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE.
THE STUDY THAT MS. LAMBOY POINTED TO THAT WE DID THAT 
INITIALLY KICKED THIS MEETING OFF HAD A TRANSPORTATION 
PARAGRAPH IN IT.
HAVE MET WITH STAFF ABOUT TRANSPORTATION.
IT'S NOT A NEW ITEM.
BUT I'M NOT HERE TO MAKE DEBATING POINTS ABOUT WHO DID WHAT 
OR WHEN WE DID IT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY AGREE THAT WE CAN COME BACK AND ADD 
TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY AGREE THAT IT MIGHT TAKE AN ADDITIONAL 18 
MONTHS.
BUT IT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT IN THE SECOND 
INSTANCE IN THAT POLICY THAT REFERS TO THE COUNTY SHALL, 
THAT WE SUBSTITUTE THE PLANNING COMMISSION INSTEAD, AND 
THAT WOULD BE OUR SUGGESTION.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. ALUOTTO.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  GOOD EVENING.
I'M PAULA HARVEY WITH THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 
DEPARTMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING.
I WANT TO ADDRESS FOR YOU THE CHANGES THAT WE WOULD REQUEST 
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY REGARDING THE ISSUES OF ADEQUATE 
PUBLIC FACILITIES, SPECIFICALLY THE REFERENCES TO EMERGENCY 
SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
FOR THE RECORD, MR. CURY, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE I-4 CORRIDOR 
PLAN, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT SIDE I'M SPEAKING ON.
WE ARE, AS AN AGENCY, IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN, BUT WE DO 
RECOMMEND A COUPLE OF CHANGES, AND ONE OF THEM IS THE ONE 
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THAT I BRING TO YOU.
THE HANDOUT THAT I GAVE YOU IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS ISSUE 
IS ACTUALLY ADDRESSED FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES WITHIN THE 
DOCUMENT, SO I WANTED YOU TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THOSE.
EMERGENCY SERVICES, WHICH IS REFERRED TO, ESSENTIALLY, IN 
THE DOCUMENT AS FIRE AND POLICE, ARE BEING INCORPORATED 
INTO THE I-4 POLICY IN THE FORM OF ADDRESSING ADEQUATE 
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND FULL COST RECOVERY.
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES IS A TERM THAT'S ACTUALLY 
ALREADY DEFINED BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IN 
FACT, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALLOWED BY I-4 IS ALREADY 
REQUIRED TO ADDRESS CONCURRENCY VERY CLEARLY, AND SO WHAT 
WE HAVE REQUESTED IS THAT IN POLICY 50.2, THE REFERENCE TO 
EMERGENCY SERVICES BE ELIMINATED, IN OBJECTIVE 53, 
PARAGRAPH E, THAT EMERGENCY SERVICES BE SUBSTITUTED WITH 
SOLID WASTE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MEASURES OF ADEQUATE 
PUBLIC FACILITIES BY STATE LAW.
IN PARAGRAPH G-4, UNDER OBJECTIVE 53, WE REQUEST THAT -- 
ACTUALLY, THE FIRST SENTENCE DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE THERE 
BECAUSE THE PRIOR PARAGRAPH, AS YOU CAN SEE, ALREADY 
PROVIDES FOR PARKS AND OTHER SERVICES, TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE 
SERVICES TO THIS AREA.
IT'S JUST A REPEAT.
AND WE SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO ELIMINATE THE REFERENCE TO 
EMERGENCY SERVICES.
AND THEN LASTLY, WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT PUBLIC 
FACILITIES ARE, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT FIRE, POLICE, AND 
EMERGENCY SYSTEMS OR FACILITIES BE ELIMINATED AND 
SUBSTITUTED WITH SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS OR FACILITIES AND 
SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES, WHICH ARE ALREADY PART OF 
THE CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
IT'S ONLY WITHIN THIS I-4 POLICY THAT THERE'S ANY 
SUGGESTION WHATSOEVER THAT THERE BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT 
ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF DEFINITION OF CONCURRENCY AND ADEQUATE 
PUBLIC FACILITIES, LIKE IT IS WITH THE REMAINDER OF 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND THE MUNICIPALITIES, FOR THAT 
MATTER.
THIS POLICY ACTUALLY ASSUMES THAT UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING 
UP FRONT AT THE BEGINNING, APPARENTLY AT THE ZONING STAGE, 
THAT THESE EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE, THAT THEY 
WON'T BE PROVIDED.
AND WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU -- AND WE CAN PROVIDE 
FURTHER DOCUMENTATION AND STUDY IF YOU NEED IT -- IS, IN 
FACT, THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED WITHIN THE I-4 CORRIDOR PAYS 
ITS SHARE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, CONTRARY TO RESIDENTIAL 
DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CONTINUALLY SUBSIDIZED FOR THESE 
SERVICES.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. HARVEY.
YES, MA'AM.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M RHEA LAW WITH FOWLER WHITE.
I'M REPRESENTING A LANDOWNER, WHICH IS IN THE URBAN 
EXPANSION AREA, AND FIRST LET ME SAY THAT I AM IN SUPPORT 
OF THE I-4 GREEN TECH PLAN, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL 
CHANGES THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE PLAN AND WOULD BENEFIT 
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR 
COMMUNITY.
THE I-4 CORRIDOR HAS LONG BEEN LOOKED AT AS A PLACE WHERE 
WE COULD HAVE VISIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE 
COUNTY AND PROVIDE FOR AN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND EXPANSION.
AND FRANKLY, THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE EVEN STARTED THIS 
PLAN OR YOU STARTED THIS PLAN FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS, HOWEVER, THAT I BELIEVE WILL HOLD US 
BACK AND KEEP US FROM ATTAINING THOSE VARIOUS GOALS, AND I 
SPEAK WHAT FROM EXPERIENCE.
I HAVE CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE OF 100, WHICH IS NOW THE LOCAL 
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.
I HAVE CHAIRED THE TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP AND DONE MANY 
OTHER THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
AND IF YOU WANT A LARGE COMPANY OR JOB CREATION ENTITY TO 
COME TO THIS COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM SITE-
READY, SHOVEL-READY LOCATIONS THAT HAVE THE PERMITTING IN 
IT AND DON'T HAVE SO MANY ENCUMBRANCES THAT A COMPANY WILL 
JUST GO ELSEWHERE.
LET ME GIVE YOU A FEW EXAMPLES, AND I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY 
BEEN IDENTIFIED HERE.
THE FIRST IS THE 80 ACRES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, IT REQUIRES THAT YOU HAVE A 
MINIMUM SIZE OF 80 ACRES.
THIS IS IN POLICY 50.2.
BUT IT STARTS OUT BY SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST 
20 ACRES OF BUILDABLE UPLAND.
IF 20 ACRES OF BUILDABLE UPLAND IS WHAT YOU'RE AFTER, THEN 
WHY DON'T YOU SAY THAT?
AND THEREFORE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT I WOULD BE IN 
AGREEMENT WITH WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE COUNTY AT THIS 
POINT TO CHANGE IT TO 30.
THAT WAY YOU GET YOUR BUFFERS, YOU HAVE ALL OF THOSE 
CRITERIA IN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT YET YOU DON'T 
PUT AN UNNECESSARY NUMBER IN THERE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO 
GET TO 20 BUILDABLE ACRES.
THE SECOND POINT THAT I WOULD POINT TO IS IN YOUR OBJECTIVE 
53, WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU REMEMBER TO BE SHOWN IN 
ORDER TO GET A REZONING, A LOGICAL EXTENSION THAT MAKES 
SENSE, TO IMPROVE THE JOBS TO HOUSING RATIO WITHIN FIVE 
MILES.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM.
THAT'S A NEW CRITERIA.
BUT I THINK THAT, AGAIN, WHEN YOU'RE SEEKING TO DEVELOP OR 
WHEN YOU'RE SEEKING TO GET A REZONING, IT'S VERY HARD AT 
THAT POINT TO IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHAT THE JOBS ARE.
SO THEREFORE, TRY TO GO MEET THAT CRITERIA WOULD BE 
DIFFICULT.
THAT IS ALSO TRUE FOR THE NEW DEFINITION THAT HAS TO DO 
WITH YOUR MEASURABLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT.
THE REQUIREMENT FOR A HUNDRED JOBS.
YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, AT THE STATE LEVEL AND AT THE LOCAL 
LEVEL, INCENTIVES FOR JOBS FOR TARGETED INDUSTRIES THAT GO 
DOWN TO A THRESHOLD OF TEN.
AND SO MAKING THIS ARBITRARILY AT 100 I THINK IS GOING TO 
MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT WITH YOU.
SO WITH THOSE COMMENTS, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. LAW.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING.
ANDREA ZELMAN, ALSO WITH THE LAW FIRM OF FOWLER AND WHITE, 
REPRESENTING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, ALSO IN THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA.
AND I WOULD, OBVIOUSLY, LIKE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS THAT MS. 
LAW MADE ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF 
IT, AND ALSO TO ECHO MY OBJECTION TO THE 80-ACRE MINIMUM 
REQUIREMENT.
I ATTENDED THE CORE STUDY TEAM MEETINGS AND KEPT ASKING 
OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHY 80 ACRES?
WHY DO WE NEED 80?
AND I NEVER DID HEAR A LOGICAL EXPLANATION.
THE STAFF SAID IN THEIR STAFF REPORT, WELL, YOU NEED 80 
ACRES BECAUSE IT PROVIDES MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR BUFFERING.
WELL, THAT'S MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR BUFFERING A BIGGER 
DEVELOPMENT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY BETTER.
PERHAPS A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT WITH THE APPROPRIATE 
BUFFERING WOULD ACTUALLY BE BETTER.
OTHER THING YOUR STAFF SAID IN THEIR STAFF REPORT IS THAT 
THE 80 ACRES PROVIDES LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT 
IN THE EXPANSION AREA.
WELL, I THOUGHT THE GOAL WAS TO PROVIDE MORE OPPORTUNITIES 
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SO TO ME, THAT'S CONTRARY TO THE GOAL THAT YOU'VE TALKED 
ABOUT, THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS TALKED 
ABOUT.
THE OTHER POINT YOUR STAFF BROUGHT UP WAS THE TECHNICAL 
FEASIBILITY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, WHETHER YOU 
REALLY CAN EXTEND WATER AND SEWER TO A SMALLER SITE, AND 
THAT, YOU KNOW, MAKES SOME SENSE TO ME, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD 
A LOGICAL EXPLANATION WHY IT HAS TO BE 80 AND NOT 30, AND 
IT DOESN'T ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THERE MAY 
BE MULTIPLE SITES THAT COULD ALL WORK TOGETHER ON EXTENDING 
THE WATER AND SEWER, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S AS SIMPLE AS 
SAYING, WELL, IT HAS TO BE 80.
IT CAN'T BE SMALLER.
SO AGAIN, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE 30 ACRES THAT HAS BEEN 
RECOMMENDED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND 
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AND I DON'T 
THINK THAT WHAT CAME OUT OF THESE TEAM MEETINGS WAS WHAT 
THE BOARD WAS ASKING FOR.
I THINK THEY WANTED YOUR STAFF TO GO BACK AND REDUCE THAT 
80 ACRES, NOT MAINTAIN IT.
YOU KNOW, ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IN THE MEETINGS WAS 
THE FACT THAT SOME OF THIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING MY CLIENT'S, 
IS ALSO PLANNED SMU-6.
THIS IS NOT PRISTINE RURAL PROPERTY, NECESSARILY.
MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS NEAR THE BURGER KING AND THE 7-
ELEVEN.
THEY CAN DEVELOP NONRESIDENTIAL TODAY.
UNDER THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, ANYTHING THAT WOULD 
DEVELOP WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITED CONTROLS AND 
RESTRICTIONS THAT THIS RAMPANT GROWTH THAT PEOPLE ARE 
CONCERNED ABOUT JUST WOULDN'T HAPPEN, EVEN IF YOU REDUCED 
THE 80 ACRES TO 30.
YOU KNOW, HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS COMING THROUGH ON I-4.
THERE'S MANY, MANY REASONS, AS RHEA SAID, THAT YOU ALL 
LOOKED AT THE I-4 CORRIDOR.
IT'S THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE COUNTY TO ADDRESS THIS 
GROWTH.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. ZELMAN.
MS. ZELMAN, YOUR POSITION IS 30 ACRES?
AND MS. LAW, YOUR POSITION IS 20 ACRES?
30?
[OFF MICROPHONE]
OKAY.
I WAS TRYING TO CREATE TENSION IN THE SAME LAW FIRM BETWEEN 
TWO LAWYERS.
	[LAUGHTER]
I WOULD HAVE SWORN YOU SAID 20 ACRES.
>> IF I DID, I DIDN'T MEAN IT.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, MA'AM, PLEASE COME --
>> I SAID 20 BUILDABLE ACRES.
>>BRUCE CURY: THEN THE RESPONSE WOULD HAVE BEEN YES.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
I'VE GOT IT.
20 BUILDABLE ACRES.
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, MA'AM.
>> OKAY.
I WASN'T SURE.
>>BRUCE CURY: NO, I GUESS WE HAVE COMPARTMENTALIZED INTO 
PRO AND CON, AND THE CON BEGINS WITH WE'RE REALLY IN FAVOR, 
AND THEN WE HAVE LITTLE TAKE-AWAYS, BUT WE'RE NOW IN THE 
OPPOSITION PHASE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS ELIZABETH BELCHER.
I'M FROM SEFFNER, FLORIDA.
AND ONE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT ABSOLUTELY MUST BE 
CLARIFIED BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IS WHERE EXACTLY ARE THESE 
CLOUDS?
WHERE EXACTLY IS THE I-4 GREEN TECH EXPANSION?
I BEGAN REQUESTING THIS INFORMATION APPROXIMATELY APE 25th, 
2010, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, THERE WAS NO WAY AN ORDINARY 
CITIZEN COULD LOOK AT THE MAPS, SUPPOSEDLY DETAILING THE 
PROPOSED REZONING AND/OR FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT, AND 
DETERMINE WHERE THEY WERE AND WHO OWNED THEM.
ON APRIL 26th, 2010, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MS. SONATA -- 
I'M SORRY -- THAT STATED PER THE CLOUD AREAS, PAREN, AREAS 
WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND/OR JOINT PLANNING AREAS, 
CLOSE PAREN, THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT FOR I-4 DOES NOT 
CALL FOR THE COUNTY TO INITIATE A VOLUNTARY REZONING OF 
THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE CLOUD AREAS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN 
REZONING THEIR PROPERTY AT THAT TIME.
WHEN WE GET TO THE TIME OF REZONING, ALL PROPERTIES THAT 
ARE INVOLVED WILL BE LISTED BY FOLIO NUMBER AND ON A MAP.
THIS RESPONSE REMINDS ME OF THOSE DOLLAR GRAB BAGS THAT YOU 
CAN BUY.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE GETTING UNTIL AFTER YOU PAY 
YOUR MONEY.
THEREFORE, I PERSISTED.
ON MAY 3rd, 2010, I WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO USABLE FORMAT 
FROM GIS MAPS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO A CITIZEN, AND IT 
WOULD COST BETWEEN $60 AND $85 FOR THE INFORMATION.
I EVENTUALLY OBTAINED THE INFORMATION FOR THE MERE COST OF 
$45.
I AM EXPLAINING TO YOU WHERE THE BUBBLES OR CLOUDS ARE.
I, AS A TAXPAYER IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, HAD TO PAY FOR 
INFORMATION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN READILY AVAILABLE FOR ALL 
CITIZENS, SINCE WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PAYING 
FOR THE REZONING.
WHEN A CITIZEN RECEIVES A RESPONSE SUCH AS I DID, IT RAISES 
ALL SORTS OF RED FLAGS ABOUT WHAT IS BEING HIDDEN.
CONSIDER ON JUNE 9, 2010, MS. LAMBOY MADE THE STATEMENT 
BEFORE THE BOCC WORKSHOP THAT THE I-4 CORRIDOR IN WHICH SHE 
STATED IT WAS IMPORTANT NOT TO BE TOO SPECIFIC REGARDING 
THE BUBBLES.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
CERTAINLY, THAT STATEMENT MEANS TO ME THAT THE INFORMATION 
PROVIDED TO ME WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE THE BUBBLES ARE NOT 
SUPPOSED TO BE SPECIFIC.
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU, AS A BOARD, APPROVE SOMETHING 
THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS?
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- AND I'M SURE THAT SOMEBODY 
WILL -- BUT ISN'T ONE OF THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING 
OR REZONING TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS 
GOING TO BE REZONED?
LOOKING AT OBJECTIVE 52-C IN THE PLAN AMENDMENT, IT STATES 
THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MUST HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO I-4 VIA AN 
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR ROAD OR CONNECTION THROUGH ANOTHER 
TARGET INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT.
IF THAT IS THE CRITERIA, WOULDN'T ANY PARCEL OF LAND 
ANYWHERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN?
THE BUBBLES OR CLOUDS ARE NOT TOO SPECIFIC, DOES THIS MEAN 
THAT THEY CAN BE EXPANDED ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS FOR ANY 
PROPERTY OWNER?
JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, COMMISSIONER GIUNTA, I BELIEVE THAT YOU 
OWN A LARGE PARCEL OF UNDEVELOPED LAND NEAR McINTOSH IN 
THONOTOSASSA.
CAN THESE UNSPECIFIED BUBBLES AND CLOUDS BE EXTENDED TO 
INCLUDE YOUR LAND?
IF NOT, WHY NOT?
BEFORE THE COMMISSION APPROVES SOMETHING, SHOULDN'T YOU 
KNOW WHAT IT IS?
>> HERBERT BELCHER, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.
CONSIDER THAT UNDER YOUR OWN COMMISSION GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 5 
IS TO ENCOURAGE COMMON OR FUNDAMENTALLY SIMILAR LAND USE 
ZONING CODES ACROSS ALL --
>>BRUCE CURY: ONE MINUTE.
MS. BELCHER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WASN'T READY FOR THIS TAG TEAM, BUT I SEE WHAT'S GOING 
ON.
	[LAUGHTER]
>> HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TOO 
SPECIFIC, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT 480 ACRES OF THE 
SEFFNER MANGO, WHICH ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL 
AREA AND THAT THE OWNERS NOW WANT TO BE REZONED COMMERCIAL?
CONTINUE TO GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 9.
WHICH ADDRESSES SUPPORTING AGRICULTURE AS AN INDUSTRY 
BECAUSE OF THE POSITIVE ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND THE OPEN 
LANDS MAINTAINED BY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CONTRIBUTE TO 
THE QUALITY OF OUR COMMUNITY.
HOW ARE YOU ACHIEVING THAT GOAL WHEN THE PLAN BREAKS THE 
URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY?
I WATCHED THE JUNE 28 MEETING IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I REPEAT A STATEMENT OF ONE OF YOUR MEMBERS.
I THINK THAT THE LAND SHOULD BE DESIGNATED ACCORDING TO A 
REASONABLE FORESEEABLE PUBLIC NEED, GREATER PUBLIC NEED.
SOME RESPECT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE OWNER, BUT THE PURPOSE 
IS ALWAYS THE FORESEEABLE PUBLIC NEEDS AND NOT THE 
SPECULATIVE VISION OF ONE OWNER OR MORE.
YOU WILL HEAR THAT IS MORE SUFFICIENT ACREAGE TO 
ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL NEEDS WELL INTO THE FUTURE.
THIS I-4 PROPOSAL WILL DO NOTHING BUT OPEN UP THE ENTIRE 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO COMMERCIAL ZONING TO THE 
DISADVANTAGE OF TAXPAYING CITIZENS BY DESTROYING THEIR 
QUALITY OF LIFE, LOWERING THEIR PROPERTY VALUES, AND MAKING 
THEM PAY FOR ZONING EXPENSES WITH THEIR TAX DOLLARS INSTEAD 
OF USING THOSE SCARCE RESOURCES FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THE 
CITIZENS, SUCH AS KEEPING OUR PARKS, SWIMMING POOLS, AND 
LIBRARIES OPEN.
I HAVE ONE -- A COUPLE OTHER FURTHER ITEMS I'D LIKE TO TALK 
ABOUT REAL FAST.
ONE THING JUST CAME UP THAT JUST STRUCK ME AS BIZARRE.
WHY 80 ACRES?
IF IT'S LESS THAN 80 ACRES, IF IT IS LESS THAN 80 ACRES, 
AND YOU APPROVE THIS, IT WAS SAID AT THIS MEETING, WHENEVER 
THE LAST ONE WAS ON THIS, YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT SAID 
IT'S IN THE CLOUDS, AND THE CLOUDS HAVE MORE THAN AMPLE 
SPACE FOR THESE SMALLER UNITS.
YOU DO NOT NEED THE I-4 CORRIDOR AREA TO INCORPORATE THE 
SMALLER UNITS.
SO WHY HAVE IT THERE?
IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO A SMALLER AREA, WHY HAVE IT?
NOT NEEDED.
YOU HAVE MORE THAN AMPLE SPACE AVAILABLE.
AND THAT WAS A PERFECT GIVEAWAY.
THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THIS IS A GIVEAWAY.
IT IS GIVE AWAY TO CORPORATIONS TO ENTICE THEM TO MOVE 
HERE, AND THEN ONCE THEY MOVE HERE, WHAT'S TO CAUSE THEM 
NOT TO MOVE ON TO GREENER PASTURES LATER, WHEN SOMEBODY 
ELSE ENTICES THEM TO GO AWAY?
SO WITH THOSE ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE TO RESIGN.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. BELCHER.
>> HI.
GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS FRED JACOBSON.
I'M REPRESENTING THE SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
I'M AT POST OFFICE BOX 879, RUSKIN, 33575.
I JUST REREAD THE 233-PAGE DOCUMENT, THE FUTURE OF 
HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR UNINCORPORATED 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, FUTURE LAND USE FROM AUGUST 
OF 2008.
LET ME SUMMARIZE THAT FOR YOU IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT 
RECENTLY.
FIRST, MAKE THE BEST USE OF LAND WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE 
AREA BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT EXPANDING INTO THE RURAL 
SERVICE AREA.
LET ME GIVE YOU THE KING JAMES SUMMARY VERSION.
THOU SHALL NOT EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICES AREA UNLESS IT IS 
TO PREVENT ARMAGEDDON.
ONE OF THE STATED REASONS FOR THIS I-4 URBAN SPRAWL 
AMENDMENT IS TO DIVERSIFY AND EXPAND THE EMPLOYMENT BASE IN 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
YET, THERE ARE ALREADY TENS OF MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET OF 
ACTIVE DRIs FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R&D AND OFFICE THROUGHOUT 
THE COUNTY.
THIS IS HARDLY ARMAGEDDON.
ACCORDING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S BROCHURE, THE URBAN 
SERVICE AREA, A PROGRESSIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT TOOL FISCALLY 
RESPONSIBLE GROWTH, IT SAYS THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY 
CAN ACCOMMODATE GROWTH WITHIN A 20-YEAR PLANNING HORIZON 
AND HAS PROVISION FOR GROWTH BEYOND THAT POINT AS WELL.
AGAIN, HARDLY ARMAGEDDON.
THE WORLD HAS CHANGED DURING THE FIRST TWO AND A HALF YEARS 
OF THIS I-4 STUDY.
HILLSBOROUGH UNEMPLOYMENT DOUBLED.
THERE ARE OVER 77,000 UNEMPLOYED RESIDENTS WITH TWICE THAT 
MANY UNDEREMPLOYED, YET THIS I-4 URBAN SPRAWL AMENDMENT IS 
UNLIKELY TO OFFER ANY GOOD JOBS OTHER THAN FOR CONSULTANTS 
OR LAWYERS WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
	[LAUGHTER]
THIS PLAN CALLS FOR OFFERING INCENTIVES FOR NEW LAND 
DEVELOPMENT ALONG I-4.
WHERE ARE THE INCENTIVES FOR ACTUAL CREATION OF JOBS?
PEOPLE NEED JOBS NOW.
THIS IS YOUR ARMAGEDDON, AND IT IS NOT GOING AWAY ANYTIME 
SOON BY PLANNING LAND USES ALONG I-4.
I CHALLENGE YOU ALL INSTEAD TO PUT YOUR PLANNING SKILLS TO 
MORE USEFUL PURPOSES BY FINDING WAYS TO FILL ALREADY VACANT 
COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WITH REAL 
COMPANIES WHO CAN OFFER CITIZENS REAL JOBS NOW.
THANK YOU.
	[APPLAUSE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. JACOBSON.
>> GOOD EVENING.
I'M MARIELLA SMITH, THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT CHAIR FOR TAMPA 
BAY SIERRA CLUB, AND I AM SPEAKING FOR SIERRA CLUB TONIGHT.
SIERRA CLUB IS GREEN.
WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GREEN AND GREEN WASHING.
THIS SO-CALLED GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA IS NOT GREEN.
UNDERNEATH THE TRANSPARENT GREEN WASHING, THIS IS NOTHING 
MORE THAN A NEEDLESS EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, 
INTO A HUGE AREA, THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF ACRES THAT IS 
NOW RURAL.
THIS WILL SET A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR OTHER EXPANSIONS 
INTO THE RURAL AREA.
WE HAVE, AS FRED SAID, PLENTY OF BUILDABLE COMMERCIAL LAND 
BEGGING FOR INCENTIVES, AND THIS WILL JUST DILUTE THAT AND 
STRIP THAT FROM OTHER AREAS, LIKE THE SOUTH SHORE DRI.
PLENTY OF VACANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS INSIDE THE URBAN 
SERVICE AREA.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADD MORE COMMERCIAL CAPACITY AT THE 
EXPENSE OF RURAL FARMLAND AT THIS TIME.
NOT ONLY IS THIS NOT GREEN, IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR 
EITHER.
THIS HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS GOING TO GO ZOOMING BY THIS 
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S NOT ACCESS.
THERE IS HARDLY ANY EXITS OFF OF I-4.
I-4 IS NOT AN ACCESS ROAD FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REALLY TURN HIGHWAY 92 INTO A MESS, 
LIKE DALE MABRY AND HIGHWAY 60.
YES, THEY'VE WRITTEN IN SOME RESTRICTIONS AGAINST CERTAIN 
TYPES OF COMMERCIAL, BUT ONCE THIS BIG BATTLE IS OVER, 
CHANGING AGO LAND INTO URBAN, THE DETAILS CAN AND WILL BE 
NEGOTIATED AND MODIFIED LATER WITH AMENDMENTS AND REZONINGS 
THAT WILL BE MUCH LESS CONTROVERSIAL ONCE YOU'VE GIVEN AWAY 
ALL THE FARMLAND.
THIS HAS HAPPENED OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS COUNTY, WITH 
LAND THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RESERVED FOR HIGH-TECH 
DEVELOPMENT.
IN SOUTH COUNTY DRIS AND ALONG 301 AND I-75, THE OLD HIGH-
TECH CORRIDORS, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT?
ONCE THE LAND IS CHANGED FROM AG TO URBAN, IT IS EASY TO 
GET THE HIGH-TECH LANGUAGE CHANGED AND GET THE LAND ZONED, 
NOT FOR THE PROMISED CLEAN TECH CAMPUSES BUT FOR THE SAME 
OLD SAME OLD, APARTMENTS, STRIP MALLS, AND WAREHOUSES.
IT'S ALREADY STARTING RIGHT NOW, RIGHT TONIGHT.
YOU'RE ALREADY HEARING PEOPLE -- THE PRESSURE THAT YOU WILL 
UNLEASH AS SOON AS THIS IS APPROVED TO GET LITTLE 
MODIFICATIONS CHANGED.
SIERRA CLUB REMINDS YOU THAT SPRAWL COSTS US ALL.
PLEASE DON'T LET THE GREEN WASHING FOOL YOU.
IT CERTAINLY IS NOT FOOLING US.
PLEASE HOLD THE LINE AGAINST URBAN SPRAWL AND REMOVE THIS 
SO-CALLED GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA FROM THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH.
	[APPLAUSE]
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M STEVEN MORRIS, AND I RESIDE AT WAYNE ROAD IN ODESSA.
IT'S BEEN MY PLEASURE AND PRIVILEGE TO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE 
THIS BODY FOR THE PAST 16 YEARS OR SO.
DURING THAT TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN A MULTITUDE OF ISSUES 
THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT WE'VE WON A FEW, LOST A FEW, AND A 
FEW JUST WENT AWAY.
OF THOSE WE LOST, WHILE WE MAY NOT HAVE LIKED IT, THE 
DECISION WAS ONE WE COULD JUSTIFY AND HAVE LIVED WITH.
DURING THOSE EARLY YEARS, STAFF AND THIS BODY MADE EVERY 
EFFORT TO BE AS IMPARTIAL AS THEY COULD TO ENSURE THE 
DECISION REACHED WAS, INDEED, THE VERY BEST ONE.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT APPEARS TO THIS PARTICIPATE THAT 
SOMETHING HAS CHANGED.
AS I SEE IT, MY EARLIER PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE SEEN 
THERE IS ENOUGH ENTITLEMENT CURRENTLY IN THE URBAN SERVICE 
AREA TO REALIZE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN KEENLY AWARE THAT THE REMOVAL OF 6 TO 
12 THOUSAND ACRES FROM THE RURAL COMMUNITY AND PLACING IT 
IN THE URBAN COMMUNITY TO BE OUTFITTED WITH WATER, SEWER, 
AND OTHER URBAN TRAPPINGS WOULD TRANSFORM IT FROM THE RURAL 
TO URBAN FOREVER, AS THERE WOULD BE LITTLE TO NO TRACE OF 
RURAL LEFT, IT WOULD SURELY HAVE NECESSITATED THE REDRAWING 
OF THE URBAN SERVICE LINE.
THEY WOULD HAVE HAD NO HESITATION IN DOING THIS, COMPARED 
TO OUR CURRENT METHOD OF DEALING WITH IT, HIDING IT BEHIND 
INNOCUOUS WORDS, OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THEY HAVE RECOGNIZED THE FAILED ROADS IN THE AREA WOULD 
HAVE VERY LITTLE, IF ANY, CHANCE OF BEING CAPABLE OF 
HANDLING THE TRAFFIC THIS NEW URBAN CENTER WOULD GENERATE.
THEY WOULD HAVE REMOVED ANY LANGUAGE OPENING THE DOOR TO 
PLACE THE BURDEN OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE BACKS 
OF COUNTY TAXPAYERS, ENSURING THOSE WHO WISH TO DEVELOP IN 
THIS AREA PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
THEY WOULD HAVE MET WITH CITIZENS IN THE AREA FIRST TO GET 
THEIR HONEST FEEDBACK AND THEN MET WITH THE BUSINESS 
COMMUNITIES INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
THEY WOULD NOT BE FORCING NEIGHBORHOODS TO ACCEPT LANGUAGE 
FAVORABLE TO A PROPOSED COMP PLAN CHANGE THAT IS YET TO BE 
APPROVED YET IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE GOALS OF THEIR 
COMMUNITY-BASED PLANS.
THEY WOULD HAVE SOUGHT PROTECTION FOR WILDLIFE AND WATER 
FLOW CORRIDORS.
I TRULY BELIEVE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THAT IS WRONG WITH 
THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR, STAFF WOULD HAVE DENIED THIS 
REQUEST AND, INSTEAD, WOULD HAVE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO 
USE THE I-75 CORRIDOR.
AFTER ALL, THIS CORRIDOR IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, IS 
SERVICED BY INNUMEROUS ROADWAYS CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE 
PROJECTED TRAFFIC, IS SERVICED WITH UTILITIES THAT WILL BE 
REQUIRED AND HAS COST MANY LANDOWNERS MANY DOLLARS IN ORDER 
TO BE SURE THEIR PROPERTIES ARE READY TO BE PROPERLY 
DEVELOPED.
INSTEAD, THIS BODY HAS ALREADY APPROVED THIS AMENDMENT AND 
APPEARS IT WILL APPROVE IT AGAIN.
WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE CAUSED 
SUCH A DRAMATIC SHIFT?
THOSE THAT HAVE APPEARED BEFORE YOU AT THE FIRST MEETING 
AND TONIGHT ARE THE CITIZENS OF THE AREA.
THEY HAVE ASKED, BEGGED, AND PLEADED THAT YOU DENIED THIS 
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR WAY OF LIFE.
THE QUESTION THEN BEGS TO BE ASKED IS IF THEY ARE TO BE 
IGNORED, THEN FOR WHOM IS THIS AMENDMENT REALLY FOR?
IRONICALLY, IN YOUR ZEAL TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE SPECIAL 
INTERESTS WITH THEIR OWN DREAMS, DESIRES, AND GOALS, THESE 
VERY CITIZENS AND THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BECOME NOTHING 
MORE THAN COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
IN SUMMARY, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHOULD BE DENIED.
THERE'S BEEN NO DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR THE CREATION OF THIS 
CORRIDOR.
THE I-75 CORRIDOR CAN ACCOMMODATE AND SUCCEED WHERE I-4 
GREEN TECH CORRIDOR IS DOOMED TO FAILURE.
IT IS NOT TOO LATE.
PLEASE VOTE TO DENY.
THANK YOU.
	[APPLAUSE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. MORRIS.
>> HI.
BARBARA HARRINGTON, [INDISCERNIBLE] SEFFNER.
THE I-4 SPRAWL CORRIDOR AMENDMENT DO NOT MEET THE URBAN 
SPRAWL CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR BY 
THE DCA.
AS A RESULT, THEY ARE URBAN SPRAWL.
URBAN SPRAWL IS DEFINED IN THE COUNTY'S FUTURE LAND USE 
ELEMENT AS UNCONTROLLED AND UNTIMELY EXPANSION AND 
SPREADING OUT OF AN URBAN COMMUNITY INTO THE OUTLYING 
NONURBAN AREAS EXEMPLIFIED BY SCATTERED, UNPLANNED, LOW-
DENSITY DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT PROVISIONS FOR FACILITIES AND 
SERVICES AT LEVELS ADOPTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN 
LOCATIONS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL CONCEPTS OF THE 
PLAN.
THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE PORTIONS OF THE DEFINITION THAT 
ARE NOT MET BY THE I-4 SPRAWL AMENDMENT.
THEY ARE UNTIMELY EXPANSION; WITHOUT PROVISION OF 
FACILITIES AND SERVICES; AND IN LOCATIONS NOT CONSISTENT 
WITH THE OVERALL CONCEPTS OF THE PLAN.
THE AMENDMENTS ARE AN UNTIMELY EXPANSION IN THERE IS NO 
DOCUMENTED NEED FOR THE EXPANSION.
ALSO, THE AMENDMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 
JUSTIFICATION CONCERNING HOW WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES 
WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE I-4 
CORRIDOR.
FINALLY, THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT CLEARLY SEES THE RURAL 
AREA AS THE LOCATION FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL 
USES.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD JEOPARDIZE HIGH-VALUE 
AGRICULTURAL LAND AND UNNECESSARILY DIMINISH RURAL 
LIFESTYLE OPTIONS.
THE AMENDMENTS ALSO FAIL AT LEAST FOUR OF THE URBAN SPRAWL 
INDICATORS USED BY THE DCA TO EVALUATE THE PLAN AMENDMENTS.
IT'S 9J-5.0065G, AND THIS IS ITEM 2.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DESIGNATE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF 
LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL AREAS, WHILE LEAPING OVER 
DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS THAT ARE IN PLACE ON VACANT LAND 
WITHIN THE USA.
1,000 ACRES IS THE GOAL IN THE AMENDMENTS, WHICH SHOULD 
MEET THE DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, AND THE 
AMENDMENTS LEAP OVER 90 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT 
APPROVALS.
ITEM 5, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL DIRECTLY DESTROY OR 
PLACE INCREASED PRESSURE UPON ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AS 
WELL AS PASSIVE OR DORMANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG I-4 IS SOME OF THE MOST 
PRODUCTIVE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND SHOULD BE PRESERVED.
ITEM 9, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 
DISCUSSION OR JUSTIFICATION CONCERNING HOW THERE WILL BE A 
CLEAR SEPARATION BETWEEN RURAL AND URBAN AREAS.
THE BUFFERS PROPOSED IN THE AMENDMENTS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR 
CLEAR SEPARATION.
ITEM 10, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL DISCOURAGE OR INHIBIT 
INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING 
INCENTIVES FOR INTENSE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE RURAL 
AREAS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE URBAN AREA.
IT IS COMMON SENSE THAT IF YOU PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE IN THE 
RURAL AREA BUT NOT IN THE URBAN AREA, THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS 
IN THE URBAN AREA ARE THREATENED.
WHY NOT THE I-75 CORRIDOR?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. HARRINGTON.
	[APPLAUSE]
>> MY NAME IS GRACE.
I LIVE AT 8050 DARBY STREET IN SEFFNER.
WHEN WE FIRST DISCUSSED THE I-4 AREA THAT'S WITHIN THE 
SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE I-4 CORRIDOR, THE AREA 
OUTSIDE THE USA WAS INTRODUCED TO US AS A LONG-TERM HOLDING 
MECHANISM TO PRESERVE THE RURAL AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE 
FUTURE WHEN USA, URBAN SERVICE AREA, NEEDED EXPANDING.
AS EVERYBODY HAS ALREADY DOCUMENTED, IT DOESN'T NEED 
EXPANDING AT THIS TIME.
AS A COMMUNITY, WE WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS CONCEPT; HOWEVER, 
SINCE AUGUST OF '08, EVERY MEETING I HAVE ATTENDED, THE 
CRITERIA, THE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT, THE TYPE OF 
DEVELOPMENT, TYPE OF JOBS WOULD BE ATTRACTED HAS BEEN 
CHANGED AND THE EXPECTATIONS DECREASED.
THE IDEA OF THE LONG-TERM HOLDING OF THE RURAL LAND HAS THE 
POTENTIAL OF BEING DESTROYED.
AS BRUCE REGISTER HAS JUST PROVEN THAT TO ME, FORCES ARE 
WORKING ALL THE TIME TO CHANGE AND BUILD ON THE RURAL AREA.
THANK YOU.
OR AS SOON AS THE I-4 PLAN IS ADOPTED USING HIGHWAY 92 AS A 
FRONTAGE ROAD, WHICH IT IS NOT.
THE LADY IN WHITE -- I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW HER NAME -- SHE 
SAID IT ALREADY.
SHE CALLED IT THE URBAN EXPANSION AREA, NOT THE GTA 
OVERLAY.
IF THAT IS THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THE GTA, I BELIEVE.
WE HAVE SUBMITTED PREVIOUSLY PETITIONS FROM RESIDENTS OF 
THE GTA STATING THEY WANT TO REMAIN RURAL.
THE LAND THEY BOUGHT WAS RURAL, THEY WANT TO REMAIN THAT, 
AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THE GTA.
WE SUBMITTED THOSE AT A PREVIOUS MEETING.
THE GTA NOW IS, AS MR. CURY SAID PREVIOUS MEETINGS, IS A 
METHOD FOR UNSCRUPULOUS PEOPLE TO ENTER BY THE BACK DOOR 
INTO THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.
THE LADY IN BLACK WHO HAS HER PROPERTY ON McINTOSH ROAD, 
THAT'S AN INTERSECTION THAT IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE RIGHT 
NOW.
IT NEEDS TRANSFORMATION AND MIRACLE BEFORE ANY LARGE 
DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR IN THAT AREA.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, SIR.
	[APPLAUSE]
>>BRUCE CURY: MS. HARRINGTON -- FINISH YOUR APPLAUSE FOR 
THE LADY.
SHE DESERVES IT.
	[LAUGHTER]
ONE OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES IS TO SIT QUIETLY AND BE 
RESPECTFUL.
HOWEVER, ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE SAID, MY SILENCE IS NOT 
APPLAUSE.
YOU MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING THAT MR. CURY DID NOT SAY, BUT 
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I WILL GO BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND SEND IT TO YOU BY 
EMAIL.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, MA'AM, PLEASE DO.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: NO, NO, PLEASE DON'T.
>> IT'S THERE.
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T ARGUE WITH YOU.
I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THE FACT THAT I'M SILENT WHEN YOU 
MAKE AN ACCUSATION DOES NOT MEAN I AGREE WITH IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> PAMELA JO HATLEY.
MY ADDRESS IS 14517 NORTH 18th STREET, TAMPA, 33613.
I'M AN ATTORNEY.
I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING ANYONE.
I'M HERE AS A HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY RESIDENT, AND I ALSO OWN 
A BUSINESS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
IN ADDITION TO MY JD, I ALSO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND 
USE LAW CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE 
OF LAW.
I'M A PhD STUDENT AT USF, AND I'M -- MY DISSERTATION 
PROPOSAL, WHICH I'M ABOUT TO LAUNCH, IS FOCUSING ON CITIZEN 
PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY PLANNING IN HILLSBOROUGH 
COUNTY.
I'VE STUDIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN 
FLORIDA, AND I HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR THE PROGRAM.
IT WAS DEVELOPED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THROUGH STRONG 
LEADERSHIP AND FORWARD-LOOKING INDIVIDUALS.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ON THE BOOKS IN FLORIDA IS AN 
EXCELLENT PROGRAM.
IT'S INNOVATIVE AND LEADING EDGE.
BUT IT'S NOT WORKING AS INTENDED, MOSTLY BECAUSE IT HAS TO 
BE APPLIED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IN SUCH A WAY AS THE POLICIES 
AT THE STATE LEVEL INTENDED AND THE WAY OUR COMP PLAN 
INTENDED.
THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA THAT'S PROPOSED TONIGHT IS 
CONTRARY TO THE THREE GUIDING POLICIES OF OUR GROWTH 
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN FLORIDA, AND THOSE ARE CONSISTENCY, 
CONCURRENCY, AND COMPACT DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S CONTRARY TO CONSISTENCY BECAUSE OUR STATE PLAN -- AND 
THERE IS A STATE PLAN, STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT'S SECTION 187.201, SUBSECTION 15 OF THE FLORIDA 
STATUTES, AND THAT PLAN ENCOURAGES EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT 
AND SEPARATION OF URBAN AND RURAL LAND USES.
OUR LOCAL COMP PLAN, THE GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF 
OUR GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ALSO REQUIRE EFFICIENT 
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, AND THE RURAL AREA IS DEFINED.
ALSO, A FEW YEARS AGO, IN 2008, HOUSE BILL 697, THE 
LEGISLATURE ADOPTED REQUIREMENTS THAT PLANNING AT THE LOCAL 
LEVEL PROVIDE FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT LAND USE PATTERNS AND 
REDUCED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.
IN MY OPINION, THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA RUNS COUNTER 
TO THESE PRINCIPLES.
ALSO, IT RUNS COUNTER TO CONCURRENCY BECAUSE IT IS THE 
RURAL AREA.
IT'S NOT IN THE URBAN SERVICES AREA.
IN MY OPINION, THIS PROPOSAL MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE CONCEPT 
OF GREEN AND SUSTAINABILITY.
I KNOW THAT PLANNING IS FORWARD LOOKING AND THAT THESE 
POLICIES SHOULDN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL CERTAIN CRITERIA 
ARE MET; HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT IN REALITY, AS SOON AS THIS 
IS ADOPTED AND PASSED, DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES WILL FLOCK IN, 
AND IN THE SHORT-TERM, LANDOWNERS WILL BE SEEKING TO 
DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHY LANDOWNERS ARE REPRESENTED HERE TONIGHT AND WANT 
LESS THAN 80 ACRES FOR THEIR ENTITLEMENTS.
AND FINALLY, MY LAST POINT IS IT'S CONTRARY TO COMPACT 
DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S OBVIOUS.
BECAUSE OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, SPRAWL BY ANY OTHER 
NAME IS STILL SPRAWL.
IT ISN'T GREEN.
THANK YOU.
	[APPLAUSE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. HADLEY.
>> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS AL HARRINGTON FROM 4101 CASTLEWOOD IN SEFFNER.
WE HAVE MANY REASONS TO OPPOSE THIS TAKING AWAY OF RURAL 
LANDS.
I AM GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ONE.
ONE SPECIAL ISSUE IS INCREASED PRESSURES TO CONVERT 
AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
WE MUST SUPPORT OUR FARMERS.
THE TREND IS TO BUY LOCALLY GROWN FOOD, AND IT'S BECOMING A 
VERY IMPORTANT MOVEMENT.
JOHN ALEXANDER, CHAIRMAN OF ALCO, INCORPORATED, AND THE CEO 
OF LIKES BROTHERS, WROTE RECENTLY IN A JOINT ARTICLE THAT 
FROM 1964 TO 1997, FLORIDA'S RURAL LAND BASE HAS 
EXPERIENCED A LOT OF NEARLY 5 MILLION ACRES, AS THEY 
POINTED OUT IN THIS ARTICLE, AS WE LOSE ESSENTIAL 
RESOURCES, WE DO NOT JUST LOSE ITS ABILITY TO PRODUCE FOOD 
AND CLIMATE BENEFITS; WE ALSO UNDERMINE OUR ECONOMY.
AND I'M GOING TO CUT IT SHORT RIGHT THERE.
I THANK YOU.
	[APPLAUSE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. HARRINGTON.
YOU NEED SOME HELP, MA'AM?
>> PROBABLY.
>>BRUCE CURY: WELL, WE'RE GLAD TO HELP YOU.
>> AFTER ALL THAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: WAIT TILL YOUR PRESENTATION IS VISIBLE.
>> IT'S JUST ONE THING.
IT CAN COME LATER.
IT'S REALLY -- THIS IS GOING TO BE SHORT AND SIMPLE 
TONIGHT, AND I KNOW YOU'RE ALL VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
MY NAME IS MARSHA CURL.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T MET ME BEFORE.
I'M A PROUD RESIDENT OF SEFFNER.
I ASK YOU A RHETORICAL QUESTION.
DOES DEMOCRACY RULE APPLY IN CENTRAL EASTERN HILLSBOROUGH 
COUNTY?
BECAUSE A MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT THIS PLAN IN 
THE NINE MILES OF RURAL LAND ALONG I-4.
WE TOOK A STRAW VOTE RECENTLY AT A PUBLIC MEETING, AND 
THAT'S WHAT IT SHOWED.
A PRIMARY REASON TO OPPOSE THIS PLAN IS THAT BAKER CREEK 
RUNS THROUGH OUR AREA.
ACCORDING TO THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER WATERSHED ALLIANCE, IT 
IS PART OF A RIVER THAT REFLECTS A WIDE VARIETY OF USES 
THAT SHOULD TRANSITION FROM RURAL TO URBAN AS IT MAKES ITS 
WAY NORTH INTO TAMPA'S DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.
INCREASED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND DEVELOPMENT HAVE REPLACED 
WHERE UPLAND AND WETLAND COMMUNITIES ONCE EXISTED.
THIS CHANGE FORCES WATER TO FLOW MORE QUICKLY AND 
CHANNELIZE PATHS RATHER THAN SHEET FLOWS ACROSS THE LAND.
THE RESULT IS GREATER STORMWATER RUNOFF CARRYING A GREATER 
CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS.
HOW MUCH IS YOUR FLOOD INSURANCE?
WHAT IS LOST FOREVER IS WATER RECHARGE AREAS.
BAKER CREEK IS A VERIFIED IMPAIRED WATER LISTED AS TMDL, A 
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.
DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED OVERLAY AREA ESPECIALLY, AS 
WELL AS IN THE REST OF THE RURAL I-4 PLAN, WILL ONLY 
INTENSIFY THIS STRESS AND DESTRUCTION.
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AGREES.
OH, IT'S UP THERE.
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AGREES, AND IF YOU CAN JUST SEE THE 
LITTLE -- IT'S VERY BAD, BUT IF YOU CAN JUST SEE THE LITTLE 
PIECE OF FLORIDA THAT STICKS DOWN FROM THE UNITED STATES, 
YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE IN LINE -- WE ARE IN THE SAME STRESS 
AREA FOR OUR WATER AS THE SAHARA DESERT.
NOW, THERE'S A REASON FOR THIS.
AND LIKE I SAY, THIS IS FROM A RESPECTABLE SOURCE.
WE ARE A STRESSED WATER AREA FOR ONE REASON, AND I WILL GET 
TO THAT REASON.
DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED OVERLAY AREA WILL INTENSIFY.
THIS IS THE APRIL 2010 ISSUE.
WHAT BECOMES GLARING IS WHEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSE OF A 
WATERWAY BECOMES SECONDARY TO NEEDS DEFINED BY POLITICIANS 
AND SELF-INTEREST.
IN THIS CASE, DESTRUCTION OF FOREST, WETLANDS, AND FLOOD-
SENSITIVE AREAS, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, SYNERGISTICALLY 
INCREASES THE NEGATIVE IMPACT.
IN A VERY RECENT RULING THAT WAS HAILED BY A ST. PETE TIMES 
EDITORIAL AS A VICTORY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMON 
SENSE, IT WAS STATED THAT A PROCESSING PERMIT FOR IMPINGING 
ON A WETLAND OF CYPRESS CREEK WAS NOTHING MORE THAN 
CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE IN DC, ROY C. LAMB BREATH, NOTED 
THAT IT IS REPREHENSIBLE TO FALL FOR A DEVELOPMENT SALES 
PITCH, THAT IT COULD NOT BE SCALED BACK BECAUSE THEY WOULD 
NOT -- [INDISCERNIBLE] -- THINK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S THE 
SAME DRINKING WATER JEOPARDIZED BY DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA, 
THE CITY OF TAMPA.
AND THE REAL ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER TO EXTEND WATER AND SEWER 
BUT, RATHER, HOW WE WILL GET MORE WATER FROM THE AQUIFER AS 
IT WINDS ITS WAYS THROUGH THE UNDERGROUND TRAVELS DODGING 
THE SINKHOLES.
IT'S WHERE WILL WE GET MORE WATER, NOW HOW WILL WE GET IT 
OUT THERE.
WE'VE GOT TO GET MORE WATER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, MS. CURL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
	[APPLAUSE]
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS SUSAN WATSON, 3624 WINDCHIME LANE, DOVER, 
FLORIDA, RESIDENT OF THE SEFFNER AREA FOR 37 YEARS.
THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ABOUT THE 
CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IN THE I-4 CORRIDOR AREA AND THE 
PROFOUND EFFECT IT HAS ON OVER 30,000 RESIDENTS.
THE FIRST TWO VISITS I SPOKE ABOUT THE DOCUMENTED 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN THIS AREA.
IT IS AN IMPORTANT WATERSHED AREA, THE BAKER CREEK, 
PEMBERTON CREEK WATERSHED CONTAINS A VAST 185-ACRE WETLAND 
AND A FORESTED AREA.
WATER AND AIR QUALITY FOR ALL OF TAMPA BAY IS AT RISK.
THIS IS -- THERE IS A STATE AND COUNTY SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE 
HABITAT CONTAINING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED ANIMALS IN 
THIS AREA, ONLY IN THIS AREA.
WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST THE WILDLIFE WILL 
NOT EXIST IN TEN YEARS IF THE LAND TO THE NORTH IS 
DEVELOPED.
SINCE STARTING THIS JOURNEY -- NOW FOR THIS VISIT.
SINCE STARTING THIS JOURNEY, THE NAME AS CHANGED FROM 
OVERLAY PROTECTION AREA TO AN EXPANSION AREA.
THE BUILDING CODE RECOMMENDED HAS CHANGED FROM LEED SILVER, 
WHICH WE WERE TOLD WAS THE HIGHEST ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL, TO 
NOW [INDISCERNIBLE] GREEN BUILDING CODES, WHICH WE HAVE NO 
IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS.
TONIGHT WE HEAR 80 ACRES CAN POSSIBLY CHANGE TO 30 ACRES, 
CAN POSSIBLY CHANGE AGAIN.
NO WONDER THE PEOPLE DO NOT TRUST WHAT IS BEING DONE.
ACCORDING TO ARTICLES IN THE TAMPA TRIBUNE AND THE ST. PETE 
TIMES, THE I-4 CORRIDOR EXPANSION AREA IS NOT A GOOD IDEA.
THEY CALLED IT NOTHING MORE THAN URBAN SPRAWL, RECOMMENDED 
BY THEM AND OTHERS TO GO DOWN THE I-75, UTILIZE THE 83 
MILLION SQUARE FEET OF EMPTY BUILDINGS THAT PRESENTLY 
EXIST.
ECONOMICALLY, WHAT IS THE BEST FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS?
WHAT MAPS ARE WE USING TO PREDICT POPULATION AND BUS AND 
THE NEED?
WE'VE BEEN TOLD THE MAPS ARE DONE BY THE MPO.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THE MAPS WERE DONE?
WHAT MAPS ARE WE USING TO PREDICT ALL THIS GROWTH?
WE'RE USING OLD MAPS, OLD PREDICTIONS, AND ALL OF US KNOW 
TIMES HAVE CHANGED, AND WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A VALUABLE RURAL AREA, AND 
THE REASON THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IT IS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND 
OTHER REASONS, BUT THE TRUE COSTS ARE NOT ONLY THE 
EXTENSIVE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION, ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT, 
WATERS, UTILITIES, THE TRUE COST IS THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE REAL COST FOR ALL OF US WOULD BE LOSING THE WATER AND 
AIR QUALITY THAT CANNOT BE REPLACED.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. WATSON.
>> GOOD EVENING.
VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON.
I ATTENDED A MAJORITY OF THE WORKING COMMITTEE MEETINGS AS 
WELL AS MANY OF THE PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS FOR THE I-4 
CORRIDOR STUDY.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA.
I BELIEVE SOME OF THE DATA AND ANALYSIS USED TO JUSTIFY 
THIS DE FACTO EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IS 
FLAWED.
ONE, THE STUDY USED OLD POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR GROWTH 
PRIOR TO THE CURRENT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.
TWO, THE STUDY SAID THAT THERE WAS A NEED FOR A THOUSAND 
ACRES IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, BUT THAT DOESN'T 
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 3100-PLUS ACRES OF EXPANSION OF THE 
URBAN SERVICE AREA GRANTED EARLIER THIS YEAR TO THE ENERGY 
INDUSTRIAL PARK ALONG HIGHWAY 60, WHICH IS THREE TIMES THE 
1,000 ACRES ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED BY THE STUDY TEAM.
THREE, THE STAFF REPORT STILL MAKES NO MENTION OF THE 
SINKHOLE HAZARD AREAS IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA.
FOUR, NO UPDATE HAS BEEN MADE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 
DRAMATIC RISE IN COMMERCIAL FORECLOSURES AND LEASE 
VACANCIES DUE TO THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, WHICH THE NOTED 
ECONOMIST, PAUL KRUGMAN, SAYS MAY BE THE START OF THE THIRD 
GREAT DEPRESSION.
FIVE, THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY, ONE OF THE TARGETED 
INDUSTRIES, IS CONTINUING TO CONTRACT AND CONSOLIDATE.
THIS CONTRACTION HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE STUDY.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY AS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE -- 
NOT AN OFFICIAL MEMBER, BUT AN ATTENDEE -- ONE OF THE 
REASONS WE HAVE THE 80 ACRES IS BECAUSE RIGHT AT THE 
BEGINNING OF THE STUDY, WHEN WE HAD THE PRESENTATION FROM 
SEVERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE, WE WERE TOLD THAT 
THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH LARGE PARCEL AREAS, SO WE NEEDED TO 
LOOK OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA INTO THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA, THAT WE NEEDED PARCELS OF 100 ACRES OR MORE 
TO ATTRACT SOME OF THESE LARGE KEY INDUSTRIES INTO THESE 
CAMPUS-STYLE DEVELOPMENTS.
ALSO, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT MS. LAW EARLIER THIS YEAR 
REPRESENTED A CLIENT THAT ASSEMBLED 3100 ACRES FOR A PLAN 
AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS APPROVED, BUT NOW SHE'D LIKE US TO 
BELIEVE 80 ACRES IS TOO MUCH.
ALSO, THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON THE MAP ABOUT ALL THE 
ACRES IN THE RURAL AREA OWNED BY THE MOSAIC MINING COMPANY.
THE ONLY RURAL LIFESTYLE THAT'S GOING TO BE LEFT IS NEXT TO 
A BORROW PIT OR A MINE, A PHOSPHATE MINE.
PLEASE REMOVE THIS AREA.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. BACCA.
>> GOOD EVENING.
MARCELLA OSTEEN, BALM.
THE HIGHWAY 92 SPRAWL CORRIDOR AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT BE 
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOCC BECAUSE 
YOUR STAFF HAS NOT DOCUMENTED THE NEED FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL 
LAND.
THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS BEGIN WITH THE STILL 
UNDOCUMENTED CLAIM THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE INDUSTRIAL 
OFFICE SPACE VACANT LAND IN HILLSBOROUGH.
DATA TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM WAS REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER 
BECKNER IN MAY BUT HAS YET TO BE PRODUCED BY STAFF FOR ALL 
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
FROM A MARKET'S PERSPECTIVE, THE DATA SHOULD INCLUDE VACANT 
LAND WITHIN ALL THE COUNTY'S URBAN AREAS.
MORE IMPORTANT, THERE IS NO DATA AND ANALYSIS PRESENTED 
THAT DEMONSTRATES THE SHORTAGE OF DEVELOPABLE LAND IS THE 
CAUSE OF EMPLOYMENT DECLINES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE I-4 92 SPRAWL AMOUNT STATED AT 
A PUBLIC HEARING SHE HEARD AT A CONFERENCE THAT THE DCA WAS 
MORE LENIENT WITH THE NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR PLAN AMENDMENTS 
THAT INVOLVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
THIS PERHAPS LUNCHTIME CONVERSATION AT A CONFERENCE MAY OR 
MAY NOT BE ACCURATE, BUT WHAT IS ACCURATE IS THAT THE I-4 
SPRAWL AMENDMENTS ARE ABOUT SPECULATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT, 
NOT JOB CREATION.
AND LEST WE FORGET, IT'S ALSO ABOUT BILLABLE HOURS FOR A 
GAGGLE OF LAND USE ATTORNEYS, REALTORS, AND PLANNERS.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND ITS THREE CITIES HAVE SUFFICIENT 
VACANT LAND WITHIN URBAN AREAS TO ADDRESS DECADES' WORTH OF 
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT INFORMATION MATRIX 
RELEASED BY THE TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL HAS 
LAND WITH ENTITLEMENTS THAT CAN SUPPORT TENS OF MILLIONS OF 
SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE EMPLOYMENT.
ALSO, THERE ARE 22 ACTIVE DRIS WITH ENTITLEMENTS FOR OFFICE 
IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE ENTITLEMENTS REMAINING 
IS APPROXIMATELY 26 MILLION SQUARE FEET OR SUFFICIENT SPACE 
TO HOUSE AT LEAST 68,000 EMPLOYEES.
IN ADDITION, GRUBB & ELLIS ESTIMATES THERE ARE 7 MILLION 
SQUARE FEET OF VACANT SPACE WITHIN EXISTING OFFICE 
BUILDINGS IN Q 2009 THE LAST QUARTER.
ALL THIS TRANSLATES INTO THIS:  THERE IS CLEARLY NO NEED 
FOR EITHER RAW LAND OR EXISTING BUILDING SPACE TO MEET THE 
DEMANDS OF NEW INDUSTRY.
WE HAVE ENOUGH DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS TO HOUSE AT LEAST -- 
LISTEN TO THIS -- NINE WESTSHORE BUSINESS DISTRICTS.
THIS FACT BY ITSELF SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO FIND THE 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.
AND I WOULD ADD IN SOUTH COUNTY WE HAVE LAND IN THE URBAN 
SERVICE READY TO GO.
TO INCENTIVIZE THIS SUPPOSED GREEN TECH EXPANSION INTO THE 
RURAL AREA OUT IN SEFFNER IS TO DISINCENTIVIZE WHAT WE 
ALREADY HAVE BEGGING I-75 AND SOUTH COUNTY.
IF ONE-TENTH OF THE EFFORT STAFF TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY 
HAD BEEN PUT INTO I-75 CORRIDOR TO INCENTIVIZE IT, WE COULD 
ALREADY BE HAVING SOME JOBS THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF 15 TO 20 
YEARS FROM NOW.
MS. LAW STATED THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT HOLD US BACK.
YES, THERE ARE THINGS THAT HOLD US BACK, 92 CORRIDOR.
THERE'S NO FRONTAGE ROADS.
THERE'S NO MORE EXITS PLANNED.
AND IT'S IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.
THAT ALONE SHOULD CAUSE YOU TO NOT RECOMMEND THIS 
AMENDMENT.
	[APPLAUSE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. OSTEEN.
>> GOOD EVENING.
GEORGE NIEMANN, UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK.
THE PROPOSED I-4 SPRAWL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH 
NUMEROUS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE 
ELEMENT.
A QUICK REVIEW OF THE ADOPTED HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE 
PLAN BY AN AVERAGE CITIZEN WILL SHOW A LARGE NUMBER OF 
OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE 
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
WE ONLY HAD TIME TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT.
IT'S NOT CLEAR WHY THESE ELEMENTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 
STAFF REPORTS, BUT IT'S INTERESTING.
WHEN CITIZENS STUDY THE COMP PLAN, WE COME UP WITH A WHOLE 
LIST OF INCONSISTENCIES.
WHEN THE STAFF PARTNERS WITH THE DEVELOPERS, THEY FIND 
EVERYTHING CONSISTENT.
AS A GENERAL COMMENT, THE PROPOSED LEVELS OF INTENSITY AT 
2.5 FLOOR AREA RATIO ARE IN EXCESS OF ANY LEVELS THAT ARE 
CURRENTLY ALLOWED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
THE SUGGESTED F.A.R. WOULD ALLOW FOR INTENSITIES THAT ARE 
NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RURAL AREAS AND ARE ON 
PAR WITH THOSE OBSERVED IN THE WESTSHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
THERE ARE NO DATA AND ANALYSIS OFFERED IN JUSTIFICATION OF 
THESE EXTREMELY INTENSE ALLOWANCES.
POLICY 30.6 STATES THAT THE AGRICULTURE AND SUPPORT USES 
ARE PREFERRED USES IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, AND POLICY 
31.5 THAT LIMITS ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS LARGE BUILDINGS, 
FOOTPRINTS, AND PARKING LOTS, WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO 
CONTAMINATE WATER, SOIL, AND CRAPS.
OBJECTIVES 34, 35, 36, 37, AND 38 IN THE ADOPTED FUTURE 
LAND USE ELEMENT LAY OUT A WIDE RANGE OF ACTIONS THAT THE 
BOCC IS REQUIRED TO TAKE WITHIN THE I-4/I-75 CORRIDOR TO 
ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH-WAGE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THESE 
OBJECTIVES IN THAT THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY GIVE AN ECONOMIC 
ADVANTAGE TO RURAL LAND IN THE I-4 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS FAR 
REMOVED FROM THE I-75 CORRIDOR.
AND IN CLOSING, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THANK GOD THAT 
AMENDMENT 4 IS ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE WHEN IT PASSES, 
CITIZENS WILL GET GENUINE INPUT INTO PLANNING THE FUTURE OF 
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
RIGHT NOW, WE CAN ONLY GET UP AND BEG -- AND BEG FOR YOUR 
GENEROSITY IN DOING WHAT CITIZENS WANT.
BUT WHEN WE GET A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON IT, THEN WE'LL 
SEE IF AMENDMENTS LIKE THIS WOULD EVER PASS.
THANK YOU.
	[APPLAUSE]
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
TERRY FLOTT, CHAIRPERSON OF UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK 
AND PRESIDENT OF THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE.
SO WE ARE GOING TO BE REALLY AFFECTED BY THIS OUT IN OUR 
NECK OF THE WOODS, BUT IT REALLY AFFECTS THE ENTIRE COUNTY.
I GAVE UP MY WRITTEN COMMENTS SO THAT I COULD JUST COMMENT 
ON A FEW THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD THROUGH EVERYBODY'S 
PRESENTATIONS.
ONE, THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE SMALL PARCELS.
NEVER INTENDED.
WHERE DID THAT START COMING FROM?
HOPE WE'RE NOT GOING TO START TREATING COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS 
LIKE WE DO ZONING APPLICATIONS AND CHIP, CHIP, CHIP AWAY, 
SHOW UP AT MEETINGS WITH NEW THINGS TO INSERT INTO PLANS.
NOW WE EVEN HAVE STAFF DOING IT.
SO THIS IS FRUSTRATING.
MAY I SPEAK?
>>BRUCE CURY: MS. FLOTT, PLEASE ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
>> I'M ADDRESSING THE ISSUES.
THIS WAS HANDED OUT THIS EVENING.
WE DIDN'T GET TO SEE IT.
>>BRUCE CURY: NO, NO, IT'S ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU TURNED AROUND AND STARTED TALKING TO THE AUDIENCE, 
THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
>> OKAY.
THEY SPOKE TO ME.
I'M GETTING A LITTLE FRUSTRATED WITH THE PROCESS HERE.
I WILL GO BACK TO MY POINTS.
>>BRUCE CURY: MEET STRESS WITH CALM.
MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTIES ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE HAVE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AN IT 
IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NO MATTER HOW 
WE TWIST AND TURN IT, FOR US TO START EXPANDING INTO THE 
RURAL SERVICE AREA WITHOUT INDICATING AND PROVING WHAT WE 
DO OR DON'T HAVE INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA.
SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHY WE NEED TO NOT ONLY HAVE 80 
ACRES AT THIS POINT, BUT MORE ALARMINGLY, CONTINUE TO DROP 
THE SIZE OF THE ACREAGE.
I CAN RECALL ONE MEETING THAT I SAT AT WHERE COMMISSIONER'S 
AIDE MADE THE COMMENTS ABOUT, WELL, LET'S MAKE IT RAIN, AND 
WE NEED A SHOE STORE.
AND YOU KNOW, THAT WASN'T THE INTENT.
SO WE HAVE A TRUST ISSUE.
THIS ISN'T READY TO GO.
YOU HAVE STAFF THAT ISN'T READY TO GO.
I'M NOT SURE WHEN ONE BAY BECAME OUR POLICY -- THE ONE BAY 
VISION PLAN BECAME THE POLICY IN THIS COUNTY.
I DON'T REMEMBER MISSING ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ADOPTING 
THIS PLAN.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE ALREADY WORKING TOWARDS A PLAN 
THAT HASN'T GONE THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
AS YOU CAN SEE TONIGHT, WE HAVE -- AS YOU SEE TONIGHT, WE 
HAVE WELL-INFORMED CITIZENS IN THIS ROOM.
THEY'RE NOT -- YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T PICK THEM UP OFF THE 
STREET CORNER HERE TO COME DOWN HERE TONIGHT.
SO I HOPE YOU WILL LISTEN TO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID 
AND UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHAT YOU DECIDE TONIGHT IS GOING TO 
HAVE SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS ON EXISTING RESIDENTS WHO LIVE 
UP AND DOWN THIS CORRIDOR.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF LAND WITHIN SEFFNER TO BE DEVELOPED.
WHY CAN'T WE START UTILIZING SOME OF THE LANDS THAT NEED TO 
BE REDEVELOPED INSTEAD OF CONSISTENTLY AND ALWAYS USING 
OPEN, VACANT LAND?
WE HAVE GOT TO CHANGE OUR MIND-SET ON THIS.
WE WILL BE NOTHING BUT A GROWING CANCER FROM THE INSIDE OUT 
IF WE DON'T START DOING THAT NOW.
AND OPENING UP THE RURAL AREA BEFORE IT'S NEEDED IS NOT 
GOING TO GET US WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
SO LET ME MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT.
WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE AGAINST PREMATURE DEVELOPMENT AND OPENING UP THE 
RURAL AREA.
SO I HOPE YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION 
TONIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. FLOTT.
APPLAUSE >> GOOD EVENING.
CARLA HOLDING.
I LIVE ON MEADOW OAKS DRIVE IN DOVER, WHICH IS JUST A HALF 
A BLOCK IN FROM HIGHWAY 92, SO I'M NOT A NEBULOUS, 
NAMELESS, FACELESS ENTITY THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY 
THIS THAT PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT WHEN THEY'RE PLANNING ALL 
OF THESE GRANDIOSE PLANS.
I AM THE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY 
THIS, MYSELF, MY HUSBAND, ALL OF OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS 
IN THE AREA.
WE'VE LIVED IN THE AREA FOR IN EXCESS OF 25 YEARS.
WITHIN THAT TIME, I'VE SEEN HIGHWAY 92 GO FROM BAD TO WORSE 
TO ABSOLUTELY TEAR YOUR HAIR OUT AT TIMES.
IT IS A FAILED ROAD.
IT'S NOT MY ESTIMATION THAT IT'S A FAILED ROAD.
IT'S A FAILED ROAD BY THOSE WHO STUDY TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 
AND HAVE DEEMED IT SO.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, VERY SMALL 
BUSINESS OWNERS, SO SPEAKING AS BOTH LABOR AND MANAGEMENT, 
I CAN TELL YOU WE'RE NOT AGAINST GROWTH.
WE'RE AGAINST UNINTELLIGENT GROWTH.
AND WE'RE MOST CERTAINLY AGAINST SPRAWL.
WE'D LOVE TO HAVE ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES, ALL OF THESE PIE-
IN-THE-SKY OPPORTUNITIES THAT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT FOR 
JOBS AND GROWTH AND ALL THE WONDERFUL THINGS THAT WILL 
ACCOMPANY THAT, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THE AREAS FOR THAT.
IT'S CALLED THE URBAN AREAS, THE INFILL AREAS.
LET'S USE THAT FIRST.
WE'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES ALREADY JUST 
WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO COME.
THE TAG LINE, IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME, IS A NICE TAG 
LINE FOR A FICTIONAL FILM.
HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY IN REAL LIFE.
WE DON'T NEED THE SPRAWL.
WE DON'T WANT THE SPRAWL.
WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THE SPRAWL FOR THE NEXT 50 TO 100 
YEARS.
KEEP THE 80 ACRES.
DO NOT DIGRESS FROM THAT.
WE BEG OF YOU, AT LEAST GIVE US THAT MUCH OF A BONE THAT 
YOU CAN TOSS US.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. HOLDEN.
	[APPLAUSE]
>> [SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE]
WELL, GUYS, MY NAME IS MARILYN SMITH.
I THINK MAYBE THERE'S SOMEBODY UP HERE LEFT THAT DOESN'T 
KNOW WHO I AM.
UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU, YOU HAVEN'T KNOWN ME LONG ENOUGH TO 
REALLY LIKE ME.
I DO HAVE LAND USE ATTORNEYS WHO REALLY HATE ME, BUT I 
DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.
NOW WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A WHITEWASH.
THIS IS NOT A GREEN TECH OVERLAY.
THIS IS A WHITEWASH.
THE GREEN IS LIKE ONE BAY, LAND USE ATTORNEY MONEY.
THAT'S THE GREEN.
NOW, LET ME TELL YOU WHERE IN THE WORLD WE'RE ALSO TRYING 
TO GET MORE AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE BACKWARD THINKING 
COUNTRY OF THE NETHERLANDS.
 YOU'VE ALL HEARD OF THEM.
THEY ARE STILL [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR AGRICULTURAL USE.
THEY TREASURED THEIR AGRICULTURE.
THEY KNOW.
THEY GOT [INDISCERNIBLE] AND IF THEY MAKE ENOUGH OF IT, 
THEY CAN EXPORT THE REST OF IT TO MAKE A COMMERCIAL 
VENTURE.
BUT THEY ARE NOT DESTROYING THE LAND.
WHERE, ON THE CONTRARY, HERE WE HAVE IN HILLSBOROUGH 
COUNTY, THE PLAN IS BEING OFFERED AND PUSHED POLITICALLY BY 
THE BUDGETARY PRESSURES OF THE BOCC TO DESTROY MORE 
AGRICULTURAL LAND.
YOU DON'T THINK SO?
LOOK WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
IT APPEARS THE BOCC HAS PUT PRESSURES ON THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION TO PLAN FOR THE PAST, NOT THE FUTURE, BUT THE 
PAST.
LOOK AT THAT PLAN.
LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
IT IS A VERY EXPENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
MONEY HAS BEEN PUT INTO THIS, AND NOT VERY WELL PLANNED, 
AND THEN YOU HAVE A STRATEGIC PLANNER WHO GETS OUTRAGEOUS 
AMOUNTS OF MONEY.
THIS IS FILLED WITH BUREAUCRATIC PUFFERY THAT WE'RE PAYING 
FOR.
I THINK IT'S ALREADY REPORTED [INDISCERNIBLE] WHEN THE 
COUNTY COMMISSION FIRST PROPOSED LET'S GO MAKE AN ECONOMIC 
AREA GREEN TECH DOWN I-4.
THEY CAN'T EVEN SPELL THAT.
LOOK AT THE BOARD.
LOOK AT THAT BOARD AND TELL ME THIS THIS IS NOT A TRY TO 
MAKE IT FIT TO A MISFIT.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
TOO MANY TAX DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THIS.
THIS IS USELESS.
IT'S HURTING PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO LEAVE AN AGRICULTURAL 
AREA ASUNDER.
AND FOR YOU TO THINK THIS IS THE PROPER AVENUE TO TAKE AWAY 
MORE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PUT IT AT RISK, SHAME ON YOU.
THAT IS NOT -- THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE 
DOING.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE STOPPING THE UNBRIDLED IDIOCY FROM 
GOING ON, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HELP THEM.
SO OBVIOUSLY, IT HAS TO BE BUDGETARY PRESSURE.
IT'S THE ONLY THING WE CAN THINK OF.
THERE'S A BAD BUDGET OUT THERE.
WE'LL SQUEEZE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE BETTER 
ANSWER.
SO IT MATCHES WHAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WANTS, 
WHICH WE DO NOT WANT.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A CLEAN SWEEP ON THAT BOARD TOO.
THANK YOU.
	[APPLAUSE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT DESIRES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK?
WILL MR. PARRA, JUST A NUMBER.
NOT A LOT OF DISCUSSION, JUST A NUMBER.
MS. LAMBOY.
IT IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I'M SORRY.
I DID NOT REALIZE EVERYBODY WAS DONE ALREADY.
HEATHER LAMBOY, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT 
UP THIS EVENING.
WITH REFERENCE TO THE BIG GORILLA IN THE ROOM, THE 80-ACRE 
SITE SIZE, FIRST OF ALL, THE 20 ACRES THAT ARE REFERENCED 
IN THE POLICY LANGUAGE OF BUILDABLE UPLAND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 
IS THERE ARE A LOT OF SITES ALONG THE GREEN TECH CORRIDOR 
AREA THAT HAVE A LOT OF WETLANDS.
SO IT GIVES A PERSON, AN OWNER SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THAT IF 
THEY HAVE THE 20 ACRES TO BUILD ON THAT ARE DRY UPLANDS AND 
THEY HAVE A LOT OF WETLANDS IN THE AREA, THAT THEY CAN 
STILL DEVELOP ON THAT PARCEL OF PROPERTY.
SO IT'S INTENDED TO GIVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY.
YES, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: MY -- WHATEVER EXPRESSION THAT WAS ON MY FACE 
DID NOT RELATE TO YOU.
PLEASE PROCEED.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
WITH REFERENCE TO THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND WHO WAS 
SUPPOSED TO DO WHAT, THE POLICY ITSELF CALLS OUT A NUMBER 
OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY.
TYPICALLY, IN ALL OF THE POLICY LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO ITEMS 
FOR THE FUTURE PLANNING OF THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY HAS BEEN 
NAMED AS THE OWNER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND, 
THEREFORE, THE OWNER OF THE POLICIES, BUT THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION HAS WORKED COLLABORATIVELY WITH THEM AS WELL AS 
THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.
THEY ARE NAMED IN THE POLICY, AS WELL AS HART AND BARTA.
THERE ARE A LOT OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE 
FUTURE I-4 CORRIDOR, AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
WITH REFERENCE TO FULL COST RECOVERY, THE EMERGENCY SERVICE 
PROVISION THAT MS. HARVEY SPOKE ABOUT, THE FULL COST 
RECOVERY ISSUE WAS RAISED AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, AND 
WE CLARIFIED THAT IT IS RELATED TO DIRECT COSTS.
THAT WOULD BE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH 
EMERGENCY SERVICES, NOT, FOR INSTANCE, A POLICE CAR OR WHAT 
IT WOULD COST TO HIRE AN ADDITIONAL OFFICER TO COVER A 
DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S RELATED TO THE ACTUAL UP-FRONT CAPITAL COSTS THAT 
WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THE COUNTY, WHICH IS COMMON PRACTICE 
WITH THE COUNTY.
WHEN THE DRI OR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT PROCESS WAS 
IN PLACE, THAT WAS VERY COMMON.
ALSO, I WILL DEFER TO WALLY BLAIN TO GET UP AND SPEAK FOR 
JUST ONE MINUTE ABOUT THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND HIS 
ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING CODE IS A CODE THAT'S MORE 
SPECIFIC TO FLORIDA, AND THAT'S WHY WE REPLACED LEED SILVER 
WITH FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING AT THE COUNCIL OF THE FLORIDA 
GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL.
AND THEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT HAVE INCLUDED 58 MEETINGS, 
OPEN HOUSES, GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS ADVISORY MEETINGS, AND 
COMMUNITY PLANS.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT BEEN SOMETHING 
THAT'S JUST OVERNIGHT, AND HERE'S WALLY.
>>WALLY BLAIN:  GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING 
COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS WALLY BLAIN, STAFF TO THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING 
ORGANIZATION, ALSO TRANSPORTATION STAFF FOR THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION.
WE DID DO AN ANALYSIS THAT COMPARED THE RESULTS OF OUR --
>>BRUCE CURY: ONE MINUTE.
MS. LAMBOY, PLEASE STAND UP.
REBUTTAL IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS THAT 
WERE INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR POSITION AND TO EITHER DIMINISH 
THEM OR EXPLAIN THEM.
DID YOU MAKE A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE RAISED THAT 
WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: YES, AND I BELIEVE I NAMED THEM OFF JUST 
A MINUTE AGO.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THIS GENTLEMAN SPEAK?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: WELL, THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, THE 
OVERALL IMPACT FROM A TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE, IS 
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FOR THE CORRIDOR 
BECAUSE THE JOBS THAT MIGHT BE LOCATED ALONG THE I-4 
CORRIDOR AS A RESULT OF THE LAND USE ACTION WOULD ACTUALLY 
REVERSE THE COMMUTE SOMEWHAT.
THERE WOULD BE MORE OPPORTUNITIES IN PLANT CITY FOR PEOPLE 
WHO LIVE IN PLANT CITY.
THERE WILL BE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE IN 
BRANDON TO JUST GO TO I-4 RATHER THAN DOWNTOWN TAMPA.
>>BRUCE CURY: I HAVE ALWAYS -- YOU ARE FILLED WITH SO MUCH 
KNOWLEDGE, BUT PROVIDE TOO MUCH, AND YOU PROVIDE NOTHING.
SO LET ME PLEASE FOCUS YOU.
THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT DEAL THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED IN REGARD 
TO HOW MANY ACRES SHOULD BE PART OF THIS GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA.
I BELIEVE THAT WE HEARD -- WE HEARD FROM EVERYONE TO THE 
POINT OF EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION AT THE LAST MEETING.
I THINK THAT OUR FOCUS AT THIS TIME IS THOSE SPECIFIC 
REFERENCES THAT CAME BACK FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: YES, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: NOW, ONE OF THEM RELATED TO A -- A DICHOTOMY 
BETWEEN A TENSION BETWEEN THE ONE POSITION WHICH SAID 20 OR 
30 ACRES AND NOW YOU, MEMBERS OF THE STAFF, HAVE RELATED 80 
ACRES AS YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
NOW, THAT 80 ACRES HAS BEEN CHALLENGED.
WHAT IS THE BASIS?
CAN YOU TELL ME IN BULLET POINTS WHAT YOUR BASIS IS FOR THE 
80 ACRES, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HEARD SOME THINGS THAT 
WERE INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR POSITION, CAN YOU EMASCULATE OR 
DIMINISH THEM IN SOME WAY?
AND THEN THE NEXT THING I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS IS THE 
QUESTION ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION THAT MR. ALUOTTO REFERRED 
TO.
AND FURTHER, I THINK THERE WERE -- MS. HARVEY WANTED 
CERTAIN AMENDMENTS -- I WILL CALL THEM SMALL TECHNICAL 
AMENDMENTS.
SHE IT NOT OPPOSE THE PLAN GENERALLY.
BUT THERE WERE CERTAIN TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
DO YOU REMEMBER -- SO THOSE THINGS I THINK ARE VERY 
IMPORTANT TO OUR DECISION TONIGHT.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: DO YOU REMEMBER THE THREE?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: YES, I DO.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
PLEASE, FIRST TELL ME WHY IT IS THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT 80 
ACRES IS CORRECT, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE OPPOSITION HAD 
SOME OTHER POSITION, HOW CAN YOU DIMINISH, IF YOU CAN, WHAT 
THEY HAD TO SAY.
THAT HAD HELP US WITH OUR DECISION.
PLEASE GO AHEAD WITH THAT FIRST ELEMENT.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: CERTAINLY.
LIKE MS. BACCA ACTUALLY SAID, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 
PROCESS --
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T KNOW ABOUT WHAT MS. BACCA SAID.
JUST PLEASE TELL ME WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT 80 ACRES IS THE 
CORRECT POSITION?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: ALL RIGHT.
THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
STAFF WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CORE STUDY TEAM SUGGESTED 
THAT WE NEEDED LARGER SITES AVAILABLE TO -- FOR ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.
AND THERE WERE NOT MANY LARGER SITES AVAILABLE IN THE 
COUNTY.
AND SO THE RURAL AREA, WITH ITS LARGER PARCEL SIZE, 
POTENTIALLY COULD SERVE THAT PURPOSE.
AND SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FELT IT IMPORTANT TO 
REGULATE THE POTENTIAL AMOUNT OF GROWTH.
AND WE TOOK A LOOK -- WE SURVEYED THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF 
CAMPUSES ACROSS THE COUNTY AND, REALLY, ACROSS THE COUNTRY 
FOR THE TYPE OF TARGETED INDUSTRIES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN 
THE PLAN.
AND TYPICALLY, THEY WERE 120 ACRES OR GREATER.
WE COMPROMISED WITH AN 80-ACRE SITE SIZE JUST BASED ON THE 
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THAT PORTION OF THE 
CORRIDOR.
AS IT'S BEEN ALLUDED TO, WE'RE NOT PLANNING IN A VACUUM.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES MADE ALREADY TO THE I-4 
CORRIDOR THAT HAVE CREATED SMALLER SITE SIZES, SO WE 
CREATED A BALANCE AT THE 80 ACRES.
FURTHERMORE, WE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF 
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, AND -- WHICH THEY FELT AN OVERLAY WAS 
FINE, BUT THEY FELT THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE STRICT 
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE OUTLINED TO US WAS 
SOMETHING THAT LIMITED DEVELOPMENT.
IN TERMS OF SITE SIZE, THAT DOES EXACTLY THAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: IN THIS CORRIDOR PLAN, ARE THERE THREE 
CONSTITUENT PARTS, ONE BEING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, THEN 
THE JOINT SERVICE AREA, AND THEN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION 
AREA?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: EACH WITH THEIR OWN RECOGNIZED STANDARDS.
>>BRUCE CURY: IN SOME OF THEM DO YOU HAVE FIVE-ACRE 
PARCELIZATION?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: AND THEN YOU HAVE 20 ACRES IN SOME.
BUT IN THIS GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, FOR THE REASONS 
YOU'VE OUTLINED, THEN WE HAVE 80 ACRES; IS THAT SO?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT IS CORRECT, SIR, WITH THE EXCEPTION 
OF TAMPA, WHICH HAS ONE-ACRE PARCEL SIZE.
>>BRUCE CURY: MR. ALUOTTO HAS -- HE DOESN'T NEED ME TO 
SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT HIS POSITION, I THINK, IS THAT IT WOULD 
BE BETTER DONE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT IS THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
IF I'VE GOTTEN IT WRONG, THEN I'M SORRY.
I THINK THAT WAS MY MEMORY.
I SEE HE DOES HIS THUMB UP, SO THAT IS HIS IMPRIMATUR.
THANK HIM FOR IT.
WHY DO YOU PROCEED WITH YOUR POSITION AFTER HEARING HIS 
ARGUMENTS?
THAT IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DO THE TRANSPORTATION 
PLAN AS OPPOSED TO PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: WE ACTUALLY, IN THIS PROCESS, CHAIR CURY, 
HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 
TRANSPORTATION STAFF TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND 
THEY ACTUALLY DID THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UNDER THE 
STUDY DOCUMENT.
WHEN WE REFINED THE SITES WITH THE CITY STAFF AND REFINED 
THE PLAN AMENDMENT, THEN THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING 
ORGANIZATION GOT INVOLVED BECAUSE THAT GAVE US ACCESS TO 
THE MOST RECENT DATA AS A RESULT OF THE 2035 LONG-RANGE 
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE.
SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS REALLY TRULY ALREADY BEEN 
DONE TO A LARGE PART BY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, SO 
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE JUST --
>>BRUCE CURY: DID YOU SAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR 
TRANSPORTATION PLAN?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
I'M SORRY.
THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE CORRIDOR, THERE HAS BEEN A 
PROPOSAL ALREADY DONE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE 
VETTED FURTHER IN THE PUBLIC, SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE ALLOWED 
FOR MORE TIME.
IT'S A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN AGENCIES, AND IT'S -- 
THE LEADER IN THAT PROCESS IS THE COUNTY BECAUSE THIS IS 
THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, THE MPO AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE 
THERE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT.
>>BRUCE CURY: LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER THING.
BECAUSE THERE WAS -- BECAUSE THERE WAS A GOOD DEAL SAID 
ABOUT THE CONTRACTION THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TAKEN 
OUT OF THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, ORIGINALLY, THAT IS PRIOR TO 
OUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IT WAS THE STAFF'S 
POSITION THAT 12,000 ACRES, APPROXIMATELY, SHOULD GO INTO 
THIS GREEN TECH CORRIDOR.
YES?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
AND AS A RESULT OF OUR LAST MEETING, THEN IT WAS REDUCED 
7,000 ACRES TO 5,000.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT IS CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
AND I THINK ALSO THE TESTIMONY -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -
- I ASKED HOW MANY ACRES WOULD BE NEEDED BY -- LET ME SEE -
- BETWEEN 20 -- IN THE NEXT 15 YEARS BETWEEN 2025, AND YOU 
SAID APPROXIMATELY 2400 ACRES WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THIS 
PURPOSE.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: COUNTYWIDE, OF WHICH WE'VE ALLOCATED 
1,000 IN THE I-4 CORRIDOR.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
SO WE HAD 12,000 ORIGINALLY REQUESTED.
WE CAME UP WITH 5,000.
WE ASKED HOW MANY WAS NEEDED, AND IT WAS 2400 COUNTYWIDE, 
AND THEN HOW MANY ACRES ARE THERE IN THE CLOUDS?
YOU UNDERSTAND THE CLOUDS?
AND MY MEMORY WAS THERE WAS 5,000 ACRES.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: WELL, IN THE ACTUAL CLOUDS THAT ARE 
WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREAS PREDOMINANTLY, WITH THE 
EXCEPTION --
>>BRUCE CURY: NO, THE CLOUDS THAT ARE ON THE MAP THAT YOU 
SUBMITTED FOR OUR EXAMINATION, HOW MANY ACRES WERE THERE?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THERE ARE 15,000, APPROXIMATELY.
TOTAL.
>>BRUCE CURY: 15,000 ACRES?
I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THAT.
I ASKED YOU -- EXCUSE ME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA WAS 12,000 
ACRES.
>>BRUCE CURY: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: AND THEN THE MAP THAT THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED LAST TIME WAS APPROXIMATELY 5,000.
>>BRUCE CURY: 5,000 ACRES.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
AND WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED LAST TIME WERE THE CLOUDS, AND 
THEN THE CLOUDS, THERE WERE 5,000 ACRES.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I HAD PASSED THIS OUT LAST TIME.
THAT WAS PART OF THE PACKET.
AND I JUST SUMMED UP WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE.
SO IT'S --
>>BRUCE CURY: DON'T HAVE A DIFFICULTY IN CONTRADICTING ME.
ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS ESTABLISH SOME FACTS TO WORK WITH.
MY MEMORY IS I ASKED YOU AT LEAST FIVE TIMES HOW MANY ACRES 
WERE IN THE CLOUDS, AND YOU SAID 5,000.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: OKAY.
IN MAP "B" -- LET ME JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
IT'S PROBABLY -- I'M SORRY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT I GOT -- I THINK I WAS STILL INCLUDED THE 
PORT, WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY 4,000.
SO THE MAP "B" THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION, DOES COME CLOSER TO THAT 5,000 NUMBER.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS REALLY QUICK.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
OF THAT 5,000, OF THE 5,000 WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION 
RECOMMENDED, THAT IS THOSE WERE IN THE CLOUDS, HOW MANY 
ACRES WERE TAKEN FROM THE URBAN SERVICE AREA?
DO YOU KNOW THAT?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WOULD BE THOSE 
5,000 MINUS THE TAMPA EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, WHICH IS 800, AND 
ABOUT 200 THAT'S CORRECT PLANT CITY THAT WOULD BE A JOINT 
PLANNING AREA, JUST IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SOME EXISTING 
AREA.
SO JUST NORTH OF I-4.
>>BRUCE CURY: PROVIDE TOO MUCH AND YOU PROVIDE NOTHING.
WHAT I WAS HOPING TO ASK FOR IS HOW MANY ACRES OF THAT 
5,000 --
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: 1,000.
>>BRUCE CURY: 1,000 ACRES WAS TAKEN FROM THAT 5,000?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT IS IN THE RURAL AREA, YES.
AND THE TAMPA EXECUTIVE AIRPORT IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL 
OF THE ONE-CENT SALES TAX BECAUSE THE SLIGH BRIDGE MUST 
BE --
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T UNDERSTAND -- YOU'RE PROVIDING 
ANSWERS FOR QUESTIONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I'M JUST SAYING TAMPA EXECUTIVE AIRPORT'S 
NOT AUTOMATIC.
IT'S BASED ON A VOTE THAT IS COMING IN NOVEMBER.
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T CARE ABOUT.
IS THE AIRPORT IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: YES, IT IS.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
THEN SHUT MY MOUTH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
	[LAUGHTER]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. LAMBOY.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
MS. LAMBOY, HOW MANY ACRES IS IN THAT -- AIRPORT'S RURAL 
SERVICE AREA?
OF THE THOUSAND, HOW MANY ARE THERE?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE EXECUTIVE AIRPORTS HAVE 193 -- OR 
800, APPROXIMATELY.
>>BRUCE CURY: SO 200 ACRES WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE URBAN 
SERVICE AREA WHEN YOU SUBTRACT THE AIRPORT, APPROXIMATELY?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: RIGHT.
>>BRUCE CURY: I JUST -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: AND THOSE AREAS OF 200 ARE IN PLANT CITY 
IN THE JOINT PLANNING AREA, NORTHEAST MASTER PLAN AREA.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: YOU'RE WELCOME.
>>BRUCE CURY: YOU'RE WELCOME.
NOW, YOU KNOW, ONE THING, MS. LAMBOY.
I'M SORRY.
PLEASE COME UP.
ONE THING.
WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE 80 ACRES AND WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE 
CONCERNS OF MR. ALUOTTO.
MS. HARVEY, DO YOU REMEMBER, SHE WANTED -- SHE HAD ASKED 
FOR CERTAIN CHANGES.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT SHE ASKED FOR?
CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR POSITION IN REGARD -- YOU HAD A 
POSITION.
YOU HEARD WHAT HER RESPONSE WAS TO YOUR POSITION.
CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: HER COMMENT -- MS. HARVEY'S COMMENT WAS 
THAT THE IDEA OF FULL COST RECOVERY OR ADEQUATE PUBLIC 
FACILITIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEFINED IN THE LAND 
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
HOWEVER, THE EMPHASIS OF THIS COMMISSION AT THE LAST 
HEARING THAT WE HAD WAS THAT ALL COSTS WERE ACCOUNTED AND 
PAID FOR.
AND WHILE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION TO SOLID WASTE 
BEING ADDED IN BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT 
INCLUDED IN THE LAST ROUND, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN 
ACCOUNTING FOR THOSE NEEDED PUBLIC SERVICES THAT WILL BE 
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN 
TECH EXPANSION AREA.
THOSE UP-FRONT CAPITAL COSTS THAT THE COUNTY MAY INCUR FOR 
PROVIDING POLICE PROTECTION OR FIRE PROTECTION.
>>BRUCE CURY: WHAT I HEAR SO FAR IS THAT SHE WANTED SOLID 
WASTE ADDED, AND HAVE YOU NO DIFFICULTY WITH THAT.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT IS CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: WHAT ELSE DID SHE SAY?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: SHE HAS A PROBLEM OR IS CONCERNED ABOUT 
THE EMERGENCY SERVICES PORTION OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED LAST 
TIME.
ON THE BASIS THAT IT'S NOT TYPICALLY APPLIED IN THAT MANNER 
FROM THE ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEFINITION.
BUT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT IS TYPICAL IN THE DRI 
PROCESS, THE EMERGENCY SERVICES, THEIR CAPITAL COSTS ARE 
TYPICALLY ACCOUNTED FOR, EITHER THROUGH PROVIDING THE LAND 
FOR AN EMERGENCY SERVICE FACILITY OR PROVIDING FOR THE 
CAPITAL COSTS.
AND SO, THEREFORE, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MIRROR 
THAT IN THIS AMENDMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR FULL COST RECOVERY.
>>BRUCE CURY: WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?
I BELIEVE THERE WAS A THIRD THING SHE RAISED.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: WITH REFERENCE TO SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND 
FACILITIES?
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, MA'AM.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE CONCERN ABOUT SCHOOL SYSTEMS AND 
FACILITIES -- AND THIS IS GOING TO BE APPLIED IN THE GREEN 
TECH EXPANSION AREA --
>>BRUCE CURY: IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO ME IF YOU SAY 
WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR REJECT IT.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I REJECT THAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
PLEASE TELL ME THE BASIS FOR THE REJECTION.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I REJECT IT ON THE BASIS THAT NO 
RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN THE GREEN TECH 
EXPANSION AREA WITH THE TARGET INDUSTRIES.
THE RESIDENTIAL WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED IN THE URBAN SERVICE 
AREA.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT'S TYPICALLY THE MEASURE FOR APPLYING 
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY.
>>BRUCE CURY: MS. HARVEY.
WOULD YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER AREA -- MS. LAMBOY, PLEASE LISTEN.
WAS THERE ANOTHER AREA THAT YOU RAISED IN REGARD TO THE 
PLAN THAT'S BEFORE US, THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE US?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THE HANDOUT I GAVE YOU WAS ACTUALLY TO 
ADDRESS COMMENTS MADE BY MYSELF, MR. ALUOTTO, AND MR. 
REGISTER.
>>BRUCE CURY: WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU RAISED WHICH I 
CAN GET A RESPONSE IN REBUTTAL?
ANY OTHER POINT THAT YOU RAISED?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THE ONLY POINT I HAD WAS THAT THE COUNTY 
DISAGREES WITH WHAT IS TRYING TO BE DEFINED DIFFERENTLY 
WITHIN THIS PLAN AS ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES IN THE NAME 
OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, FIRE AND POLICE, WHERE WE DON'T 
PROVIDE FOR IT ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTY.
WE PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE, BUT WE DON'T MAKE IT A 
REQUIREMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  ALL RIGHT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
WE HAVE CONCLUDED THE REBUTTAL.
I ASK, THEN, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WHETHER OR NOT 
YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS OF ANYBODY.
YES, SIR.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, SIR.
>> I KNOW I HEARD PEOPLE ASK OUT THERE WHAT THE CLOUDS WERE 
AND WHERE THEY WERE AND THAT IT WASN'T DEFINED AS TO WHERE 
IT WAS, THAT IT WAS A NEBULOUS THING.
WELL, ALL I KNOW IS THAT BASED UPON WHAT WE SEE, IT IS VERY 
CLEARLY DEFINED.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?
YES, COMMISSIONER GIUNTA, YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
PLEASE, LET'S -- YOU WILL SPEAK UNTIL YOU'RE SATISFIED, BUT 
AT THIS POINT, CAN WE -- IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF 
ANYBODY?
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: NO.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO ASK OF 
ANYONE?
ALL RIGHT.
I GUESS, THEN, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.
YES, MA'AM.
DID YOU HAVE --
[OFF MICROPHONE]
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE -- IT APPEARS WE HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS THEN CLOSED.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION SO THAT WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION, OR IF 
THERE'S NONE, THEN --
>>GARY SEARS: MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES.
>>GARY SEARS: GOING BACK TO THE CHANGES THAT ARE REQUESTED 
BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, MY OPINION ONLY, IF THEY WANT TO 
MAKE THOSE CHANGES AS FAR AS SERVICE, EMERGENCY SERVICES, 
ET CETERA, SHOULD GO BACK TO THE COUNTY.
COUNTY MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
BECAUSE WE DON'T WORK WITH THE COUNTY'S BUDGET.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEIR PLANNING IS GOING THERE.
MY OPINION, EVEN RIGHT DOWN TO ADDING SOLID WASTE IN, THAT 
SHOULD GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION 
ON WHETHER THOSE NEED TO BE ADDED, SUBTRACTED.
THOSE CHANGES ON POLICY 50.2, 50.9, AND FIFTY THREE.
>>BRUCE CURY: PLEASE EXPRESS TO ME WHAT ACTION YOU'RE 
SUGGESTING.
>>GARY SEARS: I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE DO NOT INCLUDE THEM IN 
OUR MOTION AND THAT THEY GO BACK TO THE COUNTY FOR 
RESOLUTION.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SEARS.
COMMISSIONER GIUNTA.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE TWO ITEMS.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, A CITIZEN RAISED INTEREST ABOUT A 
POTENTIAL CONFLICT THAT I MAY HAVE.
I'VE DISCUSSED THE SITUATION EXTENSIVELY WITH OUR ATTORNEY, 
AND IT IS CLEAR THAT I HAVE NO CONFLICT WHATSOEVER.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR 
APPROVAL OF CPA 10-14 AND CPA 10-15, FOR APPROVAL AS 
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AS CONSISTENT.
>> SECOND.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND -- WE HAVE --
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: I'LL HANDLE THAT.
THANK YOU.
NO, NO.
THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME.
I'M JUST TRYING TO OVERCOME INERTIA.
IT APPEARS WE'VE DONE THAT.
I'M THANKFUL FOR IT.
ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER GIUNTA, YOU MADE THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  YES, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: CAN YOU BIFURCATE THAT INTO -- LET'S HANDLE 
THE TEXT AMENDMENT, CPA 10-14 -- IS THAT REFERRED TO 10-14?
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  YES, SIR.
I MADE THE MOTION ENCOMPASSING BOTH.
I COULD SEPARATE THEM.
>>BRUCE CURY: PLEASE DO.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  OKAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE CPA 10-14 AND FIND IT 
CONSISTENT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>>GARY SEARS: I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION AND MAKE A MOTION 
THAT 10-15 BE APPROVED, AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
COMMISSIONER SEARS, I HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.
WHAT WE'VE DONE, WE'VE TRIED TO DIVIDE IT UP, SO 10-14 -- 
WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, DO YOU SECOND 10-14?
WE'RE LEAVING 10-15 ALONE AT THIS POINT.
>>GARY SEARS: YES, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION 
FOR A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON 
CPA 10-14.
IS THERE DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.
[CHORUS OF AYES]
OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN.
MADAM CLERK, THAT WAS UNANIMOUS.
COMMISSIONER GIUNTA.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  YES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FIND CONSISTENT WITH THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CPA 10-15, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>>GARY SEARS: SECOND.
>>BRUCE CURY: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR FINDING OF 
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVAL OF THE 
ATTACHED RESOLUTION.
IS THERE DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.
[CHORUS OF AYES]
OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN.
MADAM CLERK, THAT WAS UNANIMOUS.
BEFORE WE MOVE TO -- BEFORE WE MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 4, WE'LL 
BE IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES.
[RECESS TAKEN]
[SOUNDING GAVEL]
>>BRUCE CURY: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE COME TO ORDER.
FIND SEATS.
LET ME RECONVENE THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CITY-COUNTY 
PLANNING COMMISSION.
LET US MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 4, MR. PARRA, THAT IS 
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA 10-11, 
TEXT AMENDMENT, LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ELEMENT, SEFFNER MANGO 
COMMUNITY PLAN.
>>PEDRO PARRA:  GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.
PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THE MAIN PRESENTATION TONIGHT WILL BE BY PAULA HARVEY AND 
JOHN HEALEY WITH HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S PLANNING AND GROWTH 
MANAGEMENT, AS MANAGERS OF THIS PROJECT.
THEY WILL PRESENT TO YOU THE AGENDA ITEM FOR THE SEFFNER 
COMMUNITY PLAN.
WHEN JOHN IS COMPLETE, I WILL PRESENT TO YOU THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AFTER WHICH BOTH JOHN AND 
I WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, SIR.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  GOOD EVENING.
PAULA HARVEY WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, DIVISION 
DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING AND ZONING.
MY PRESENTATION IS ACTUALLY NOT A SUBSTANTIVE PRESENTATION 
OF THE SEFFNER PLAN, BUT DID I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IN 
HAVING VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS AT THEIR WORKSHOP AND ALSO AGAIN WITH THE 
WORKING COMMITTEE FOR THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN AND 
SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTIES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT, I 
BEGAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS NECESSITATED SOME SORT OF 
A FLOW CHART, IF YOU WILL, THAT DISCUSSED SPECIFICALLY WHAT 
HAPPENS WITH THE SEFFNER PLAN IN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE I-4 
CORRIDOR PLAN.
YOU PREVIOUSLY HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS TO 
THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN FROM THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY, AND THERE 
WERE SOME PEOPLE AS WELL WHO OWNED PROPERTY FROM SEFFNER 
WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF IT.
THAT BEING SAID, YOU'VE APPROVED FOR A RECOMMENDATION THE 
I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN, AS RECOMMENDED BY YOUR STAFF.
WHAT I'VE DONE IS DEVELOPED A CHART THAT, BASED ON THAT 
ACTION, BY YOU OR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- 
BECAUSE I WILL GIVE THEM THE SAME THING -- SOME VARIOUS 
OPTIONS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO SPECIFICALLY TWO ISSUES 
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEFFNER PLAN.
ONE IS REFERRING TO AN AREA THAT JOHN WILL POINT OUT TO YOU 
IN A MOMENT THAT WE REFER TO AS THE NOTCH AREA PROPERTIES.
THEY ARE A GROUP OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE RIGHT UP ADJACENT 
TO I-4 THAT ARE RECOGNIZED AS PART OF THE I-4 CORRIDOR MAP 
THAT YOU'VE JUST RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, BUT RIGHT NOW 
ARE ALSO PART OF THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN.
ALSO, WE HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT GOAL 6, WHICH IS SUBMITTED TO 
YOU AS PART OF YOUR PACKET, WHICH IS A REFERENCE WITHIN THE 
SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW THOSE 
PROPERTIES CAN DEVELOP IN CONSIDERATION OF THE I-4 
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BASED ON 
THAT APPROVAL.
THIS WILL HOPEFULLY GUIDE YOU THROUGH THE VARIOUS POSITIONS 
THAT HAVE BEEN STATED PUBLICLY ALREADY BY SOME PROPERTY 
OWNERS AND SOME CITIZENS OF THE SEFFNER GROUP AS TO HOW 
THEY FEEL ABOUT THOSE DIFFERENT POSITIONS AND HOW THEY WORK 
WITH EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF HOW YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD.
SO WHEN YOU SEE IT, I THINK IT WILL HELP YOU, AND THEN I'LL 
JUST ASK JOHN TO COME ON UP, AND HE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT 
THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, SIR.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY LOOKING AT THE HANDOUT THAT WAS JUST 
PASSED OUT AS TO HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MOVE FORWARD AT THIS 
TIME.
YOU KNOW, OPTION 1, YOU KNOW, IT'S IF THE BOCC APPROVES THE 
I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN.
I MEAN, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PICK AN OPTION?
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'VE DONE.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
MS. HARVEY --
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO -- >>BRUCE CURY: 
ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
SO THAT MS. HARVEY CAN BE HEARD, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TO 
THE MICROPHONE AND ASK YOUR QUESTION OVER.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  I APOLOGY, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  I'M JUST CONFUSED ON HOW -- IF WE PICK 
OPTION "A" -- I HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT CAREFULLY, BUT IF WE 
PICK OPTION "A" -- OPTION 1, THERE'S "A," "B," "C," "D" 
UNDER IT.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THIS IS MY SUGGESTION, MR. GIUNTA.
IF YOU READ THIS TO SAY OPTION 1, THE PLANNING COMMISSION 
APPROVES THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN, WHICH YOU'VE JUST DONE, 
THEN IN TERMS OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION HOW YOU WOULD BE 
RECOMMENDING, THESE ARE THE VARIOUS OPTIONS YOU COULD 
RECOMMEND AND THE POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE 
PEOPLE INVOLVED.
I MEAN, YOU WILL HEAR THOSE COMMENTS TONIGHT, BUT IT WILL -
- IT CAN -- I THINK IT CAN ASSIST YOU IN TERMS OF HOW YOU 
WOULD BE FINALLY RECOMMENDING AS A VOTING MEMBER OF THIS 
BODY.
THE SAME INFORMATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS AS WELL.
IT'S ONLY INTENDED FOR A GUIDE.
IF IT'S CONFUSING TO YOU, YOU CAN TEAR IT UP IN LITTLE 
PIECES AND THROW IT AWAY.
SERIOUSLY, THAT'S ALL IT IS.
IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION IN ANY FORM.
[OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS]
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  -- HOW WE WERE MOVING FORWARD BEFORE WE 
STARTED GOING, THEN I THINK I WAS THINKING THE WRONG WAY.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  YOU CAN TRANSFORM IT TO BE FOLLOWING WHAT 
YOU NOW THUS RECOMMENDED.
IF YOU RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN, I WOULD 
BE REFERRING YOU TO THE BACK SIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA:  ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  SORRY IF THERE WAS ANY CONFUSION.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, SIR.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER GIUNTA IS GETTING AT 
BECAUSE WE RECOMMEND TO BOCC THE APPROVAL OF THE I-4 
CORRIDOR PLAN, BUT IF BOCC TURNS IT DOWN, THEN ARE WE BACK 
TO THE DRAWING BOARD AGAIN?
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT.
MAY I BE RESPECTFUL AND NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY?
PLEASE BE SEATED RATHER THAN -- YOU'RE TAKING ENERGY AWAY 
FROM ME AS YOU HOVER THERE.
	[LAUGHTER]
OKAY.
I THINK THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION -- I THINK THE BEST 
COURSE OF ACTION IS LET'S HEAR THE PRESENTATION, AND THEN 
ONCE WE HEAR THE PRESENTATION, THEN I THINK THE ACTION THAT 
WE SHOULD TAKE WILL BE CLEARER TO US, AND THEN WE CAN -- 
WE'LL -- WE WILL INCORPORATE THIS AND ANY DIFFICULTIES IT 
MAY OR MAY NOT RAISE AFTER WE HEAR THE PRESENTATION.
OKAY?
WE JUST -- WE'RE HAVING UNNECESSARY CONVERSATION AT THIS 
POINT.
WE'RE GOING TO HEAR A PRESENTATION, AND WE'RE GOING TO 
DECIDE WHETHER IT'S CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT'S OUR TASK.
ALL THIS OTHER STUFF IS, AT THIS POINT, JUST STATIC.
OKAY?
IT MAY BE IMPORTANT LATER, BUT NOT AT THIS POINT.
ALL RIGHT.
PLEASE CONTINUE.
PERMISSION TO APPROACH.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M JOHN HEALEY WITH THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 
DEPARTMENT, AND I WILL PRESENT THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN 
MADE TO THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN SINCE YOU LAST SAW IT.
I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE ADOPTION PROCESS TO DATE AND THE 
CHANGES TO THE PLAN.
JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, THIS IS THE PLANNING AREA OF 
THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN.
IT INCLUDES BOTH THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE RURAL 
SERVICE AREA.
FUTURE LAND USES ARE GENERALLY PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL.
THERE ARE SOME MORE INTENSIVE USES ALONG THE MAJOR 
ROADWAYS.
THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE PUBLIC PROCESS WHICH ORIGINATED IN 
2007.
THE ADOPTION PROCESS, AS YOU KNOW, WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF 
ROUND ONE.
THIS COMMISSION HEARD -- HAD ITS FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ON 
MARCH 8th.
IT WAS THEN HEARD BY THE BOARD ON APRIL 8th.
AT THAT HEARING, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS 
THAT CAME FORWARD AND REQUESTED THAT CERTAIN PROPERTIES BE 
REMOVED FROM THE SEFFNER-MANGO PLAN.
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO ADDRESS THOSE 
ISSUES, THE BOARD THEN CONTINUED IT TO ROUND 2, WHICH 
BRINGS US TO TODAY.

	SINCE THE CONTINUANCE, STAFF, INCLUDING PLANNING 
COMMISSION STAFF, HAS MET WITH THE WORKING COMMITTEE FOR 
SEFFNER-MANGO, AND THERE'S ALSO BEEN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN 
STAFF, PRIMARILY MYSELF AND THE PERSONS WHO REQUESTED TO 
OPT OUT OF THE PLAN.
	THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO 
YOU.
THESE CHANGES WERE THOSE THAT I HAD READ INTO THE RECORD 
DURING THE APRIL 8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC 
HEARING.
THERE ARE CHANGES TO A STRATEGY IN GOAL FOUR AND A STRATEGY 
IN GOAL SIX.
THE REVISED TEXT FOR GOAL FOUR STRATEGY SIMPLY DEFINES 
BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA.
IT IS NOW DEFINED SPECIFICALLY AS TO BE 35 FEET.
THE SECOND CHANGE AFFECTS THE GOAL 6 STRATEGY, WHICH IS 
APPLICABLE TO THAT AREA OF THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN 
THAT IS ENCOMPASSED BOTH IN THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY 
PLAN AND IN THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR.
THE PURPOSE OF GOAL 6 IS TO ENSURE THAT THE TWO PLANS ARE 
COMPATIBLE AND NOT DIVERGE INTO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
THIS PARTICULAR STRATEGY WILL REQUIRE THAT ANY REZONINGS IN 
THAT AREA WILL HAVE TO BE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS.
THIS MAP SHOWS YOU THAT AREA WITHIN THE SEFFNER-MANGO 
COMMUNITY PLAN THAT IS WITHIN BOTH THE I-4 PLANNING EFFORT 
AND WITHIN THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA.
IT'S GENERALLY BOUNDED BY I-4 ON THE NORTH, U.S. 92 ON THE 
SOUTH, McINTOSH ROAD ON THE EAST, AND THE CURRENT URBAN 
SERVICE AREA ON THE WEST.
PRESENTLY, THE ENTIRE AREA IS WITHIN THE RURAL SERVICE 
AREA.
THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS JULY 22nd WITH THE BOARD OF 
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO CHANGES WE HAVE PROPOSED.
OTHERWISE, THE PLAN IS AS YOU HAVE SEEN IT ORIGINALLY BACK 
WHEN YOU HEARD IT PREVIOUSLY, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY 
QUESTIONS.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. HEALEY.
YOU MAY RETIRE FROM THE BENCH.
>>PEDRO PARRA:  PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF IS THAT THIS PLAN 
AMENDMENT, CPA 10-11 FOR SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN, WITH 
THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED SINCE THE FIRST CYCLE 
OF 2010, ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND 
POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE RECOMMEND THAT 
YOU APPROVE IT.
SECONDLY, STAFF HAS INCLUDED IN YOUR REPORT PACKET A 
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE BOCC IN THE 
CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER CERTAIN PROPERTIES SHOULD BE 
EXCLUDED FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN WHERE 
PROPERTY OWNERS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE REQUESTED TO 
BE EXCLUDED.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT EXCLUDING PROPERTIES BY SIMPLE PETITION 
WOULD LIMIT THE SUCCESS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND HAS 
INCLUDED A DISCUSSION OF THEIR CONSIDERATION TO EXCLUDE 
CERTAIN PROPERTIES AS PART OF STAFF'S REPORT IN YOUR PACKET 
TODAY.
STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY PROPERTIES BEING EXCLUDED FROM 
THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARIES, AND THAT IS 
REFLECTED IN THE SUBMISSION TODAY.
THERE ARE NO PARTIALS THAT ARE BEING EXCLUDED.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT CRITERIA NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED TO 
ADDRESS REQUESTS IN THE FUTURE TO INCLUDE BOTH THE 
COMMUNITY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THOSE EXCLUSION 
REQUESTS THAT COME AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC HEARING 
PROCESS.
AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. PARRA.
WHO DESIRES OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR?
YES, MS. FLOTT.
>> TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, AND WE SUPPORT 
THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED TODAY WITH THE CHANGES -- NOT 
CHANGES -- BUT CORRECTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE 
LAST -- THAT WERE MADE SINCE IT WAS LAST PRESENTED TO YOU.
SO WE SUPPORT IT AS IT STANDS WRITTEN TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: WHEN YOU SAY YOU SUPPORT IT, YOU MEAN YOU 
INCLUDE WITH NO OPTING OUT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> JUST ONE MORE CLARIFICATION.
MY NAME IS ELIZABETH BELCHER, SEFFNER, FLORIDA.
WE ALSO WANT TO KEEP IN ITEM 6 AS IT'S WRITTEN.
WE DON'T WANT THAT REMOVED.
IT WAS PUT IN TO PROTECT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE CITIZENS 
OF SEFFNER.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. BELCHER.
WHO ELSE CARES TO SPEAK?
ARE THERE THOSE THAT WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN 
OPPOSITION?
>> CAMI CORBETT AGAIN, 100 NORTH TAMPA STREET, SUITE 2700, 
TAMPA, FLORIDA.
GIVEN THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO FULLY SUPPORT THE PLAN, THAT'S 
WHY I STEPPED UP IN OPPOSITION, GIVEN HOW WE HANDLED THE 
LAST AMENDMENT.
WHAT I WANT TO EXPLAIN TO YOU BRIEFLY IS EXPLAIN WHY THE 
PROPERTY IS IN WHAT WE CALL THE NOTCH AREA, WHICH IS AN 
AREA COVERED BY THE I-4 PLANNING PROCESS DECIDED TO OPT 
OUT.
WE TRIED TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY FOR WELL OVER A YEAR 
AND TRIED TO REACH SOME LEVEL OF CONSENSUS.
AND PEDRO, IN HIS STAFF REPORT, TALKS ABOUT CONSENSUS, AND 
CONSENSUS -- TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT LEVELS OF CONSENSUS 
ON THE COMMITTEE CAN INCLUDE A MIX OF PARTICIPANTS WHO 
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE SOLUTION, PARTICIPANTS WHO CAN LIVE 
WITH THE SOLUTIONS, PARTICIPANTS WHO SUPPORT THE SOLUTIONS 
BUT AGREE NOT TO VETO IT.
WHERE WE FOUND OURSELVES AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION 
MEETING WAS WE FOUND THE CITIZENS OF SEFFNER WORKED TO 
NEGOTIATE GOAL 6 WITH ME AND THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS 
INTENDED TO TRY TO VETO IT BY ELIMINATING THE I-4 FROM 
GETTING APPROVED AT ALL, LEAVING US WITH NO NEGOTIATED USES 
REMAINING IN GOAL 6 BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS DRAFTED.
AND SO IT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO US THAT THE PLANNING EFFORTS 
THAT WERE DUAL AND COMPETING THAT PLANNING AND GROWTH 
MANAGEMENT TRIED SO HARD TO MAKE COMPATIBLE THROUGHOUT THE 
PROCESS WERE, ACTUALLY, IN FACT, THAT DUAL AND COMPETING 
AND CONTINUE TO BE SO.
SO WHEN SELECTING TO OPT OUT, IT WASN'T SO MUCH AN OPTING 
OUT OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
IT WAS SAYING WE PREFER TO BE GOVERNED BY THIS PLANNING 
EXERCISE RATHER THAN THAT PLANNING EXERCISE.
SO I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE THAT EXPLANATION TO YOU ALL.
SO THEREFORE, GIVEN THE LEVEL AND STRENGTH OF OPPOSITION TO 
WHAT'S GOING ON ON OUR PROPERTY, WE CONTINUE TO WISH TO BE 
OUTSIDE OF THE SEFFNER PLANNING AREA INCLUDED IN THE I-4 
CORRIDOR PLANNING.
>>BRUCE CURY: IS IT A FAIR DISTILLATION OF YOUR POSITION 
YOU FIND FAVOR WITH THE MANGO SEFFNER PLAN EXCEPT THAT YOU 
WANT TO BE OPTED OUT?
>> CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: HOW MANY ACRES?
>> OUR PROPERTY IS 94 ACRES, AND THERE'S AN ADJACENT 
PROPERTY OWNER.
BUT WE INCLUDED THE THREE LARGE PROPERTY OWNERS AT A 
MINIMUM SUBMITTED LETTERS.
THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 90 ACRES TO THE EAST, AND MS. 
TOLBERT IS HERE TO ADDRESS THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST -- I 
MEAN THE OPPOSITE WAY.
90 ACRES TO THE WEST.
MR. ALUOTTO ADDRESSED TO THE EAST.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN.
KRISTEN TOLBERT, BRICKLEMYER SMOLKER & BOLVES.
ONCE AGAIN, I REPRESENT ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND NOW 
WE KNOW IT AS THE NOTCH AREA.
MY CLIENT OWNS APPROXIMATELY 70  TO 80 ACRES WITHIN THE 
NOTCH AREA, AND MY CLIENT REMAINED VERY INVOLVED IN BOTH 
THE SEFFNER MANGO ONCE WE WERE INCLUDED IN THAT AND IN THE 
I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN.
AND IN WORKING IN BOTH THOSE PLANS, WE TRIED TO REACH SOME 
CONSENSUS WITH THE COMMUNITY, BUT WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES 
AT THE END OF THE DAY IS WE'RE INSIDE OF BOTH PLANS THE WAY 
THEY'RE CURRENTLY WRITTEN, AND THERE'S NO REASON TO INCLUDE 
THIS PROPERTY WITHIN BOTH PLANS.
THERE'S NO REASON TO FORCE A PROPERTY OWNER TO GO LOOK AT 
ONE SET OF POLICIES AND THEN ANOTHER SET OF POLICIES AND 
ONE SET OF IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS AND ANOTHER SET OF 
IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.
THE I-4 PLAN THAT YOU JUST RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD OF 
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS A LOT OF POLICIES AND A LOT OF 
GOALS THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS.
AND THOSE IN THE IMPLEMENTING POLICY THAT IS WILL BE WORKED 
ON BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF WILL BE MORE 
THAN ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT THE I-4 -- BOTH THE GREEN 
TECH EXPANSION AREA AND IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA -- ARE 
DEVELOPED IN AN ORDERLY MANNER AND THERE'S NO LEAPING OVER.
THE PURPOSE OF THE I-4 PLAN IS TO ENCOURAGE THESE 
ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL USES TO INCLUDE THESE USES TO COME 
TO OUR AREA WHILE BEING CONTROLLED IN AN ORDERLY 
DEVELOPMENT, WHICH THOSE POLICIES PROVIDE FOR.
REQUIRING A PROPERTY OWNER TO GO TO TWO ENTIRE SEPARATE SET 
OF POLICIES, TWO ENTIRE SEPARATE SET OF IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATIONS WOULD DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN 
ENCOURAGING THESE ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL USES, AND FOR 
THAT REASON, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP THE NOTCH AREA 
IN THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN AND OUT OF THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. TOLBERT.
WHO ELSE DESIRES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?
>> GOOD EVENING.
I AM LISA JARRETT OF 408 NORTH TAYLOR ROAD IN SEFFNER.
MY PROPERTY LIES WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE DEVELOPMENT AREA.
IT'S ALSO THE AREA THAT THE SEFFNER PLAN DECIDED THAT THEY 
DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THE I-4 CORRIDOR.
I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THE SEFFNER PLAN.
I ASKED TO BE OPTED OUT SIMPLY BECAUSE I WOULD WELCOME TO 
BE PART OF I-4 PLAN.
I SEE THE SEFFNER PLAN.
I'VE PARTICIPATED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH JOHN -- I 
PARTICIPATED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH JOHN WHERE HE ADDRESSED 
SOME OF MY CONCERNS, SO IT'S NOT LIKE I JUST SAID I WANT 
OUT AND THEN I REFUSE TO TALK TO ANYBODY.
WE TALKED ABOUT MY CONCERNS.
I'M NOT ASKING PUT ME ON MY OWN SPECIAL PLAN.
I WANT TO BE SPECIAL.
JUST I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOUR 
COMPREHENSIVE COUNTY PLAN WORKS.
I DON'T -- COMING THROUGH A ZONING PROCESS PREVIOUSLY, I 
RAN INTO OPPOSITION FROM MY COMMUNITY AND DON'T FEEL LIKE A 
BIG PART OF MY COMMUNITY, DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY REALLY ARE 
INTERESTED IN WHAT MY CONCERNS ARE.
SO I'M NOT ASKING GIVE ME MY OWN SPECIAL PLAN, BUT LEAVE ME 
OUT SO THAT IF I COME BEFORE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMETHING, 
YOU'VE ONLY GOT TO MAKE SURE I MATCH UP TO YOUR 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NOT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MATCH ME UP 
TO WHAT DOES THIS PLAN SAY AND WHAT DOES THIS PLAN SAY AND 
WHAT DOES THE OTHER ONE SAY.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN.
I WAS NOT AT ALL THOSE PLANNING MEETINGS.
A LARGE PORTION OF THAT TIME I WAS OUT OF TOWN, AND QUITE 
HONESTLY, BECAUSE OF MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THE 
SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN 
INCLINED TO GO ANYWAY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T REALLY SHOWN 
MUCH LOVE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAY.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. GARRETT.
WHAT?
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. JARRETT.
FORGIVE ME.
WHO ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK?
I GUESS, MR. HEALEY, LET ME FIND OUT FIRST, MR. PARRA, WHO 
WILL PROVIDE REBUTTAL?
IS IT YOUR INTENTION, OR DID YOU INTEND FOR MR. HEALEY?
>>PEDRO PARRA:  IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE QUESTION, BUT I 
THINK MOST OF THE ACTUAL PLANNING DISCUSSION OF THE 
COMMUNITY PLANS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE JOHN.
>>BRUCE CURY: MR. HEALEY, COME UP, PLEASE.
MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T RECOGNIZE 
THAT YOU'D HAVE THIS RESPONSIBILITY.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE THAT WERE 
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN THAT YOU SUPPORT?
DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THEM?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  I CERTAINLY REMEMBER THE COMMENTS THAT WERE 
MADE.
WHETHER OR NOT I SEE THEM AS BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE 
PLAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE EXPLICITLY INCONSISTENT.
FOR THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH WE HAVE DESCRIBED, IT'S NO THE 
NOTCH PROPERTIES, THAT MS. CORBETT AND MS. TOLBERT SPOKE 
TO, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED TO OPT OUT.
THE PLAN YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, THEY ARE STILL WITHIN THE 
SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE PLAN STILL HAS THE GOAL, GOAL 6, WHICH PROVIDES FOR 
COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TWO.
SO WHILE THEY MIGHT ASK TO OPT OUT, THE PLAN YOU HAVE 
BEFORE YOU STILL PROVIDES FOR THAT COMPATIBILITY.
WITH RESPECT TO MS. JARRETT, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK 
WITH HER EXTENSIVELY OVER THE PHONE.
WE DISCUSSED THE PLAN, WHAT IT MAY MEAN FOR HER PROPERTY.
DURING THAT DISCUSSION, I RELATED TO HER THAT I FELT IT 
WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT HER POSITION, THAT IT DID NOT 
ALTER THE POSITION OF HER LAND, WHAT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO 
REQUEST TO DO WITH IT.
THAT BEING SAID, SHE HAS STILL VOICED THE OPINION THAT 
YOU'VE HEARD TODAY.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, SIR.
MR. PARRA.
>>PEDRO PARRA:  PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION.
IN TERMS OF THE FIRST TWO SPEAK WHORES WERE ASKING WHETHER 
THEY COULD BE REMOVED IN TERMS OF THE NOTCH, WE WERE 
LOOKING AT THE CONSISTENCY BASED ON THE FACT THAT PLANNING 
AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HAD SUBMITTED IT WITH A BOUNDARY 
UNCHANGED.
THAT WAS OUR MANDATE WAS TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AND 
SEE IF IT WAS CONSISTENT.
WE FOUND IT CONSISTENT.
NOW, WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IF ANY OF 
THESE SCENARIOS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU ABOUT TAKING 
THAT NOTCH OUT WOULD STILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN, BUT 
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WERE PRESENTED WITH.
WE WERE PRESENTED WITH WHAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET, AND WE 
FOUND THAT THAT APPLICATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: THROUGH ALL THOSE WORDS, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT 
IF YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT 
THEY SHOULD BE OPTED OUT, WOULD YOU HAVE ELECTED TO OPT 
OUT?
WOULD THAT BE CONSISTENT WITH GOOD PLANNING PRINCIPLES?
>>PEDRO PARRA:  IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH 
THE PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T THINK YOU --
>>PEDRO PARRA:  BUT WE ARE NOT SUPPORTING OPTING OUT.
THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE, IN TERMS OF THE NOTCH, WITH THE 
APPROVAL OF THE I-4, THAT WOULD HAVE A GUIDING DOCUMENT 
THAT WOULD, INDEED, HAVE A REGULATORY PROCESS TO IT.
WE SEE THAT AS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE 
INTERNAL TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT WOULD BE EXEMPTED THAT 
WOULD REQUEST TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE COMMUNITY PLAN 
BECAUSE THE NOTCH ITSELF WOULD HAVE A GOVERNING DOCUMENT 
UNDER THE I-4 IF THAT IS APPROVED, THAT WOULD TELL US THAT 
THAT STILL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE IT HAS 
A GUIDING DOCUMENT BEHIND IT.
>>BRUCE CURY: THIS PLANNING LANGUAGE IS SO ESOTERIC, I HAVE 
NO IDEA HOW ANYONE EVEN PRETENDS TO UNDERSTAND IT.
OKAY.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: IT'S OKAY.
I HEAR IT ALL AND I DISTILL IT.
THANK YOU, MR. PARRA.
YES, MA'AM.
>>TERRI COBB: MR. HEALEY, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION.
IS MS. JARRETT'S PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS WITH THE I-4 PLAN?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  NO, IT IS NOT.
>>TERRI COBB: SO THAT IT COULD BE INCLUDED IF -- YOU KNOW, 
WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  IT IS REMOVED FROM -- THAT AREA, THE 
PREVIOUS MAP THAT I HAD -- IF I CAN GO BACK.
THE AREA THAT YOU SEE ON THE MAP THERE, IT SAYS SUBJECT 
AREA, IT IS REMOVED TO THE WEST FROM THE AREA THAT IS 
CROSS-HATCHED THERE.
IT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS OR PROXIMATE TO THAT AREA.
>>TERRI COBB: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>>HUNG MAI: MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I ASK JOHN --
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, COMMISSIONER, OF COURSE.
>>HUNG MAI: JOHN, COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE IS THE THREE 
PROPERTIES THEY WOULD LIKE TO OPT OUT?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THIS IS THAT SAME AREA THAT I SHOWED YOU IN 
CROSS-HATCH ON THE MAP.
THE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE REQUESTED TO BE OPTED OUT WITHIN 
THAT AREA THAT WE'VE CALLED THE NOTCH ARE SHOWN IN YELLOW 
HIGHLIGHT THERE, SO THEY'RE PROPERTIES THAT RANGE FROM ONE 
END TO THE OTHER OF THE AREA.
THEY ENCOMPASS THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE 
NOTCH AREA.
THAT IS THEIR LOCATION.
>>BRUCE CURY: MAYBE IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE HAD A LARGER 
PRESENTATION SO YOU COULD SEE WHERE THESE PROPERTIES ARE 
RELATIVE TO THE WHOLE OF THE PLAN.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  I CAN PROVIDE A SLIDE FOR THAT, 
COMMISSIONER.
>>BRUCE CURY: IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ASKING FOR 50% OF THE 
PLAN FROM THIS PRESENTATION.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  NO, LET ME TURN TO ANOTHER SLIDE THAT'S GOT 
ALL THE PROPERTIES.
OBVIOUSLY, FROM THIS SCALE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT WHAT 
YOU CAN SEE -- IF THE MOUSE WILL WORK -- IS THE GENERAL 
DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ENTIRE PLANNING 
AREA.
THE THREE PROPERTIES I HAD SHOWN YOU ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE 
ARE LOCATED IN THIS AREA HERE BETWEEN I-4 AND U.S. 92, AND 
I'M ASSUMING YOU CAN SEE THE CURSOR THERE.
SO THOSE ARE THE THREE PROPERTIES, McINTOSH ROAD IS 
APPROXIMATELY THERE, U.S. 92, AND THE EXISTING URBAN 
SERVICE AREA.
YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THAT THE FDOT WEIGH STATION IS WITHIN 
THAT AREA.
PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING.
THERE'S A PROPERTY FARTHER EAST OF MARTIN LUTHER KING.
THERE'S A SINGLE PROPERTY ON CHASTAIN DRIVE.
MS. JARRETT'S PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THIS OUTLINE HERE.
IT IS SOUTH OF U.S. 92, AND IT'S ALONG NORTH TAYLOR ROAD.
YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS SOME DISTANCE FROM THE I-4 AREA, THE 
NOTCH AREA THAT'S ENCOMPASSED BY BOTH PLANS.
SO THIS MIGHT -- IF I MOVE BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDE WITH 
THESE THREE PROPERTIES IN CLOSE-UP, THAT MIGHT MAKE A 
LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE TO YOU NOW RELATIVE TO THE REST OF 
THE PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: WE NOW UNDERSTAND IT IN ITS CONTEXT.
IN ITS LARGER CONTEXT.
YOUR POSITION IS THAT THESE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE HEARD 
TONIGHT, THOSE REQUESTS THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, 
REQUESTING TO BE OPTED OUT, SHOULD NOT BE OPTED OUT.
IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER, SIGNED BY BOTH 
MY DIRECTOR AND BY MR. HUNTER, INDICATING IT IS THE 
POSITION OF OUR AGENCIES THAT OPT OUT NOT BE PART -- NOT BE 
ALLOWED.
AND I DEFER TO MR. ALUOTTO IF HE CARES TO EXPAND ON THAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: I RECOGNIZE -- MR. HUNTER IS TO MY LEFT, AND 
MR. ALUOTTO, WHO I RESPECT, I CAN SEE HIM OVER THERE.
I GAVE YOU THE RESPECT OF ASKING WHAT YOUR OPINION WAS.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  I'M QUITE FLATTERED.
	[LAUGHTER]
>>BRUCE CURY: YOU SHOULD BE.
NOW, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING ME IS AS A STAFF 
MEMBER OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
>>BRUCE CURY: I UNDERSTAND.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  WHICH IS I AM REPRESENTING.
AND YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU WHAT THE AGENCY'S POSITION IS.
I FEEL COMPELLED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT AGENCY 
POSITION.
>>BRUCE CURY:  THAT IS ONE RESPONSE.
THANK YOU.
CERTAINLY YOU ARE GOING TO DO THAT WHEN MR. -- NO, I DIDN'T 
MEAN TO PUT A WEDGE BETWEEN YOU.
I HAD HOPED THAT THAT QUESTION WOULD ENGENDER A LIST OF THE 
REASONS WHY YOUR AGENCY HAS TAKEN A POSITION THAT THEY 
SHOULDN'T BE OPTED OUT.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO BE DIVISIVE.
THAT'S NOT MY WAY.
IT WAS JUST AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IS 
THAT -- AND I KNOW THAT THOSE ARE SET OUT IN THE LETTER, 
BUT NOT EVERYBODY HAS THE LETTER.
YOU ARE A WITNESS, AND I AM ELICITING TESTIMONY FOR YOU.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  I AM ON THE WITNESS STAND, YES.
CERTAINLY, WHEN PROPERTIES OPT OUT OF AREAS, THIS WOULD 
PROVIDE FOR A GREAT DEAL OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY 
PLAN AND SPECIFIC AREAS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PLAN APPLIES TO 5,000 ACRES BUT NOT THIS 
FIVE ACRES AND NOT THIS TEN ACRES OVER HERE.
IT BECOMES ESPECIALLY PROBLEMATIC WHEN THESE ARE INTRODUCED 
AT THE LATE POINT IN TIME AT WHICH THEY WERE EVIDENCED IN 
THE PROCESS.
THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS HAS ALWAYS PROVIDED FOR A 
FORUM FOR PEOPLE TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS FOR THEIR 
PROPERTIES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR LOCATION IN THE COMMUNITY 
PLAN.
WE ALSO HAVE SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTIES WHEN WE MOVE TO 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 
CODE LEVEL.
WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES 
WOULD BE PERHAPS NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH THINGS AS OVERLAYS, 
THAT THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE IN PROPERTIES AS YOU GO DOWN 
THE ROAD.
ONE PROPERTY IS -- IS SUBJECT TO THOSE REGULATIONS, ANOTHER 
IS NOT.
THERE ARE A HOST OF DIFFICULTIES THAT ARE ENGENDERED BY THE 
OPTING-OUT PROCESS THAT IS PUT BEFORE YOU IN THE MANNER 
THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IT TO THIS DATE.
>>BRUCE CURY: LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION, PLEASE.
I CAN SEE THAT ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE PROPERTIES IS DEEP 
WITHIN THIS PLAN AREA.
I THINK IT MAY BE REASONABLE TO ARGUE THAT THAT WOULD BE 
DISRUPTIVE TO THE CONTINUITY OF THE PLAN AND OTHER THINGS.
HOWEVER, SOME OF THE PROPERTIES ARE ON THE VERY EDGE.
WHY -- YOUR POSITION IS EVEN THOSE PROPERTIES -- I THINK 
YOU REFERRED TO THEM AS THE NOTCH PROPERTIES --
>>JOHN HEALEY:  CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
THOSE NOTCH PROPERTIES SEEM TO BE ON THE PERIPHERY.
WHY IS IT REASONABLE NOT TO ALLOW THEM TO OPT OUT?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  WELL, AGAIN, THE NOTCH PROPERTIES ARE 
DISTINGUISHABLE, AS YOU ALLUDED TO IN YOUR COMMENT, IN THAT 
THEY ARE ENCOMPASSED BY BOTH PLANNING EFFORTS.
SO I COULD UNDERSTAND IF ONE HAD THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD 
BE PREFERABLE TO IDENTIFY A SINGULAR PLAN, A SPECIAL AREA 
PLAN IN THE CASE OF I-4, A COMMUNITY PLAN, THAT THEY SHOULD 
BE SUBJECT TO.
THE PLAN YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, THOUGH, WAS DEVISED IN A 
MANNER TO ENSURE THAT THE TWO PLANNING EFFORTS WERE 
COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER, AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE 
BEFORE YOU TODAY.
I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY ARGUABLE BY PERSONS WHICH YOU'VE 
ALREADY HEARD THAT IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE FOR AN AREA 
THAT'S ENCOMPASSED BY TWO PLANNING EFFORTS TO BE SUBJECT TO 
SOLELY ONE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE 
YOU, NOR NECESSARILY IS IT WHAT YOU HAVE EXPRESSED AS THE 
AGENCY'S OPINION IN THE LETTER THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. HEALEY.
DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS?
>>HUNG MAI: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR JOHN.
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE OPPONENTS IS SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO 
BE IN THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN, AND THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN HAS 
A LOT OF CRITERIA OR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, SO THEY SHOULD 
BE ALLOWED, YOU KNOW, TO BE OPTED OUT ON THE SEFFNER MANGO 
PLAN.
WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THAT?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  WELL, AS I INDICATED, THERE CERTAINLY IS A 
VALID ARGUMENT FOR THAT, WHICH MAY DIVERGE FROM OUR STATED 
POSITIONS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE 
UNDERTAKING A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT WITH THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN 
TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT POLICIES AND, 
ULTIMATELY, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR 
NOT ONLY THE USES THAT MAY OCCUR ON PROPERTIES BUT FOR 
COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE AREA, 
WHERE THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT A 
NONRESIDENTIAL USE IS APPROPRIATE APPROXIMATE TO A 
RESIDENTIAL USE.
>>HUNG MAI: CAN YOU GIVE ME A PRO AND CON ON UP OR DOWN, 
BESIDES, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING PRINCIPLES?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE ASKING OPTING OUT IN 
GENERAL, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE PROPERTIES THAT WE'VE SEEN 
DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING AREA, OR OPTING OUT IN 
THE SENSE OF CHOOSING BETWEEN ONE PLANNING EFFORT VERSUS 
ANOTHER PLANNING EFFORT.
>>HUNG MAI: I'M ASKING SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS OPTING 
OUT --
>>JOHN HEALEY:  FOR THE NOTCH AREA?
>>HUNG MAI: UH-HUH.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  AS STATED, THIS IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM 
OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE REQUESTED BE OPTED OUT IN PLANS 
IN THAT IT IS, AS YOU DESCRIBE, ON THE PERIMETER OF THIS 
PLANNING AREA.
IT IS ALSO ENCOMPASSED BY ANOTHER PLANNING AREA, A SPECIAL 
AREA PLAN FOR THIS AREA.
>>HUNG MAI: OKAY.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, SIR.
>>HUNG MAI: ANOTHER QUESTION THAT'S NOT RELATED TO JOHN, 
BUT IT'S KIND OF A LEGAL QUESTION WHETHER LEGALLY, CAN WE, 
AS THE PLANNING BOARD HERE -- THE LEGAL ISSUE IS THAT IF 
THEY'RE ASKING TO OPT OUT, DO WE HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY 
TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE PART OF THE 
COMMUNITY PLAN?
>>BRUCE CURY: YES.
WE CAN -- WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITHOUT OPTING OUT.
WE CAN EITHER TAKE IT -- YOU TAKE IT AS IT IS.
THAT IS MERELY AN OPPOSING POSITION, SOMETHING FOR YOU TO 
CONSIDER.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR 
NOT WE HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WITH THE 
OPT OUTS.
YES, WE CAN ALSO DO THAT.
>>HUNG MAI: OKAY.
WE HAVE NOT -- AS PLANNING BOARD, WE HAVE NOT -- OR, YOU 
KNOW, ANY -- WE HAVE NOT LEGALLY CHALLENGED BY THE PROPERTY 
OWNER IS WHAT I'M ASKING.
>>TRACY ROBIN: COMMISSIONER, WE'VE DONE THIS IN OTHER PLANS 
AS WELL WHERE WE'VE HAD PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OPPOSED BEING 
INCLUDED IN THE PLAN, BUT THAT ISSUE DOES NOT BEAR ON 
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMUNITY PLAN -- ADOPTION OF THE 
COMMUNITY PLAN IS CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND TAKING THAT POSITION DOES NOT CHANGE THAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: DID YOU GET IT ANSWERED?
>>HUNG MAI: YES, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF THAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: WE CAN -- WE CAN ACCEPT IT OR REJECT IT WITH 
OR WITHOUT THE OPT-IN OR THE OPT-OUT, AND FOR WHAT IT'S 
WORTH, MR. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IS IT TRUE THAT IN ALL OF 
THE COMMUNITY PLANS, WE HAVE NEVER -- OUR HISTORY INDICATES 
THAT THERE HAS NOT -- WE HAVE NOT ALLOWED AN OPT-OUT?
>>ROBERT HUNTER: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES, YOU 
HAVE NOT.
I THINK -- I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN OPT -- DURING 
THE PROCESS ON A CITRUS PARK PLAN -- DOWNTOWN PLAN, BUT 
OTHERWISE, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, NO ONE HAS EVER 
OPTED OUT OF A COMMUNITY PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: WOW, TAKING ALL THOSE WORDS TOGETHER, I GUESS 
WE HAVE OPTED OUT ONE TIME?
>>ROBERT HUNTER: BEFORE IT GOT TO YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
AS A COMMISSION, HOWEVER, WE HAVE NEVER COUNTENANCED AN 
OPT-OUT.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST A FOLLOW-UP ON THAT 
QUESTION.
HAS IT EVER BEEN REQUESTED, THEN, AT THIS POINT -- BECAUSE 
I DON'T RECALL AT THIS POINT OF WHERE WE WERE PRESENTED 
WITH ADOPTION OF A COMMUNITY PLAN WHERE WE HAD INDIVIDUALS 
REQUESTING AN OPT-OUT.
>>ROBERT HUNTER: I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT.
I DON'T -- NORMALLY WHEN WE BRING THESE TO YOU, IT'S 
CONSENSUS DRIVEN, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IT COMING TO YOU IN 
THAT FORMAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: MR. PARRA, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED HAVE 
WE EVER HAD A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THE 
PLANNING COMMISSION STAGE WHEN WE HAVE HAD REQUESTS, AS 
WE'VE HAD TONIGHT, TO BE OPTED OUT -- BY INDIVIDUALS TO 
HAVE THEIR PROPERTY OPTED OUT?
>>PEDRO PARRA:  NOT AT THE PLAN AMENDMENT STAGE, NOT 
PRESIDENT COMMUNITY PLAN PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION STAGE.
WE HAVEN'T HAD SOMEONE COME FORWARD AND DO IT AT A PUBLIC 
HEARING.
THE ANSWER IS NO.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU.
ON YOUR FACE, THERE'S AN EXPRESSION OF A QUESTION, UNLESS 
YOU'RE JUST STANDING THERE TO WAVE AT ME.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY:  PLEASE.
WHAT DID YOU WANT TO SAY TO HELP US?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  PAULA HARVEY, PLANNING AND GROWTH 
MANAGEMENT.
YOU HAD ASKED A MOMENT AGO -- THE QUESTION WAS ASKED BY, I 
BELIEVE, MR. MAI REGARDING THE OVERALL SITUATION WITH THE 
OPT-OUTS AND WHAT OUR POSITION WAS, AND OTHER THAN JUST 
SAYING REFER TO THE LETTER IN A WAS SIGNED BY MR. HUNTER 
AND MR. ALUOTTO, ESSENTIALLY, THE BASIS OF THAT IS THAT THE 
COMMUNITY PLAN PROGRAM CONTEMPLATES THE RECOGNITION OF THE 
COMMUNITY-BASED PLANS INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND NO 
ONE'S OPTED OUT OF THAT.
IT'S JUST ANOTHER LEVEL OF OUR OVERALL PLANNING PROCESS.
SO WE'VE NEVER ENVISIONED THAT SOMEONE -- OR ANY PROPERTY, 
I SHOULD SAY -- WITHIN THE COUNTY WOULD NOT BE ADDRESSED 
THROUGH A COMMUNITY-BASED PLAN.
AND IN FACT, WE HAVE MAPS THAT WE HAVE POSTED THAT IDENTIFY 
THE VARIOUS AREAS BY NAME OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT IS 
EITHER ALREADY ADOPTED OR CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT.
TOTALLY ENCOMPASSING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY.
>>BRUCE CURY: THE NOMENCLATURE ITSELF, IT IS A COMMUNITY 
PLAN, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL PLAN, AND I GUESS THAT'S --
>>PAULA HARVEY:  CORRECT.
CORRECT.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES.
>> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS BOARD APPROVES THIS AMENDMENT, 
CPA 10-11 --
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, SIR.
>> -- APPROVES THE TEXT AMENDMENT ON IT WITHOUT ANY OPT-OUT 
IN THERE WHATSOEVER, AND LET THE INDIVIDUALS THEN DEAL WITH 
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON IT ON AN INDIVIDUAL 
BASIS?
>>BRUCE CURY: THEY COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT; HOWEVER, I'D 
LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THIS.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN FAVOR OF DEFERRING RESPONSIBILITY TO 
ANYONE ELSE.
WE WILL CONFRONT IT.
WE WILL MAKE OUR BEST JUDGMENT.
AND IF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- OUR PURPOSE IS 
TO GIVE THEM OUR BEST CONSIDERED JUDGMENT, AND IF WE DON'T 
THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE OPTED OUT OR SHOULD BE OPTED OUT, 
WE WILL MAKE THAT JUDGMENT HERE.
NOW, IF WE HAVE AN INCONSISTENT POSITION, THEN THEY WILL DO 
IT FOR THEIR OWN REASONS.
I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO THINK THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS IS GOING TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF ALLOWING TO 
OPT OUT SO THAT WE OUGHT TO AVOID OUR RESPONSIBILITY OF 
MAKING AND PRESENTING OUR BEST RECOMMENDATION TO THEM.
>> WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THAT WE APPROVE 
THE AMENDMENT, TEXT AMENDMENT, AS IT CAME TO US FROM THE 
COMMUNITY AND STAY -- STAY RIGHT NOW.
DON'T MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL.
DON'T MAKE A SUGGESTION IN THERE WHATSOEVER ON THE OPT-OUT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
WELL, THE -- THAT WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY SIMPLY APPROVAL.
BECAUSE THAT APPROVAL WOULD BE SILENT OF ANY COMMENT ON THE 
OPT-OUT.
LET ME ASK THIS.
MAZZ HARVEY, WOULD YOU COME BACK?
THANK YOU.
ASSUMING THAT WE WERE TO APPROVE WITHOUT ANY OPT-OUTS, AND 
ASSUMING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WERE TO 
APPROVE WITHOUT ANY OPT-OUTS, IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OR THE 
ZONING PROCESS, IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE 
LANDOWNERS TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR PURPOSE?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  THE REFERENCES BY OTHERS PREVIOUSLY THAT 
WE HAVE -- WE, THE COUNTY, HAD APPROVED OPT-OUTS, 
ESSENTIALLY MUST HAVE BEEN, IN MY BEST EDUCATED OPINION, A 
REFERENCE TO A FEW EXCEPTIONS WE'VE PROVIDED FOR WITHIN THE 
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
IN THE RUSKIN DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, WHICH IS PART OF THE 
RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN, WE CREATED SOME SPECIALIZED 
REGULATIONS WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADDRESS 
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT RUSKIN DOWNTOWN.
THERE'S, LIKE, TWO OR THREE SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
ONE PROPERTY OWNER LOOKED AT THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES 
THAT HE WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THAT DISTRICT THAT WAS 
CREATED FOR HIS AREA AND SAID, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SELL 
MOTORCYCLES FROM MY PROPERTY, AND I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO.
CAN THE BOARD ADD THAT IN AS A USE?
WELL, THE BOARD DIDN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE THE WHOLE DISTRICT.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE THAT USE AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE 
OTHERS.
BUT THEY DID DO IT FOR HIM, SO WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT 
CODE, WE HAVE A REFERENCE TO HIS FOLIO TO HAVE THE 
ALLOWABILITY OF THAT ADDITIONAL USE.
BUT HE IS IN THE PLAN, HE IS IN THE RUSKIN DISTRICT.
HE WASN'T OPTED OUT.
HE JUST GOT AN ADDITIONAL USE GIVEN TO HIM ON A PIECE OF 
PROPERTY.
THAT'S HOW THE BOARD DEALT WITH THAT ISSUE.
>>BRUCE CURY: LET'S SAY -- IS THERE ANY METHOD BY WHICH THE 
LANDOWNERS' OBJECTIONS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A ZONING 
PROCESS?
THAT IS AFTER WE DECIDE NO OPT-OUT, AND AFTER THE BOARD OF 
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ASSUMING THEY DECIDE NO OPT-OUT, IS 
THERE ANY RELIEF FOR THESE LANDOWNERS THROUGH THE ZONING 
PROCESS?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  ALWAYS.
THE ZONING PROCESS PROVIDES FOR FORUM FOR PROPERTY OWNERS 
TO ASK FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO BE DONE ON THEIR 
PROPERTY, AND IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, AS MR. HEALEY 
EXPLAINED, THERE REALLY WAS NOT A CONFLICT BEING CREATED BY 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICIES OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THAT IN 
FACT, THEIR PRIMARY REGULATORY DEVICE IS GOING TO BE THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND NOTHING ABOUT THAT HAS CHANGED.
SO WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEY 
WOULD BE ABLE TO ASK FOR REZONING, AND IF THEY COMPLIED, 
FINE.
WE HAVE ASSURED OTHERS AS WELL THAT HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT 
THAT OPTING OUT OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN DOES NOT KEEP ANYONE 
FROM HAVING TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR 
REZONING, DOES NOT KEEP NEIGHBORS FROM OBJECTING IF THAT'S 
WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, AND THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THE ZONING 
PROCESS THAT CHANGES AS A RESULT OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 
COMMUNITY PLAN.
IF THERE IS AN AREA THAT'S IN CONFLICT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT 
IT IS AT THIS POINT.
CERTAINLY NOT FOR I-4 BECAUSE THERE'S -- THE PLAN ITSELF 
PROVIDES FOR POLICIES SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING I-4.
>>BRUCE CURY: TO INCORPORATE THE ADJACENT PLAN.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  ABSOLUTELY.
SO YES, THE ZONING PROCESS -- SHORT ANSWER -- WOULD 
ACCOMMODATE A FORUM FOR THEM TO MAKE THEIR SPECIAL REQUEST 
TO HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION.
JUST WHILE MS. HARVEY'S HERE.
OKAY.
I HAVE A QUESTION.
IS IT YOUR OPINION, THEN, MS. HARVEY, THAT THE APT-OUTS 
CREATE AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE LDC, IN THE COMP PLAN?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  AS I EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD AT THEIR 
PREVIOUS WORKSHOP, IT WILL CREATE AN IMPLEMENTATION DILEMMA 
FOR WHEN WE HAVE A COMMUNITY PLAN THAT CALLS FOR CERTAIN 
TYPES OF REGULATIONS THAT ARE, LIKE, OVERLAYS OR CERTAIN 
AREAS HAVE REGULATIONS CREATED FOR THEM.
WE'LL HAVE TO ACTUALLY FLAG THOSE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, IF 
THEY'RE OPTED OUT, AND NOT APPLY THOSE REGULATIONS TO THEM.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
PAULA AND/OR JOHN.
I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE NOT WANTING TO ALLOW A PIECE OF 
PROPERTY THAT'S CENTRAL TO OPT OUT, BUT ONE IN THIS NOTCH 
AREA OR ON THE BOUNDARIES.
COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT THEY'RE OPTING OUT OF ONE 
COMMUNITY PLAN AND INTO AN ADJACENT COMMUNITY PLAN THAT 
MIGHT PROVIDE THEM WHAT IT IS THEY'RE LOOKING FOR AND A 
COMPARISON -- OR ANOTHER COMMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT IS 
IS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC IN GOAL NUMBER 6 OF THE SEFFNER 
MANGO PLAN THAT CONTRADICTS ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE I-4 
GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA?
>>PAULA HARVEY:  I'LL ANSWER YOUR LAST QUESTION FIRST IN 
TERMS OF GOAL 6.
AS MANY TIMES AS I'VE LOOKED AT IT, I HAVEN'T FOUND 
ANYTHING THAT CONFLICTS WITH WHAT ALREADY WOULD BE PROVIDED 
FOR IN I-4.
ALLOW TO DEVELOP THE ONLY DISTINGUISHING FACTOR, WHICH WAS 
POINTED OUT TO YOU, IS THE COMMUNITY PLAN REQUIRES THEM TO 
BE A PD, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE 
WITH, THEY TOLD US THEY DID NOT OBJECT TO DOING A PD.
THAT WAS DURING THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF GOAL 6 ITSELF, 
THEY DO NOT OBJECT.
SO WE FEEL IT'S VERY CONSISTENT AND ACCOMMODATING FOR THE 
DEVELOPMENT CONTEMPLATED BY I-4 TO OCCUR WITHIN THIS AREA 
AND STILL THEN BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
IN TERMS OF WHETHER THEY'RE ON THE EDGE OR NOT, CAN THEY GO 
INTO THE NEXT PLAN, WELL, THIS CASE, THE NEXT ADJACENT PLAN 
IS ACTUALLY THONOTOSASSA, I BELIEVE, WHICH IS RURAL OR IT 
COULD BE IN THE EAST RURAL AREA.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN.
I DON'T HAVE THE LARGER MAP TO REFER TO.
IT COULD BE IN THE EAST RURAL AREA, BUT AS FAR AS THE 
COMMUNITY PLAN IS CONCERNED, THEY COULD GO THERE, BUT IN 
FACT, THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH EXACTLY THE SAME EXERCISE 
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE RURAL.
THEY REALLY DON'T.
THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP ACCORDING TO I-4.
WE BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED IN THE SEFFNER MANGO 
COMMUNITY PLAN ACCOMPLISHES THAT.
THEY ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
THERE ARE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES.
WE'VE MADE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THEM.
THE CITIZENS AGREE WITH IT.
THEY'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF IT.
WE DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE THEM ANY HARM.
WE WOULD WELCOME -- AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, IF THIS 
OPT-OUT ISSUE CANNOT IN AND OF ITSELF BE RESOLVED THROUGH 
THIS PROCESS, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE, AT SOME 
POINT -- AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION STAFF -- PERHAPS SOME GUIDING CRITERIA OR POLICY 
LANGUAGE WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS TO WHERE 
EXCEPTIONS MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TO BE APPROPRIATE AND HOW 
YOU WOULD DEAL WITH THEM.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROVISION RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE FACED WITH THE TOUGH ISSUE, AND WE KNEW WE WERE GOING 
TO BE FACED WITH IT, WHICH IS WHY WE WORK ON THE 
TRANSITIONAL LANGUAGE AND THE ACCOMMODATION FOR THE I-4 
DEVELOPMENT.
WE SAW VERY QUICKLY THAT A CONFLICT COULD POTENTIALLY 
OCCUR.
>> YOU BRING UP A POINT THAT THERE'S LIKELY A CONFLICT WITH 
THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY PLANS AS WELL CREATED BY THE I-4 
GREEN TECH CORRIDOR.
>>PAULA HARVEY:  CORRECT.
YES.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
YES, COMMISSIONER GIUNTA.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
IS PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED?
WHERE ARE WE?
>>BRUCE CURY: NO, PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOT CLOSED.
WE ARE ASKING FOR QUESTIONS OF WHOEVER YOU CARE TO 
QUESTION, AND THEN --
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
I THOUGHT WE WERE BEYOND.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
YES, SIR.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WANT TO GET A VERY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE 
DISCUSSING HERE.
I KNOW MR. HEALEY JUST REFERENCED THE PICTURE, LIKE AN 
OVERALL PICTURE AS FAR AS WHERE THESE NOTCH PROPERTIES FALL 
IN REFERENCE TO THE I-4 GREEN CORRIDOR.
CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW ME THAT OR GIVE ME A LITTLE GUIDANCE 
THERE AS TO WHERE THESE PARCELS ARE FALLING INTO PLAY WITH 
THE I-4, THEY'RE IN IT, ADJACENT TO IT, WHERE THEY ARE JUST 
TO GET A CLEAR PICTURE.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  YES, AS SOON AS THE PICTURE COMES BACK UP 
ON THE MONITOR, I CAN DO THAT.
LET ME GO BACK A LITTLE BIT -- WHOOP, I WENT BACK THE OTHER 
WAY.
I'M LOOKING.
WHY IT'S DOING THAT I DO NOT KNOW, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS 
MISSING.
ANYWAY, LET ME USE THE LARGER MAP.
IT WAS THE MAP I SHOWED WITH THE RED CROSS-HATCHING.
FOR SOME REASON, IT'S NOT PICKING IT UP AS IT DID BEFORE.
THIS IS THE AERIAL, ADMITTEDLY AT A LARGE SCALE OF THE 
PLANNING AREA, WHICH GENERALLY RUNS -- IF YOU CAN FOLLOW 
THE CURSOR -- UP I-75.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: I SEE THE SEFFNER MANGO.
IF YOU CAN POINT OUT THE I-4 GREEN --
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THAT AREA THAT IS IN BOTH PLANS IS THIS 
AREA THAT IS ENCOMPASSED IN THIS ROUGHLY RECTANGULAR AREA 
THERE.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: SO THAT FALLS UNDER THE I-4 AND FALLS 
UNDER THE SEFFNER MANGO; IS THAT CORRECT?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THAT IS CORRECT.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: YOU KEEP USING THE WORD THAT THEY'RE 
COMPATIBLE.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  YEAH.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: IT'S COMPATIBLE TO BOTH PLANS.
AND THEN MS. HARVEY GOT UP AND SAID THE ONLY DIFFERENCE -- 
AND IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY -- IS THAT IN THE SEFFNER 
MANGO, IT REQUIRES TO HAVE A PD.
THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE?
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE ASIDE FROM THAT, ASIDE FROM BEING 
REQUIRED TO HAVE A PD?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  NO.
THERE IS MORE EXPLICIT TEXT ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS, LIKE 
PROVIDING SITE PLANS THAT SHOW LOCATION OF USES AND WHERE 
WAREHOUSING SHOULD BE LOCATED, BUT IT IS COMPLETELY 
CONSISTENT WITH THE USES THAT ARE ANTICIPATED FOR I-4, AND 
THOSE PROVISIONS WERE PUT IN THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN IN 
ORDER TO PROVIDE GREATER SECURITY TO THE COMMUNITY AS TO 
HOW THOSE AREAS WITHIN THE AREA THAT I TRACED OUT WITH THE 
CURSOR HERE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE DEVELOPED WITH I-4 USES.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: SO THERE ARE MORE REQUIREMENTS, 
BASICALLY, FROM WHAT I -- THERE'S MORE HURDLES TO GO 
THROUGH IN ORDER TO HAVE ANYTHING?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  AND BE AWARE WE HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED FULL 
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS YET FOR THE I-4 CORRIDOR.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: AND AGAIN, I'M NOT LOOKING AT IT ONE WAY 
OR THE OTHER YET.
I'M TRYING TO JUST AIR WHAT I'M SEEING.
OKAY?
IF YOU GO JUST THIS WAY FROM -- WAIT A MINUTE.
THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY WESTWARD, THE NOTCH PROPERTIES, WHY 
DO YOU NOTCH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF I-4 JUST WEST OF IT 
GOING -- PUT YOUR CURSOR THE OTHER WAY.
KEEP GOING DOWN.
NO, THE OTHER WAY.
THIS WAY ON MY MAP.
I CAN'T POINT TO ANYTHING FROM HERE.
KEEP GOING IT STOP LIKE THIS.
WHY DID YOU NOTCH OUTWARDS IN THAT SECTION IN THE BACK?
IT'S NOT AN EXACT STRAIGHT LINE ALONG I-4.
I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
WE ARE NOTCHING THERE.
WHY DON'T WE NOTCH HERE?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  NO.
THIS MAP, THE BLUE DASHED LINES SHOW THE CURRENT URBAN 
SERVICE AREA.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: SO THE RED -- THE RED NOTCH IS THE I --
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THE RED NOTCH IS THE -- THE RED DASHED LINE 
IS THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN AREA.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: WHERE IS THE I-4?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THE I-4 NOTCHED AREA WITHIN THE SEFFNER 
MANGO PLAN IS WHAT I AM SHOWING YOU HERE.
WHAT YOU ARE NOT SEEING IS THE ENTIRE GREEN TECH EXPANSION 
CORRIDOR.
THAT ONE YOU ARE NOT SEEING ON THIS AERIAL.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: THE POINT I AM MAKING IS ON I-4, YOU ARE 
NOTCHING BACK AND FORTH ON I-4 IN SOME AREAS.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THE BOUNDARIES ARE SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR ON 
THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: ON SOME AREAS IT CROSSES I-4 MORE THIS 
WAY, IN SOME AREAS MORE THIS WAY.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THAT'S CORRECT.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: I GUESS MY POINT IS WHY NOT CROSS HERE?
I'M NOT SAYING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT YOUR REASONING.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  WELL, JUST RECALL THAT THE I-4 CORRIDOR MAP 
WAS NOT DONE BY PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, AND I'M NOT 
SURE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION.
IF YOU WANT TO NOTCH UP NORTH OF I-4, THAT AREA NORTH OF I-
4 IS PRESENTLY WITHIN THE THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN.
SO YOU KNOW, THE SEFFNER PLAN CANNOT ENCROACH INTO THEIR 
AREA.
THERE IS, HOWEVER, A PORTION OF THE THONOTOSASSA AREA, 
ROUGHLY LIKE THAT, THAT IS WITHIN THE I-4 CORRIDOR THAT -- 
AND I WILL DEFER TO YOUR STAFF TO EXPLAIN IT -- THE 
POLICIES FOR THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR AREA DO RECOGNIZE 
THAT THERE ARE PLANS THAT MAY HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IN ORDER 
TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING PRESENTLY IS 
TO ENSURE THAT THIS PLAN  IS CONSISTENT WITH THE I-4 PLAN.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: I UNDERSTAND.
I DIDN'T GET A CLEAR ANSWER OR A DIRECT ANSWER.
THE ANSWER -- BASICALLY WHAT YOU TOLD ME IS THE SEFFNER 
MANGO CANNOT CROSS OVER I-4.
I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT ON THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR, THAT CROSSES BACK AND 
FORTH.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  IT ENCOMPASSES BOTH SIDES.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: I UNDERSTAND.
SO WHY DOES IT NOT ENCOMPASS THESE NOTCH PROPERTIES, IF THE 
PROPERTIES WISH TO NOT BE A PART OF IT AND IT'S SOMEWHAT 
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON UP AND DOWN THE I-4 
CORRIDOR.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  FORGIVE ME FOR BEING OBTUSE ON THIS, BUT 
THE NOTCH AREA IS PRESENTLY IN BOTH PLANS.
NOTICE THE I-4 AND IN THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: IT'S IN BOTH, BUT THERE'S ADDITIONAL 
RESTRICTIONS PUT ON IT BECAUSE IT ALSO LIES WITHIN THE 
SEFFNER MANGO PLAN?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  YES, THERE'S MORE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS FOR 
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT AREA.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: AND WHAT DICTATED THIS PARTICULAR AREA TO 
BE OUTLINED IN THE WAY THAT IT IS, THE SEFFNER MANGO?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA?
>>FRANK CHILLURA: RIGHT.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA WAS ESTABLISHED 
THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS, THROUGH MEETINGS 
WITH THE WORKING COMMITTEE, THE LARGER COMMUNITY, AND IN 
THIS CASE, ALSO THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN WORKING 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MET WITH THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN 
MEMBERS.
THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THIS.
AND THEY SETTLED ON THEIR BOUNDARY.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: SO IT REALLY WASN'T STAFF.
IT WAS MORE OF INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY?
>>JOHN HEALEY:  IT WAS INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, CORRECT.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> CAN I ASK --
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, COMMISSIONER, ABSOLUTELY.
>>JILL BUFORD: I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE NOTCH 
PROPERTIES, WERE THEY -- WERE THEY PARTICIPANTS THROUGHOUT 
THE PLANNING PROCESS?
AND WERE THEY OPPOSING -- WHEN DID THEY START OPPOSING 
THIS?
I MEAN, DID THEY OPPOSE --
>> WELL, FOR THESE PROPERTIES -- AGAIN, THIS IS A CLOSE-UP 
OF THE NOTCH AREA.
MR. CHARLES HAWTHORN, WHO REPRESENTS THESE PROPERTIES HERE, 
WAS AT A NUMBER OF OUR WORKING COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
MS. CORBETT WAS AT A NUMBER OF COMMUNITY PLAN MEETINGS 
REPRESENTING HER CLIENT'S PROPERTY HERE.
THERE IS A REPRESENTATIVE, AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THIS 
PROPERTY YOU SEE OVER HERE AT A NUMBER OF THESE MEETINGS.
SO THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING EFFORT.
THERE WAS A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS THROUGHOUT THE EFFORT AS 
TO VARY YOUR PERMUTATIONS ABOUT THIS.
DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES WORKED CLOSELY 
WITH THE COMMITTEE TO TRY TO COME UP TO A MUTUALLY 
AGREEABLE PLAN WHICH WE FEEL IS EMBODIED IN GOAL 6 BEING 
INCLUDED IN THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN, PROVIDING FOR THE 
COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE TWO PLANNING EFFORTS.
>>ROBERT HUNTER: THE ANSWER IS YES, THEY PARTICIPATED.
>> I APPRECIATE THE SUMMARY.
	[LAUGHTER]
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC 
HEARING.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
IT APPEARS THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.
COMMISSIONER GIUNTA.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
LISTENING TO ALL THIS -- AND IT MAKES ME THINK BACK TO --
>>BRUCE CURY: MAY I HAVE YOUR MOTION, AND I CAN GET A 
SECOND?
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: I MOVE TO APPROVE CPA 10-11, EXCLUDING THE 
NOTCHED AREA.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
LET ME GET A SECOND SO WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION.
IS THERE --
>> CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>>BRUCE CURY: WHAT?
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: EXCLUDING THE NOTCHED AREA, AS SHOWN WHERE 
IT WAS -- THE TOTAL RED CROSS-HATCHED AREA, SO THAT IT WILL 
BE A CONSISTENT AREA TO WHERE -- THE ENTIRE AREA THAT'S 
PART IN THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN TO BE LEFT OUT OF THE SEFFNER 
PLAN.
>>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT 
THERE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT AREA WHO ALSO WANT TO 
BE IN THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: IF I MAY, PLEASE.
IF YOU ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE NOTCHED AREA, BECAUSE THERE 
ARE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE --
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: I WAS GOING TO DISCUSS THAT IN MY 
DISCUSSION IN DETAIL.
WHAT I WAS TRY TO GO DO IN MY MOTION -- TRYING TO DO IN MY 
MOTION IN ENCOMPASSING THE ENTIRE NOTCHED AREA, IS TO TRY 
TO -- LIKE MS. HARVEY SAID, HAVING TO FLAG CERTAIN 
BOUNDARIES.
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A --
>>TERRI COBB: MR. CHAIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: CAN I --
>>TERRI COBB: HE DIDN'T GET A SECOND.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: WE WERE STILL TRY TO GO CLARIFY.
>>BRUCE CURY: WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR A SECOND ON, IF IT'S 
APPROPRIATE, IS WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION 
AND A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY OF THE MANGO SEFFNER PLAN WITH 
THE EXCEPTION OF THE NOTCHED PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED -- 
I GUESS WE CAN SEE IT RIGHT ON HERE --
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS MS. ZORNITTA'S 
COMMENT, AND THEN SAY -- TO ADDRESS -- TO LEAVE OUT THE 
THREE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP THAT WE ARE ALL 
LOOKING AT.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
SO THAT'S YOUR MOTION?
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: RIGHT.
YES, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: APPROVAL WITH THE EXCEPTION -- APPROVAL WITH 
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE 
LOOKING AT NOW -- DO YOU KNOW THE THREE PROPERTIES WE'RE 
LOOKING AT? -- ARE OPTED OUT.
JUST THOSE THREE.
THAT'S THE MOTION; RIGHT?
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: YES, SIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? 
>>HUNG MAI: SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
YES, MA'AM.
>>TERRI COBB: YOU KNOW, I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK THAT'S GOING 
TO CREATE A ZONING NIGHTMARE.
THERE ARE ALL THESE PROPERTIES AROUND THAT THAT DO NOT WANT 
TO OPT OUT, AND EVERY TIME SOMETHING COMES UP AND THEY TRY 
TO DO THE PLAN, IT'S GOING TO BE SO DIFFICULT TO WORK 
AROUND THAT.
I THINK IT WEAKENS THE PLAN, AND I JUST PERSONALLY DON'T 
THINK WE OUGHT TO DO THAT.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
YES, SIR.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: YEAH, AND I -- I DON'T RECALL EVER TO 
WHERE WE'VE HAD ANY PROPERTY THAT WAS ENCOMPASSED IN TWO 
SEPARATE PLANS, FIRST OF ALL.
I DON'T RECALL THAT AT ALL.
SECOND OF ALL, I DON'T EVER RECALL HAVING PROPERTY OWNERS 
REQUESTING TO BE OPTED OUT AT THIS POINT THAT HAVE BEEN 
INVOLVED THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
I DO RECALL HAVING PROPERTY OWNERS SHOW UP BEFORE US, TWO 
SPECIFIC ONES, MR. DIBBS AND MR. SHANNON, TO WHERE THEY 
BOUGHT PROPERTY THAT WAS ALREADY IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND 
WE HELD FIRM TO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY BOUGHT.
THEY KNEW WHAT IT WAS.
NOW WE HAVE OWNERS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE PLAN THAT ARE 
ACTUALLY IN TWO PLANS, AND WHEN YOU WANT TO START TALKING 
ABOUT COMPLEXITIES AND ZONING PROBLEMS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN 
SEFFNER PUTS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT ON IT?
BECAUSE NOW IT BECOMES EVEN MORE INCOMPATIBLE WITH I-4.
AND I CAN TELL YOU HOW THAT LANGUAGE IS GOING TO READ.
IT'S GOING TO READ THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SHALL APPLY.
IT IS NOT FAIR TO HAVE THESE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE 
ASKING TO BE LEFT OUT OF IT, THAT THEY'RE NOT ON THE 
BOUNDARY OF A PLAN.
THEY ARE IN ANOTHER PLAN.
THEY ARE PART OF ANOTHER PLAN.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I PLEASE RESPOND TO MR. GIUNTA.
>>BRUCE CURY: HAVE YOU FINISHED?
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: YES, GO AHEAD.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, COMMISSIONER SEARS.
>>GARY SEARS: WE HAD QUITE A BIT OF THIS IN PLANT CITY, 
WHERE YOU COULD BE IN TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
THEY'RE IN THE GREEN TECH, AND THEY'RE ALSO IN THEIR OWN 
PLANS.
IT HAS NEVER CREATED A PROBLEM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
PLANT CITY HAS ALREADY PASSED ON.
THE GREEN TECH HAS GONE TO THE STATE.
IT'S A DONE DEAL.
I AGREE, THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A ZONING NIGHTMARE.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: I DISAGREE.
YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT YET BECAUSE IT'S JUST 
HAPPENED.
IT'S NOT FULLY APPROVED.
AND WHEN SEFFNER COMES IN WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND 
EVERYTHING ELSE, WHEN WE HAVE THE OWNERS ON THE FRONT END 
AND THEY'RE LARGE OWNERS AND THEY'RE A LARGER PART OF THIS 
AND BOTH ARE COMING THROUGH AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH MAKES 
THIS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION, MUCH MORE DIFFERENT THAN ANY 
SITUATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN PLANT CITY WHERE 
EVERYTHING IS BEING APPROVED ON THE SAME NIGHT, WHERE IT IS 
AN OPTION, AND IT MAKES GOOD SENSE TO LEAVE THEM OUT, IN MY 
OPINION.
IT'S JUST -- YOU'RE CREATING A NIGHTMARE BY PUTTING THEM IN 
BOTH PLANS THE WAY THAT YOU ARE.
AND THEY TALK ABOUT -- FURTHERMORE, I THOUGHT GOAL 6 WAS IN 
BOTH, AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS 
THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE A PD.
IN GOAL 6, IF T SPECIFIES ALL REZONINGS IN THE ABOVE AREA 
SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S IN GOAL 6.
THAT SHOULD BE IN BOTH.
THAT IS NOT A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
BASED ON THAT, THEY'RE 100% CONSISTENT.
SO THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO LEAVE THEM IN WHEN 
THEY'RE ASKING TO BE LEFT OUT.
THAT'S JUST MY POSITION.
>>GARY SEARS: MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST AS A REBUTTAL TO THAT, 
PLEASE.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, SIR.
>>GARY SEARS: THAT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL SUGGESTION 
ABOUT PASSING THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS IT IS CONSISTENT.
OUR ILLUSTRIOUS CHAIRMAN SAID THAT WE HAVE NEVER PASSED 
ANYTHING BACK TO THE COMMISSION, TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION, 
THAT WE COULDN'T MAKE A DECISION ON.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING A DECISION ON IT.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE 
COUNTY AS FAR AS THESE PEOPLE OPTING OUT.
AND WE PASS IT AS CONSISTENT WITH THE MANGO SEFFNER -- 
SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN.
>>TERRI COBB: MR. CHAIR?
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, COMMISSIONER.
>>TERRI COBB: MAY I OFFER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, THAT WE 
APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED TO US BY STAFF?
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, YOU MAY; HOWEVER, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A 
SECOND.
CAN WE RESOLVE THIS FIRST?
MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I --
>>BRUCE CURY: YEAH.
ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION?
DID YOU HEAR WHAT --
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: NO, SIR, I DON'T.
>>TERRI COBB: I CALL THE QUESTION, THEN.
>>HUNG MAI: MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
OKAY.
WILL YOU WAIT A MINUTE, PLEASE?
PLEASE, COMMISSIONER.
WHAT I'M CONFRONTED WITH IS THE CALLING OF THE QUESTION.
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER PROVIDE THAT WHEN THE QUESTION IS 
CALLED, WE WILL THEN IMMEDIATELY MOVE INTO A VOTE.
HOWEVER --
>>TERRI COBB: YOU ALWAYS SAY HOWEVER.
>>BRUCE CURY: NO, I DON'T ALWAYS SAY.
I JUST HAVE A GREAT FAMILIARITY WITH ROBERT'S RULES.
AND IT PROVIDES THAT IF THERE HASN'T BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY 
FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK THEIR MIND -- IN OTHER WORDS, IT WOULD 
PRECLUDE -- I GUESS IT WOULD PRECLUDE GOING OVER AND OVER 
AND OVER THE SAME THINGS, BUT IF THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT 
JUST HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, IT'S THE CHAIRMAN'S 
PREROGATIVE TO HOLD IT OPEN.
>>TERRI COBB: I THOUGHT THEY HAD QUITE A BIT OF TIME TO 
PRESENT THEMSELVES.
>>BRUCE CURY: I THINK COMMISSIONER GIUNTA HAS MADE HIS 
POSITION CLEAR.
I THINK COMMISSIONER SEARS HAS MADE HIS POSITION CLEAR.
I THINK COMMISSIONER MAI, HE WAS ABOUT TO SPEAK, AND HE 
DIDN'T GET TO FINISH.
GO AHEAD, SIR.
>>HUNG MAI: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHETHER THE 
NOTCHED AREA, IF THEY EXCLUDE IT FROM SEFFNER MANGO 
COMMUNITY, ARE THEY STILL IN THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR?
AND WHAT I'M SAYING, THE REQUIREMENT FROM THE GREEN TECH I-
4, YOU KNOW, GREEN TECH CORRIDOR, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE 
BETWEEN THAT AND THE SEFFNER MANGO?
IF IT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT --
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>ROBERT HUNTER: I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER TO STAFF ON 
THAT ONE.
>>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE NOTCH AREA IN QUESTION IS IN BOTH 
THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE I-4 COMMUNITY PLAN.
SO IF YOU TAKE IT OUT OF THE SEFFNER PLAN, IT'S STILL IN 
THE I-4 PLAN.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THE 
SEFFNER PLAN PROVIDES -- ASKS FOR A GREATER LEVEL OF DETAIL 
BY ASKING FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING; WHEREAS, THE I-
4 CORRIDOR ALLOWS FOR BOTH A PD AND THEN THE ULTIMATE 
CREATION OF A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT.
IF THEY WERE IN BOTH PLANS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO A PD IN 
THIS AREA.
>>HUNG MAI: SO IF THEY OPTED OUT, THEY STILL HAVE TO GO 
THROUGH THE PD PROCESS, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS?
>>MELISSA ZORNITTA: IF THEY STAY IN THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY 
PLAN -- AND THEY ALREADY ARE IN THE I-4 PLAN -- THEY WOULD 
HAVE TO DO A PD.
>>HUNG MAI: EITHER ONE THEY HAVE TO DO A PD.
>>MELISSA ZORNITTA: IF THEY WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE SEFFNER 
COMMUNITY PLAN, THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT HAS TO BE A PD 
WOULD GO AWAY.
THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE THE STANDARD 
ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH HAS YET TO BE CREATED.
>> MR. CHAIR.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: LET HIM FINISH.
>>HUNG MAI: MELISSA, BUT I THOUGHT THAT IF, YOU KNOW, THEY 
OPTED OUT, THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PD PROCESS IN 
THE I-4 GREEN TECH.
>>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WHAT THE I-4 GREEN TECH POLICIES CALL 
FOR IS UNTIL A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT HAS BEEN CREATED, 
IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT ANY REZONING, UNTIL THAT 
POINT, HAS TO BE A PD.
THE STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT IS APPROVED AND IN THE CODE, 
THEN THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS.
IF YOU DISREGARD THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN BUT YOU'RE 
SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE CORRIDOR, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE 
ABILITY TO REZONE TO THE STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT.
THE SEFFNER PLAN IS SAYING THEY WANT A PD NO MATTER WHAT.
>>HUNG MAI: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
YES, COMMISSIONER DOUGHTY.
>>DEREK DOUGHTY: THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR 
HUNTER.
WE SEEM TO HAVE ISSUES WITH CONFLICTS BETWEEN I-4 GREEN 
TECH EXPANSION AREA AND THE SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN, 
THONOTOSASSA COMMUNITY PLAN, AND EAST RURAL COMMUNITY PLAN.
IS THERE -- WHAT PROBLEMS WOULD ARISE IF WE WERE TO 
DESIGNATE THE I-4 GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA AS ITS OWN PLAN 
SEPARATE FROM EVERYTHING AND MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF ALL 
THE ADJACENT PLANS?
AND MAKE TEN PROBLEMS GO AWAY?
>>ROBERT HUNTER: WE'VE WORKED ON THE COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES 
PROBABLY OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY 
MUCH SET.
THE THONOTOSASSA PLAN'S ALREADY ADOPTED, IS PART OF THE 
PLAN.
IF I-4 IS ADOPTED, IT WILL BE PART OF THE PLAN.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT ONE -- YOU CAN'T TAKE I-4 AND MAKE IT 
SUPERIOR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
' MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE OF EACH OTHER.
ON WHERE THESE TWO OVERLAP, AS HAS BEEN SAID -- AND I 
APPRECIATE MELISSA'S CLARIFICATION ON THE PD -- THAT'S 
REALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE PD, AND IT'S MY 
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY WANTED A GREATER 
LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY FOR WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED THERE, AND 
THE APPLICANT'S DO NOT WANT THAT.
TO PUT IT SIMPLY.
AND I'M SORRY, NOT APPLICANTS.
THESE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT STILL SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A CONFLICT -- LIKE COMMISSIONER 
GIUNTA WAS SAYING -- THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE WRITTEN TO 
WHICHEVER ONE WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE.
IT ALMOST SEEMS TO ME --
>>ROBERT HUNTER: THE LANGUAGE HASN'T BEEN WRITTEN YET.
THAT'S PRESUMPTIVE ON HIS PART.
AND WE'LL BE LOOKING AT IT WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH 
MANAGEMENT AFTER THEY'VE DEVELOPED IT FOR CONSISTENT WITH 
THE COMP PLAN.
WE'LL BE WORKING WITH PGM ON IT.
I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM OF THE CONFLICT.
>> I'M GOING MORE TOWARDS THE -- THE PLAN TO THE EAST THAT 
ARE MAYBE EVEN MORE RURAL IN NATURE THAN THE CURRENT 
SEFFNER MANGO PLAN AND WHETHER OR NOT ALL OF THESE OTHER 
COMMUNITY PLANS WOULD TEND TO DILUTE THE I-4 GREEN TECH 
ECONOMIC CORRIDORS.
>>ROBERT HUNTER: I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
I GUESS PUT IT SIMPLY, WHEN YOU ADOPT AMENDMENT TO THE COMP 
PLAN, ONE DOESN'T OVERRIDE THE OTHER ONE, AND THEY ARE 
MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE.
WE'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS SITUATION AS A COMMUNITY PLAN WAS 
BEING DEVELOPED, AND DEPENDENT UPON WHAT YOU DID THAT THERE 
MIGHT HAVE FORCED US TO WHAT YOU DID ON I-4 COULD HAVE 
CAUSED A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION.
RIGHT NOW, WE ARE STILL STICKING WITH THE POSITION OF WE 
OBJECT TO THE ISSUE OF OPTING OUT.
HAVING WORKED WITH PGM AND THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY FOR WELL 
OVER A YEAR ON THIS, WE UNDERSTAND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S 
REQUEST.
WE JUST DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY WHERE I'M COMING FROM, I DON'T BELIEVE 
THAT THERE SHOULD BE AREAS OF THE COUNTY THAT ARE NOT 
ATTACHED TO SOME COMMUNITY PLAN.
THEREFORE, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE OPT-OUT BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T 
BE PART OF ANY PARTICULAR COMMUNITY PLAN.
>>ROBERT HUNTER: [INDISCERNIBLE].
>> MR. CHAIR.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, COMMISSIONER.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I APPRECIATE IT.
JUST -- I APPRECIATE THE POSITION OF COMMISSIONER GIUNTA ON 
THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THE INTRICACIES OF WHAT HIS MOTION IS.
HOWEVER, IN GOING THROUGH PLY PLANNING ON THIS, GI BACK TO 
WHAT I ASKED MS. HARVEY, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION:  
DOES THIS CREATE AN INCONSISTENCY WITH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT 
CODE AND WITHIN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE ANSWER WAS YES.
SECONDLY, THERE IS REMEDY.
THE APPLICANTS HAVE A REMEDY TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING 
PROCESS.
THERE'S REMEDY THERE FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH THIS.
THIRDLY -- AND MOST IMPORTANTLY -- I DON'T MEAN TO THROW A 
WRENCH INTO THIS -- BUT THE LANDOWNERS THAT AREN'T HERE 
TONIGHT, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN NOTICE PROCESS THAT 
THEY'VE BEEN OPTED OUT OF THEIR COMMUNITY PLAN.
THEY DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES HERE 
TONIGHT THAT THEY WANT TO BE IN THIS PLAN.
I CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR MOTION BECAUSE OF THOSE REASONS.
I APPRECIATE IT, THOUGH.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, COMMISSIONER CHILLURA.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: THANK YOU, SIR.
I'M HAVING A REAL HARD TIME WITH THIS BECAUSE, FIRST OF 
ALL, I APPRECIATE THE SEFFNER MANGO CITIZENS, AT LEAST THE 
ONES THAT ARE HERE REPRESENTING THEMSELVES THIS EVENING, 
THE POSITION THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE SOME KIND OF 
CONSISTENCY WITHIN THEIR AREA.
I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT AND RESPECT THAT.
ON THE OTHER HAND -- AND WE HAVE USED THIS LINE ON THIS 
BODY BEFORE, SAYING HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT THIS PROPERTY WAS 
LIKE BEFORE YOU BOUGHT IT.
YOU BOUGHT IT WITH THE HOPES THAT IT'S GOING TO BE REZONED.
WELL, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS OWN THIS PROPERTY, BOUGHT 
THIS PROPERTY, AND CONDITIONS ARE BEING FORCED UPON THEM.
SO THAT'S -- I'M HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME WITH THOSE TWO.
YOU KNOW, WE ASKED WERE THE OWNERS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE 
MEETINGS.
YES, THEY WERE.
I'M SURE AT THOSE MEETINGS THEY WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF IT, 
BUT IT STILL GOT INCORPORATED.
THEY HAVE RIGHTS AS WELL.
I UNDERSTAND IF WE SAY WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT AND KEEP IT 
STRAIGHT ACROSS, WELL, LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PLAN.
IT ZIGZAGGED ALL THE WAY AROUND.
NOW YES, IF CUT THESE PIECES OUT, WOULD IT CREATE SOME 
OBSTACLES?
YES, IT WOULD.
OKAY?
BUT THESE PEOPLE BOUGHT THESE PROPERTIES KNOWING THAT THESE 
WERE THE RIGHTS THEY HAD AND THESE WERE THE CONDITIONS THAT 
THEY ABIDED UNDER.
AND THESE AREN'T LITTLE 50-BY-100 LOTS.
THESE ARE HUGE PARCELS.
SO THAT'S THE CHALLENGE I AM FACING RIGHT NOW.
I KNOW YOU HAVE PLANS IN PLACE.
IF THESE WERE NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN, 
IT STILL WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR, 
SO THERE WOULD STILL BE GUIDELINES THAT WOULD KEEP IT IN 
LINE TO SOME POINT.
SO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TAKING IT LIGHTLY.
I SEE WHERE THE CONCERNS ARE ON BOTH SIDES.
AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THAT BECAUSE IT'S VERY 
IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY INVOLVED HERE.
I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT IT AS I'M LOOKING AT IT AND WANTED 
TO EXPRESS HOW I FELT ABOUT IT.
THANK YOU.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, MA'AM.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: WERE THESE PROCESSES IN THE ORIGINAL 
SEFFNER MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN?
>> YES.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: THEY WERE IN THE PLAN?
>>BRUCE CURY: YES.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: AND NOW, OF COURSE, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION 
BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE A GREEN TECH PLAN.
SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL 
PLAN --
>> THERE IS NO ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: WELL, THIS PLAN IS BEING UPDATED.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES.
WE HAVE --
>> IT'S NEVER BEEN ADOPTED.
>>BRUCE CURY: LET ME SEE.
THIS IS THE SECOND TIME AROUND FOR THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN; 
YES OR NO?
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: WE ACTED UPON THIS PLAN BEFORE, AND THIS 
PROPERTY WAS IN THE PLAN THEN.
WE ARE ONLY NOW UPDATING THE PLAN; AM I CORRECT?
>>BRUCE CURY: YES.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: OKAY.
THAT SHEDS A DIFFERENT LIGHT.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: THIS PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED.
>> PUT YOUR MIC ON.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: THIS PLAN HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE 
BOCC.
THIS IS NOT AN ADOPTED PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: NOT THE BOCC, BUT US.
THE QUESTION IS NOT BOCC.
YES.
YES.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: IT HAS COME BEFORE US BEFORE.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES.
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: UH-HUH.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: RIGHT.
NOW THEY'VE COME BACK WITH OTHER CHANGES.
IT NEVER PASSED US TO BE SENT TO THE BOCC.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, IT DID.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: AND WE SENT IT TO THE BOCC?
>>BRUCE CURY: LET ME CHECK THAT.
WAIT A MINUTE.
YES.
>>ROBERT HUNTER: YEAH.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: I JUST WANT TO BE SURE.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: IF I CAN ASK THE QUESTION, HOW EXCESSIVE 
OR HOW MUCH MORE CHANGES ARE BEING ADDED TO IT?
A FEW CHANGES?
AND THAT'S MAYBE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IF THERE'S ALREADY A PLAN IN PLACE, NOW MY QUESTION IS HOW 
MUCH -- HOW MUCH CHANGES ARE BEING ADDED OR DELETED FROM 
THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN?
>>VIVIAN KITCHEN: THAT WAS ADDRESSED.
THERE WERE VERY FEW.
>>EDWARD GIUNTA: CAN YOU REFRESH MY MEMORY, PLEASE?
>>BRUCE CURY: LET ME GIVE YOU THIS LITTLE ADMONITION.
THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED, AND WHEN THE QUESTION IS 
CALLED, THAT ENDS DEBATE, AND WE THEN HAVE A VOTE UPON THE 
MOTION.
THE REASON I EXTENDED IT WAS MY PREROGATIVE BECAUSE I FELT 
THAT SOME PEOPLE -- I WANTED EVERYONE TO HAVE AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THEIR MIND.
BUT IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH MY DISCRETION IF WE 
CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS THING.
SO COMMISSIONER CHILLURA, PLEASE STATE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO 
STATE, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE END OF IT, AND THE 
QUESTION IS THEN CALLED, AND IT'S GOING TO BE OPERATIVE.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU, BUT -- AND THE 
REASON I'M SAYING IT -- THE QUESTION WAS CALLED SOON AFTER 
THE MOTION WAS MADE, AND THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 
MOTION NOW.
>>BRUCE CURY: THAT'S WHY IT WAS WRONG.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS WRONG.
THAT'S WHY I EXERCISED MY DISCRETION TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO 
SPEAK IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ROBERT'S SAYS YOU'LL END 
IT.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: IF I'M EVER FORCED TO VOTE WITHOUT ENOUGH 
KNOWLEDGE, I'M GOING TO VOTE NO.
THAT'S THE WAY I'M GOING TO VOTE.
I UNDERSTAND THE PRECEDENT YOU ARE TRYING TO SET, LET'S 
KEEP IT WITH ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, BUT IF I HAVE 
QUESTIONS --
>>BRUCE CURY: I DO NOT CUT YOU OFF.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
THE QUESTION WAS CALLED.
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FAIR TO END THE DEBATE.
SO EVERYONE'S GETTING TO SPEAK THEIR MIND, BUT GIVE SOME 
RESPECT TO THE FACT THE QUESTION --
>>FRANK CHILLURA: I UNDERSTAND.
>>BRUCE CURY: PLEASE CONTINUE.
>>FRANK CHILLURA: THE QUESTION THE COMMISSIONER JUST ROSE 
WAS A GREAT QUESTION.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS NOT A PLAN IN 
PLACE.
LET'S MAKE CLEAR THERE IS A PLAN IN PLACE.
MY ONLY QUESTION WAS WHAT ADDITIONAL CHANGES OR 
AMENDMENTS -- THERE'S ONLY TWO OF THEM FROM WHAT I 
UNDERSTAND NOW -- WHAT WERE THEY?
AND THEN I'LL BE SATISFIED.
I'LL KNOW.
>>BRUCE CURY: MR. PARRA, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
>>PEDRO PARRA:  THERE WAS A CHANGE TO GOAL 4, WHICH 
IDENTIFIED INSTEAD OF THREE STORIES, IN TERMS OF LIMITING 
HEIGHT FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO 35 FEET.
IT WAS A CLARIFICATION.
AND THEN IN GOAL 6, THEY STRUCK THAT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 
NOTCH AREA SHALL BE STANDARD DISTRICTS ADOPTED SPECIFICALLY 
IN I-4 AND LEFT THAT THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PD 
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT.
>>BRUCE CURY: DID YOU GET IT?
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
I HAD A GOOD DEAL TO SAY ABOUT THIS, BUT OUT OF RESPECT FOR 
YOUR QUESTION ABOUT CALLING THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION'S 
BEEN CALLED.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR --
>> I NEED A CLARIFICATION FOR THE RECORD WHAT THE MOTION 
IS.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
THE MOTION IS -- THE MOTION IS APPROVAL OF THE ATTACHED 
RESOLUTION AND A FINDING OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THIS AMENDMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION 
THAT WE OPT OUT THE THREE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE PRESENTLY ON 
THE SCREEN.
AND I SEE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE THREE PROPERTIES.
ONE HAS -- WHAT IS IT?
McCORMICK.
ONE HAS CARTER -- CARTER, HILLSBOROUGH, AND ANOTHER HAS 
TAMPA EAST ON IT.
OKAY.
WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
OKAY.
DOES THAT CLARIFY IT?
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE'VE HEARD DISCUSSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
OKAY.
IT APPEARS -- ALL THOSE OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
OKAY.
OKAY.
MADAM CLERK, THE VOTE WAS 7-3.
IS THAT YOUR COUNT?
	[LAUGHTER]
LET ME SEE.
OKAY.
3-7.
YES, MA'AM.
>>TERRI COBB: MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO 
APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS IT IS ON CPA 10-11.
>> SECOND.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR APPROVAL, AS PRESENTED BY 
STAFF, FINDING OF CONSISTENCY.
IS THERE DISCUSSION?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING -- BY RAISING YOUR 
RIGHT HAND.
THOSE IN FAVOR.
OKAY.
WHAT WAS THAT?
7-3?
IS THAT HOW YOU COUNT THAT?
[OFF MICROPHONE]
>>TERRI COBB: YOU DIDN'T ASK ABOUT AGAINST.
>>BRUCE CURY: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
MADAM CLERK, YOU SEE 7-3.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM.
ALL RIGHT.
THAT ISSUE IS DECIDED.
WE MOVE VERY SMARTLY NOW TO ITEM NUMBER 5.
ITEM NUMBER 5 IS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CPA 
10-12, TEXT AMENDMENT, LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, BRANDON 
COMMUNITY PLAN.
MR. PARRA.
>>PEDRO PARRA:  PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
>> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A COMMENT FOR THE RECORD BEFORE MR. 
PARRA BEGINS.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, PLEASE, SIR.
>> THE LAST TIME THIS COMMUNITY PLAN WAS PRESENTED BEFORE 
THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I ABSTAINED MY VOTE IN ORDER TO 
DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE WITH THE PUBLIC IN SUPPORT OF THE 
PLAN, AS I WAS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE WORKSHOPS AND 
THE WORKING COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT POSITION AND BE CONSISTENT WITH 
THAT, AND I WILL NOT BE A VOTING MEMBER ON THIS PARTICULAR 
ITEM.
>>BRUCE CURY: THE BRANDON?
>> FOR THE BRANDON PLAN.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>>PEDRO PARRA:  AGAIN, PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION 
STAFF.
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JOHN HEALEY WITH PLANNING AND 
GROWTH MANAGEMENT, SINCE THEY WERE THE PROJECT MANAGERS IN 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS COMMUNITY PLAN, TO RUN THROUGH THE 
PROPOSAL.
WHEN JOHN IS COMPLETE WITH HIS PRESENTATION, I WILL COME 
BACK WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
>>JOHN HEALEY:  GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
JOHN HEALEY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.
I'LL BE PRESENTING THE CHANGES TO THE BRANDON COMMUNITY 
PLAN FROM THE TIME THAT YOU SAW IT LAST.
AGAIN, THIS IS THROUGH A PUBLIC ROW CESS WITH EXTENSIVE 
MEETINGS BEGINNING IN 2007.
I WILL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE ADOPTION PROCESS TO DATE AND 
THE CHANGES TO THE PLAN.
JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORIES, THIS IS THE PLANNING AREA.
IT'S A RATHER LARGE ONE, ENCOMPASSES ABOUT 25,000 ACRES, 
GOING ALL THE WAY SOUTH TO THE ALAFIA RIVER.
FUTURE LAND USES ARE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL, BUT A 
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF URBAN MIXED USE, AND YOU CAN EASILY 
SEE THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AROUND STATE ROAD 60.
AGAIN, THIS IS IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE SEFFNER MANGO 
COMMUNITY PLAN.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF ROUND 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THIS ON MARCH 8.
THE BOARD HEARD IT ON APRIL 8th.
AT THAT HEARING, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS THAT 
CAME FORWARD ASKING TO BE OPTED OUT OF THE BRANDON 
COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE GREATER BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ALSO ENTERED INTO 
THE RECORD SOME CONCERNS IT HAD WITH THE PLAN, AND THERE 
WAS ALSO A REPRESENTATIVE OF PROPERTY OWNER IN THE BRANDON 
MAIN STREET AREA THAT HAD CONCERNS WITH THE PLAN AS 
WRITTEN.
WHAT HAVE WE DONE SINCE THE CONTINUANCE ON MAY 18th?
STAFF HAD A MEETING, INCLUDING PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, 
WITH THE GREATER BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
ON JUNE 28th, THERE WAS A MEETING OF THE WORKING COMMITTEE.
AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH PERSONS WHO HAVE REQUESTED 
TO OPT OUT OF THE PLAN.
THE CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TO THE PLAN ARE FOUR.
THEY ARE ALL TEXT CHANGES.
THE TWO CHANGES TO GOAL 6, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GOAL 6, AND 
TWO CHANGES TO GOAL 8.
THE FIRST CHANGE IS TO CLARIFY THE CHARACTER DISTRICTS, 
WHICH ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAN AND INTENDED TO DESCRIBE 
CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, ARE DESCRIPTIVE IN 
NATURE, NOT REGULATORY IN NATURE.
THIS IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE BRANDON CHAMBER HAD IS 
THAT THEY PERCEIVED THAT AS THEY WERE WRITTEN, THEY MAY 
HAVE REGULATORY EFFECT ON PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CHARACTER 
DISTRICTS.
WE'VE ADDED THE UNDERLINED PORTION OF THE TEXT, WHICH 
STATES THAT THE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN THOSE -- 
WITHIN THE CHARACTER DISTRICTS ARE DESCRIPTIVE AS TO THE 
GENERAL NATURE OF THE VICINITY AND ITS SURROUNDINGS AND DO 
NOT AFFECT THE FUTURE LAND USE OR ZONING OF PROPERTIES IN 
EFFECT AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY 
PLAN.
ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO ZONING THE PROPERTY MAY PROCEED IN 
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION.
THIS IS JUST A MAP SHOWING THE CHARACTER DISTRICTS.
THERE'S FIVE OF THEM IN THERE RANGING FROM SUBURBAN TO 
URBAN TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES.
SECOND CHANGE IS TO ANOTHER STRATEGY IN GOAL SIX TO CLARIFY 
THAT THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE BRANDON MAIN STREET ZONING 
DISTRICTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE BRANDON MAIN 
STREET DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THIS WAS ALWAYS INTENDED BY THE PLAN, SO THE TEXT THAT IS 
BEING PROVIDED IS ADDITIONAL TEXT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
THIS IS THE BRANDON MAIN STREET AREA.
AS YOU KNOW, IN 2003, THERE WAS ADOPTION OF ZONING 
DISTRICTS FOR THIS AREA.
THE TEXT THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDED IS WHAT YOU SEE 
UNDERLINED, WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THAT PROPERTY WITHIN 
THE BRANDON MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL BE GOVERNED 
BY THE BRANDON MAIN STREET DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS SET 
FORTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
NEXT CHANGE IS TO CLARIFY THAT THE PLAN'S INTENT WAS TO 
ESTABLISH AN UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION TO FACILITATE 
COMMUNICATION WITH ADJACENT COMMUNITIES RATHER THAN 
CREATING ANOTHER REVIEW AGENCY.
AGAIN, THE BRANDON CHAMBER RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE 
STRATEGY, AS IT WAS WRITTEN, COULD BE READ TO IMPLY THAT 
THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER REGULATORY LEVEL BEING ESTABLISHED, 
PERHAPS A REGULATORY LEVEL AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL, AND THAT 
WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN.
THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO CLARIFY WHAT THE PLAN'S INTENT WAS, 
WE'VE DELETED LANGUAGE THAT REFERS TO IMPLEMENTATION AND 
LONG-TERM OVERSIGHT AND INCLUDED THE WORD "FURTHERING" THE 
BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN.
THIS WILL MAKE IT CLEAR, WE HOPE, THAT THE INTENT OF THE 
STRATEGY IS THAT THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS TO COORDINATE AND 
DIALOGUE WITH ADJACENT COMMUNITIES TO OVERSEE -- ACTUALLY, 
FURTHER THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE FINAL CHANGE IS THE PLAN IS SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH A 
ROUNDTABLE FOR THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AT OUR MEETING AT THE GREATER 
BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THAT WANTED TO ADD LITHIA INTO 
THAT LIST OF COMMUNITIES.
WE HAVE DONE SO.
PERHAPS YOU MIGHT THINK OF SOMETHING LIKE THE SOUTHSHORE 
ROUNDTABLE THAT WOULD BE ANALOGOUS TO WHAT THIS PLAN CALLS 
FOR.
IT IS NOT A ROUNDTABLE THAT WOULD BE INITIATED OR RUN BY 
THE COUNTY BUT, RATHER, IS A VOLUNTARY EFFORT THAT WOULD BE 
UNDERTAKEN BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE ADDED LITHIA.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THE NEXT MEETING IS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 
PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 22nd.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MR. HEALEY.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
	[LAUGHTER]
WHO IS HERE -- WHO IS HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR?
>>PEDRO PARRA:  ACTUALLY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE STAFF'S 
RECOMMENDATION.
IS THAT PERMISSIBLE?
>>BRUCE CURY: ABSOLUTELY, MR. PARRA.
>>PEDRO PARRA:  OKAY.
PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO APPROVE THE 
CHANGES AS PROPOSED IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH DO NOT INCLUDE 
ANY MAP CHANGES OR EXCLUSIONS OF ANY PROPERTIES.
THEY INCLUDE ONLY THE FOUR CHANGES THAT WERE BROUGHT TO 
YOU, AND PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THIS 
PLAN AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE 
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDS ITS APPROVAL, AND AS WITH 
THE SEFFNER MANGO PLAN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID INCLUDE 
IN YOUR BACKGROUND REPORT A DISCUSSION OF THE EXCLUSION OF 
PROPERTIES AFTER THE PLANNING PROCESS.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT EXCLUDING PROPERTIES BY SIMPLE PETITION 
WOULD LIMIT THE SUCCESS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING GENERALLY, 
AND STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY PROPERTIES FROM BEING 
EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSED PLAN BOUNDARY.
AGAIN, STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE DOES NEED TO BE CRITERIA 
DEVELOPED THAT TALKS ABOUT REQUEST FOR THE EXCLUSION OF 
PROPERTIES IN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS, BOTH IN THE 
COMMUNITY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE PUBLIC 
HEARING.
AND YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED WHAT ARE THE MAJOR COMPONENTS 
OF OUR RECOMMENDATION, AND I WOULD SAY BECAUSE THESE 
PROPERTIES ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS, 
THERE IS A PUBLIC CONSENSUS PROCESS THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO 
COME IN AND BUILD AN AGREEMENT ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT 
ACCEPTABLE FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
IS A NOTICING PROCESS.
THERE IS AN ACTIONABLE THAT GIVES PEOPLE AN IDEA OF WHAT IS 
HAPPENING AND PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AN 
PARTICIPATE.
EXCLUSION OF PROPERTIES FROM THE PLANNING PROCESS AT THIS 
POINT HAS NOT HISTORICALLY BEEN DONE THROUGH THE COMMUNITY 
PLANNING PROCESS, BEGINNING IN 1998.
IN ADDITION, THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS WAS PUT FORWARD 
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, A CONCEPT THAT SHOULD 
ENCOMPASS ALL OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, NOT JUST REGIONS OF 
IT.
[INDISCERNIBLE] -- THOSE HAVE INCLUDED WHEN BOUNDARIES HAVE 
SAT ON THE EDGE OF A COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS AND COULD 
BE INCLUDED IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS THAT WAS 
COMING UP IN THE FUTURE.
SECONDLY, IF A PROPERTY LIKE IN THE LAST COMMUNITY PLAN, 
SEFFNER MANGO, COULD BE INCLUDED WITH REGULATORY STRATEGIES 
AND POLICIES THAT WOULD GOVERN THAT AREA, THAT MIGHT BE A 
REASON, THEN, TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THE PLANNING, BUT AGAIN, 
MOST OF THESE HAVE TAKEN PLACE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT 
PROCESS AND NOT AT THE END IN A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY RECOMMENDATION.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YES, MA'AM.
>> HELLO.
I'M LAURA SIMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE GREATER BRANDON 
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND SO NOT TO DELAY ANY FURTHER YOUR 
VOTE FOR THIS EVENING, JUST BRIEFLY GOING TO SUBMIT OUR 
LETTER OF -- FOR RECORD TO THE CLERK, BUT OUR LAST 
STATEMENT IN THE LETTER DOES SAY THAT THE GREATER BRANDON 
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FORMALLY SUBMITS ITS SUPPORT OF THE 
BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN WITH THE PRESENTED REVISIONS.
FURTHERMORE, WE OFFER OUR SINCEREST GRATITUDE TO THE 
PLANNING COMMISSION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND THEIR 
RESPECTIVE STAFFS.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR DILIGENCE IN THIS OFFER.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. SIMPSON.
PLEASE, YES.
>> GOOD EVENING.
VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON, AND IN THE 
LATENESS OF THE HOUR, MY COHORTS HAVE BEEN SITTING THROUGH 
HERE IN CASE YOU DECIDE TO KEEP QUIET.
PLEASE WAVE OR SOMETHING TO SHOW THAT YOU WERE HERE IN 
SUPPORT OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT 
I'M HERE FOR.
I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AND THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK 
ABOUT AS YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS PROCESS.
COMMUNITY PLANNING SAVES TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY ALLOWING 
RESIDENTS TO ESTABLISH A SENSE OF PLACE WITHOUT THE 
DUPLICATIVE COST OF INCORPORATING INTO A MUNICIPALITY.
THE GREATER BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN DOES NOT CHANGE ANY 
CURRENT ZONING, PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 
RIGHTS, OR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE 
PLAN, NOR DOES IT OVERRIDE THE PREVIOUSLY GRANDFATHERED 
PLANNING EFFORTS OF THE BRANDON MAIN STREET PLAN, STATE 
ROAD 60 OVERLAY, OR THE LITHIA-PINECREST OVERLAY.
RESIDENTS WERE MADE AWARE OF THESE ISSUES FROM THE START 
AND SOUGHT TO INCORPORATE THEM WITHIN THE GREATER BRANDON 
COMMUNITY PLAN.
THE PLAN LANGUAGE HAS BEEN TWEAKED TO MAKE THAT POINT 
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.
OPT OUT DESTROYS THE CONSENSUS-BUILDING PROCESS CURRENTLY 
USED IN THE LENGTHY PLAN BUILDING PROCESS USED TO ESTABLISH 
A PLAN.
WHY ATTEND MULTIPLE MEETINGS TO WORK ON A PLAN WHEN A 
PROPERTY OWNER CAN ATTEND ONE BOCC MEETING AND REQUEST THAT 
RULES NOT APPLY TO THEM.
OPT OUT SENDS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT WHICH COULD BE APPLIED 
TO OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT TEXT CODE CHANGES OR ORDINANCES.
OPT OUT BY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS COULD INCREASE 
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS AND COSTS WHICH WILL BE BORN BY ALL 
TAXPAYERS, UNLIKE SMALL-SCALE PLAN AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE 
PAID FOR BY THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALREADY CONTAINS A PROCEDURE FOR 
PEOPLE TO OPT OUT OF VARIOUS RULES UNDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE 
REVIEW PROCESS CALLED A VARIANCE.
FLORIDA STATUTES MAY CONSIDER THE COMMUNITY PLAN AS AN 
OPTIONAL ELEMENT, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN ONCE IT'S ADOPTED 
FOR A PARTICULAR AREA RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO OPT OUT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. BACCA.
>> SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE AND IT'S LATE, I'LL JUST GET RIGHT 
TO THE POINT.
I'M LISA RODRIGUEZ.
I'VE BEEN A PART OF THE WORKING COMMITTEE FOR BRANDON PLAN 
SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
AND I'M ALSO THE NEW HONORARY MAYOR OF BRANDON.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK YOU TONIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND 
APPROVE THIS PLAN AS IT IS INTACT.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MA'AM.
MADAM MAYOR, YES.
WHO ELSE DESIRES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK?
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS --
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: OH, I'M SORRY.
PLEASE COME UP.
>> GOOD EVENING.
REED FISCHBACH, 510 VONDENBURG DRIVE, BRANDON, FLORIDA.
I'M HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF GLS ENTERPRISES, A 19-ACRE 
TRACT WHICH FRONTS LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD, VALRICO ROAD, AND 
BROOKER ROAD.
WE ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN.
WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT SINCE APRIL OF 2009 IN SEVERAL 
MEETINGS WITH COUNTY STAFF THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO BE PART 
OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN.
IN DEVELOPING THIS PLAN, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS -- 
YOU HAD A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT IT EARLIER, BUT THE 
PROCESS IS FLAWED BECAUSE NONE OF THE LANDOWNERS ARE 
NOTIFIED OF THESE WORKSHOPS AND THESE MEETINGS.
I GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, WASTE 
SERVICES INCREASING TAXES $2, BUT THERE IS NO DIRECT 
NOTIFICATION OF THE LANDOWNERS, AND ALSO, ZONING IS NOT 
ONLY A LEGAL.
IT HAS REALLY TURNED INTO A POLITICAL SITUATION AS WELL, 
WHICH MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT WHEN YOU PUT LAYERS AND 
LAYERS ON TOP OF TO TRY TO SORT THROUGH TO GET A PROPERTY 
ZONED.
THAT'S -- JUST WANT TO SAY WE ARE CONSISTENT.
WE ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE PLAN, ON THE VERY EDGE, AND WE 
DON'T FEEL WE NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN.
THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S DETERMINATIVE, BUT 
YOU'VE MADE THE ALLEGATION YOU GOT NO NOTICE.
>> CORRECT.
>>BRUCE CURY: MR. PARRA, WHAT CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THAT?
DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS MAN'S PROPERTY IS LOCATED?
>>PEDRO PARRA:  YES, I DO.
THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS 
INCORPORATED A SYSTEM OF NOTIFYING A COMMUNITY THAT THERE 
ARE AND THERE IS AN ONGOING PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING.
WE PROVIDE OPEN HOUSES THAT ARE NOTICED WITH SIGNS AT MAJOR 
INTERSECTIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
WE ALSO HAVE BEEN VERY DILIGENT ABOUT MAKING SURE THERE ARE 
A CERTAIN SET OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY PLANNING 
PROCESS, AND AT THE FRONT ENDS, WE TRY TO LOOK FOR CIVIC 
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, CHURCH, BUSINESSES, BUSINESS 
ASSOCIATIONS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND EDUCATION INTERESTS TO 
BRING THEM INTO THE PLANNING PROCESS.
ONCE A PLANNING PROCESS BEGINS, WE KEEP A RECORD OF THOSE 
PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME IN TO ANY PUBLIC MEETING, WHETHER 
IT'S AN OPEN HOUSE, WHETHER IT'S AN ADVISORY OR WORKING 
COMMITTEE, AND WE KEEP THEM ON THAT LIST OF NOTIFICATIONS 
THROUGH EMAIL OR HARD MAIL THROUGH THE END OF THE PLANNING 
PROCESS.
IF THERE IS A COMPONENT OF A COMMUNITY PLAN THAT REQUIRES A 
CHANGE TO THE PLAN CATEGORY, THEN WE WOULD ALSO DO A NOTICE 
TO EVERY PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS AFFECTED.
>>BRUCE CURY: LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
IT'S MR. FISHBACH?
MR. FISHBACH SAID THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE PERSONAL NOTICE.
I ACCEPT THAT.
DID -- THE QUESTION, THEN, IS WHETHER HE GOT HIS 
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE BY MAIL, BY SIGN, BY TELEVISION, BY 
NEWSPAPER.
>> YES.
>>BRUCE CURY: HE GOT IT?
>> YES.
>>BRUCE CURY: WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THAT POSITION?
>> HE CAME INTO THE MEETING TOWARDS THE END OF THE PROCESS, 
SO HE HAD NOTICE THAT, IN FACT, THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING 
ON BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
>>BRUCE CURY: THIS IS THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING 
PROCESS.
>>PEDRO PARRA:  THIS IS THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING 
PROCESS.
>>BRUCE CURY: GO AHEAD, SIR.
>> I WOULD SAY TO THAT I ACTUALLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THE 
MEETING THROUGH AN ENGINEER WHO PULLED OUT THIS BIG MAP IN 
FRONT OF ME, AND THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS WERE ALMOST OVER AT 
THAT TIME, AND I'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH A LOT OF 
DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY DISCUSSING THIS 
PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND THIS ISSUE, AND I JUST FIND IT ODD 
THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD WANT TO PUT AN INFILL PIECE OF 
PROPERTY IN BETWEEN TWO LIGHTED INTERSECTIONS AS A GARDEN 
ESTATE CHARACTER DISTRICT.
THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A COMMITTEE I WANT HELPING ON FUTURE 
REGULATIONS FOR THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN ON MY PROPERTY.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
>> MY NAME'S GLADYS WILL.
>>BRUCE CURY: PLEASE SAY YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN.
>> WILL, W-I-L-L.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. WILL.
>> I PARTICIPATED IN THIS, AND THE REASON I KNEW WAS 
SEVERAL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
I WENT TO SEVERAL OPEN HOUSES WHERE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT 
IT AND DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE MORE THAN ONCE.
OVER THE YEARS WE HAD OPEN HOUSES, AND PEOPLE FROM THE 
COMMUNITY CAME IN.
SO WE DID PUT UP NICE BIG SIGNS, OR THE COUNTY DID, AND WE 
KNEW ABOUT IT, AND THAT'S HOW I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.
I READ THE SIGNS.
THEY HAPPEN TO BE BIG ENOUGH TO READ.
I SAW SOME RECENTLY THAT WEREN'T.
BUT ANYWAY, THESE WERE BIG ENOUGH TO READ.
THERE WAS A REPORTER FROM THE TRIBUNE THAT WROTE AN ARTICLE 
EVERY MONTH ABOUT THE MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR.
SO I THINK THERE WAS NOTICE.
>>BRUCE CURY: ALL RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, MS. WILL.
WHO ELSE CARES TO SPEAK THEIR MIND ON THE SUBJECT BEFORE 
THE COMMISSION?
THOSE THAT DON'T SPEAK THEIR MIND DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO 
SIT THERE AND MAKE FACES AT ME.
MS. FLOTT, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
THANK YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
PUBLIC COMMENT IS THEN CLOSED.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL, THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE 
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE FUTURE OF 
HILLSBOROUGH AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOCC.
>>BRUCE CURY: THANK YOU, SIR.
>>TERRI COBB: I'LL SECOND THAT.
>> SECOND.
>>BRUCE CURY: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR APPROVAL.
DISCUSSION?
>>HUNG MAI: MR. CHAIRMAN?
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, SIR.
>>HUNG MAI: THE ONLY THING -- I MEAN, I -- I SUPPORT, YOU 
KNOW, THE CONSISTENCY OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE 
BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN; HOWEVER, SINCE WE STILL HAVE A 
PROBLEM WITH THE OPT-OUT REQUEST, SO I -- YOU KNOW, IT'S A 
MATTER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE PLANNING CONCEPT, I SUPPORT IT, BUT 
YOU KNOW, IN A MANNER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, I CANNOT SUPPORT 
THE MOTION.
THAT'S MY POSITION.
>>BRUCE CURY: THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE 
GENERALIZED -- AS OPPOSED TO -- [INDISCERNIBLE] -- THIS IS 
A CASE OF -- THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE'S REASONABLE 
GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
I DON'T KNOW -- WHEN YOU SAY PROPERTY RIGHTS, IN MY MIND, 
WE GET TO GOVERNMENT TAKING.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION.
FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS.
>> [OFF MICROPHONE]
>>BRUCE CURY: THE THING IS IN MY MOUTH.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET ANY CLOSER.
LET ME SEE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.
[CHORUS OF AYES]
OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN.
>>HUNG MAI: AYE.
>>BRUCE CURY: DID YOU COUNT 8 AND 2?
EXCUSE ME.
8 AND 2.
7 TO 2.
YES, AND 1 ABSTAINING.
ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE -- MR. PARRA, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, SIR?
OKAY.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MATTER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION?
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
>>BRUCE CURY: YES, MA'AM.
>> PERTAINING TO COMMUNITY PLANNING, THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION HAS ASKED IN AN EARLIER MEETING THAT WE HAVE AN 
OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY PLANS AND HOW THEY TIE TOGETHER AT 
THE BOUNDARIES.
IT SEEMS AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT 
BOUNDARIES AND OVERLAP AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS, AND I WAS 
WONDERING WHEN THAT WAS SCHEDULED TO COME BACK TO US.
>>ROBERT HUNTER: I THINK WE SHOULD -- AUGUST 9th, I THINK.
I KNOW WE HAVE FIVE PERMITS OR CIE OR CIP ITEMS, BUT I 
THINK WE CAN GET IT ON YOUR AGENDA FOR THE 9th.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE ABOUT ESSENTIALLY THE 
COMMUNITY PLANNING --
>> ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- ALL THE PLANS.
ALL THE COMMUNITY PLANS ON A MAP ALL TOGETHER SO WE CAN SEE 
HOW THEY ALL WORK TOGETHER.
>>ROBERT HUNTER: YES.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
>>BRUCE CURY: BEFORE I CLOSE, I WANT TO SAY ONE THING FOR 
YOU TO CONSIDER IN REGARD TO THE TIME THAT OUR PROCEDURES 
SAY THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE ALLOWED TO TALK, I THINK IT'S A 
LITTLE DIFFICULT, AS THEY BECOME EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED AND 
FOCUS ON WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY, TO KNOW WHEN THEIR TIME IS 
UP.
IT JUST SEEMS VERY UNFAIR TO CUT THEM OFF ABRUPTLY.
I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT PERSONALLY OR ON YOUR BEHALF.
MAYBE WE OUGHT TO DO IT THIS WAY.
THEY STILL HAVE THE THREE MINUTES OR THE 15 MINUTES, 
WHICHEVER IS APPROPRIATE, BUT I'LL ASK THAT THE CLERK MAKE 
A BELL AT TWO AND A HALF MINUTES, AND THEY'LL HAVE A HALF A 
MINUTE TO CLOSE OUT.
WHAT SHE DOES, SHE DOES THREE MINUTES, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN 
THEIR TIME IS UP.
I'M THINKING ABOUT A WAY TO --
>>ROBERT HUNTER: HE CAN'T SEE THE LIGHT.
>> THERE IS A LIGHT HERE THAT GOES AND SHOWS ALMOST DONE.
>>BRUCE CURY: AND THEY KNOW ABOUT IT?
>> THEY CAN SEE IT.
IT'S A LIGHT.
>>BRUCE CURY: I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE, BUT WHAT I'LL 
DO, UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE AN OBJECTION, IS I WILL SAY THAT 
YOU HAVE YOUR 15 MINUTES, THREE MINUTES, HOWEVER, YOUR 
TIME, WE'LL NOTIFY YOU 30 SECONDS BEFORE YOUR TIME IS UP SO 
THAT THEY WILL KNOW, AND I JUST DON'T WANT --
>>TERRI COBB: CAN YOU TELL THEM TO WATCH THE LIGHT?
>> HAVE THEM ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIGHT.
>>BRUCE CURY: WELL, IN ALL THE YEARS I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT 
LIGHT.
>> MAYBE THEY'RE NOT SEEING IT EITHER.
>>BRUCE CURY: OR THEY'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO IT.
ALL RIGHT.
ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO DO.
I'LL INCORPORATE THE LIGHT IN.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING 
COMMISSION?
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.




1