CAPTIONING JULY 22, 2010 BOCC PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - 2ND CYCLE 2010 ***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. >>KEN HAGAN: GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. TONIGHT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL BE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS HEARING WILL BE TO CONSIDER TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OF THE SECOND CYCLE OF 2010 PLAN AMENDMENTS AND THE FUTURE OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BEFORE I PASS THINGS OVER TO MELISSA ZORNITTA OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AN OVERVIEW OF TONIGHT'S HEARINGS ON THE AMENDMENTS, I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD FROM COMMISSIONER KEVIN BECKNER, DUE TO A TWO- DAY REQUIRED TRAINING PROGRAM WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, I'LL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING PRESENT. PLEASE READ THE REASON FOR MY ABSENCE INTO THE RECORD. THANK YOU. NOW I'M GOING TO PASS THINGS OVER TO MS. ZORNITTA OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A BRIEF INTRODUCTION. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THANK YOU. AS YOU STATED, THIS IS THE TRANSMITTAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SECOND CYCLE OF 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. THE -- AT THE END OF TONIGHT'S HEARING A RESOLUTION WILL -- YOU-ALL WILL TAKE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION TO TRANSMIT THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR REVIEW. STATE STATUTE DOES PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERESTED CITIZENS TO RECEIVE A COURTESY INFORMATION STATEMENT REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS' NOTICE OF INTENT. THAT IS THE FINAL ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AFTER THESE AMENDMENTS PROCEED COMPLETELY THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, AND ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION STATEMENT CAN PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS ON A SIGN-IN SHEET THAT'S LOCATED TO THE LEFT OF THE CLERK HERE AT THE END OF THE DAIS. THAT CONCLUDES MY OPENING REMARKS. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO AGENDA ITEM A-1, I BELIEVE MR. GORMLY WANTS TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THAT ITEM. >>ADAM GORMLY: YES. JUST TO PUT ON THE RECORD FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION, ITEM A-1, CPA 10-21, IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HAVING A -- AN ISSUE WITH THE MAILED NOTICE PROVIDED FOR THAT AMENDMENT; HOWEVER, IT'S MY ADVICE THAT THE BOARD PROCEED WITH CONSIDERATION OF THAT AMENDMENT TONIGHT IN CONSIDERATION OF TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S DESIRE. IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO CURE THE NOTICE ISSUE PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ADOPTION. IF IT'S ABLE TO BE CURED, IT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU AT YOUR ADOPTION HEARING, AND IF IT WERE NOT, IT WOULD NOT BE IN ORDER TO COME BACK AND JUST COME TO YOU IN YOUR NEXT ROUND, SO WE ARE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND ARE IN CONTACT WITH THEM TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH THAT APPLICATION. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE NEED A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT? >>ADAM GORMLY: AT THIS POINT I THINK YOUR TREATING IT JUST LIKE A NORMAL AMENDMENT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. I JUST WANTED THAT TO BE ON THE RECORD SO EVERYBODY WAS AWARE OF THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. FIRST ITEM. >>MARCIE STENMARK: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARCIE STENMARK. I WORK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I'LL BE PRESENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10-21. IT'S LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. HIGHWAY 301 AND CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD. THIS IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENT, AND THE SITE IS 133.2 ACRES AND CURRENTLY OPERATES AS A DAIRY FARM. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL-9 TO COMMUNITY USE-12 AND URBAN MIXED USE-20. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE TAMPA SERVICE AREA AND IS ALSO WITHIN THE GREATER PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY. IF APPROVED, THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WOULD BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM -- WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE FROM 1,198 TO 2,357 UNITS. THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO WOULD CHANGE FROM .50 AND A MAXIMUM OF 175,000 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL TO A COMBINATION OF .50 AND A 650,000-SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL MAX AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE-1 AND A 1.0 FLOOR AREA RATIO MAXIMUM IN URBAN MIXED USE-20. BOTH OF THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES REQUIRE AT LEAST TWO LAND USES. THE SITE LOCATION IS SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC HERE. THE ADOPTED FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL-9. THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE IS A COMBINATION OF COMMUNITY MIXED USE-12 ON THE WESTERN SIDE AND URBAN MIXED USE-20 ON THE EASTERN SIDE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GREATER PALM RIVER COMMUNITY PLAN CONCEPT MAP. THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE GREATER PALM RIVER AREA COMMUNITY PLAN. OUR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TONIGHT IS THAT THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, MR. JIM SHIMBERG, IS HERE TONIGHT, AND HE WISHES TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF STATEMENTS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MR. SHIMBERG. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. JIM SHIMBERG WITH HOLLAND & KNIGHT FOR THE RECORD. MYSELF AND SCOTT STEADY REPRESENT THE TWO DIFFERENT TRUSTEES THAT MAKE UP THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY, AND WE ARE VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSED COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. I JUST ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE -- THE PROPERTY IS A SITE THAT THE COUNTY HAS HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A POTENTIAL SOCCER SPORTS COMPLEX AT THAT LOCATION, AND OUR CLIENTS, WHO ARE THE OWNERS, ARE VERY INTERESTED IN PURSUING THAT WITH THE COUNTY, SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AND ALSO MENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE JUST MADE AWARE OF THAT NOTICE ISSUE EARLIER THIS WEEK, AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME CORRECTIVE ACTION. WE HOPE THAT'LL BE DONE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION HEARING IN OCTOBER, SO I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. THIS WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >>MARK SHARPE: MOVE THE ITEM, PLEASE. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. NO COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, PLAN AMENDMENT 10-22, IS AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO SEVERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAND ACQUISITION PURCHASES. THAT AMENDMENT IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE NEXT CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS. OKAY. SO THEN THE NEXT ITEM WILL BE PLAN AMENDMENT 10-23. >>KEN HAGAN: DO WE NEED A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT? >>ADAM GORMLY: IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE A MOTION. >>MARK SHARPE: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT. >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE ON CONTINUING CPA 10-22. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM. >>KRISTA KELLY: THE NEXT ITEM IS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10-23. THIS IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO POLICY 2.4.7 OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT. THIS REVISION WOULD ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE REVIEW OF THE STUDENT GENERATION RATE EVERY TWO YEARS AND IN DOING SO WOULD ALLOW PERIODIC REVIEWS OF THE GENERATION RATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SCHOOL IMPACT FEE AND CENSUS UPDATES. CURRENTLY THE GENERATION RATE IS BASED ON 2000 CENSUS DATA WHICH IS OUTDATED. THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THE USE OF THE MORE CURRENT CENSUS DATA OF 2010. THE INTENTION IS TO COORDINATE THESE UPDATES WITH THE MOST CURRENT DATA AVAILABLE AND ENHANCE THE ACCURACY OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS USED FOR THESE PROJECTIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE FUTURE OF HILLSBOROUGH'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >>MARK SHARPE: SO MOVE. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>ROSE FERLITA: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER FERLITA. NO COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THE NEXT ITEM IS PLAN AMENDMENT 10-24 RELATED TO THE TAMPA EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. THIS IS A STAFF-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT TO POLICY 38.2 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT. WHAT THE POLICY PROPOSES TO DO IS FIRST CHANGE THE NAME FROM VANDENBERG AIRPORT TO THE TAMPA EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. THE POLICY ALSO CALLS FOR PURSUING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE AVIATION AUTHORITY ON IMPLEMENTATION OF AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS. IT INCLUDES A GRAPHIC OF THE AIRPORT AREA OF INFLUENCE AND OUTLINES THAT -- IMPACTS ON AND OF THE AIRPORT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS. THIS IS A -- THE GRAPHIC THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT OUTLINES THE TWO TIERS OF AREA OF INFLUENCE AROUND THE AIRPORT BASED ON AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS, HEIGHTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE DID WORK ON THE LANGUAGE WITH THE AVIATION AUTHORITY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR PUBLIC HEARING FOUND THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >>MARK SHARPE: SO MOVED. >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. NO COMMENTS -- HOLD ON. GOOD EVENING, MS. SMITH. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. I GOT SHORT LEGS. I'M AN OLD GRANDMA. I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT I THINK ABOUT YOUR EXECUTIVE AIRPORT AND THE TIMING OF YOUR EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. IT WILL NO DOUBT FACILITATE WHAT YOU THINK YOU'RE PLANNING TO WHITEWASH, I MEAN THE GREEN TECH CORRIDOR. THAT'S THE TOP END OF IT, AND THAT IS GOING TO FACILITATE IT, SO PEOPLE BE WARNED OUT THERE, WE'RE IN FOR ANOTHER -- >>JIM NORMAN: SAY THAT AGAIN. I DIDN'T HEAR IT. >> YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO ME, JIM? >>JIM NORMAN: NO, I DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT -- NO, I WAS PAYING ATTENTION. YOU WENT OVER IT SO FAST, I WANTED YOU TO SAY IT AGAIN. I'M SORRY. >> WHICH PART? >>JIM NORMAN: THE -- WHAT WE WERE GOING OVER VERY QUICKLY YOU SAID, WHAT WE'RE WHITEWASHING. >> I LIKE YOUR NEW HAIRDO ANYWAY. >>JIM NORMAN: I LIKE YOURS TOO. I'M SORRY, I MISSED IT. >> IT'S A LATE SPRING DO. HERE'S THE DEAL. THAT AIRPORT IS GOING TO FACILITATE THE TAKING OF WHAT YOU FOLKS HAVE DEEMED TO CALL A GREEN TECH PROJECT WHEN ACTUALLY IT'S A WHITEWASH. IT'S JUST ANOTHER STEP OF THE WAY TO FURTHER DISRUPT AND TAKE AWAY FROM THE VERY CRITICAL AREAS THAT WE NEED FOR AGRICULTURE THAT DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL TOO FAR TO BRING THEIR PRODUCT TO MARKET. NOT FOR THIS WHOLE IDEA, AND THAT'S JUST ONE OF THEM. I WANT TO SAY I'M AGAINST THIS AIRPORT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. >> IS THAT CLEAR, JIMMY? >>JIM NORMAN: YEAH. >>KEN HAGAN: ANYONE -- >>JIM NORMAN: ACTUALLY, THAT'S WHY THE AGRICULTURE SPIN ON THAT IS WHAT I WANTED ADDRESSED. >> YEAH. THAT'S REAL IMPORTANT. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? OKAY. PLEASE RE-RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>JIM NORMAN: NO, NO, I WANT SOMEONE TO -- THE AGRICULTURE SPIN ON THIS AND HOW IT AFFECTS AGRICULTURE IF THEY WILL. IS SOMEONE HERE PREPARED TO DO THAT? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT -- >>JIM NORMAN: WITH THE AREA -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE AREA OF INFLUENCE DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING RELATED TO THEIR FUTURE LAND USE OR THEIR ZONING. ALL IT DOES IS OUTLINE -- IT PUTS A GRAPHIC IN THE MAP THAT SAYS -- IN THE PLAN THAT SAYS WHEN WE PLAN FOR THIS AREA, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT THERE'S AN AIRPORT THERE AND THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE IMPACTS ON WHAT ARE APPROPRIATE LAND USES. MS. HARVEY, DO YOU WANT TO -- >>KEN HAGAN: MS. HARVEY, CAN YOU ADDRESS COMMISSIONER NORMAN'S ISSUE? >>PAULA HARVEY: I CAN, I THINK. PAULA HARVEY WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR SOME ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON THE LAND USE PLAN MAP ITSELF THAT THERE'S AN AIRPORT THERE WHICH RIGHT NOW THAT LAND USE PLAN MAP DOES NOT. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, MR. GORMLY AND I ARE ALONG WITH OUR STAFF AND THEIR ATTORNEYS, TO DEVELOP ESSENTIALLY AN AGREEMENT THAT IS GOING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF HOW THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY WILL REGULATE IN TERMS OF ZONING TYPE OF ISSUES AND OUR PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFYING THEM OF THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN TO PROCESS. THERE IS NO PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME TO TAKE AWAY OR INTERVENE IN ANY WAY WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE AROUND THAT AIRPORT. IN FACT, THAT'S BASICALLY THE PREFERRED TYPE OF USES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONTINUE AND ENCOURAGE. >>JIM NORMAN: OKAY. GOOD ANSWER. THANK YOU. >>PAULA HARVEY: OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. PLEASE RE-RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT ITEM. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE NEXT TWO ITEMS WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP TOGETHER IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE WITH THE BOARD. >>KEN HAGAN: YES. GOOD EVENING. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: GOOD EVENING, CHAIR HAGAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS HEATHER LAMBOY. I'M WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. I'M PRESENTING TO YOU TONIGHT THE INTERSTATE 4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR. THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING PROCESS. IT WAS CONTINUED FROM THE LAST CYCLE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND THE REASON BEING IS THERE WERE TRANSPORTATION CONCERNS, CONCERNS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND DESIRE FOR MORE INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS, AND SO WE DID EXACTLY THAT. WE MET WITH THE CORE STUDY TEAM ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, ON MAY 27th AND JUNE 17th. WE ALSO HAVE MET WITH YOU IN A WORKSHOP BASIS, WE MET WITH THE PUBLIC AT BURNETT MIDDLE SCHOOL TO GATHER THEIR INPUT, AND THEN WE ALSO HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN TONIGHT'S HEARING. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN OVERALL REVIEW OF WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE THIS IS A REGIONAL EFFORT, THE COUNTY AMENDMENTS ARE HOPEFULLY COMING A PROCESS OF TRANSMITTAL. THE CITY OF PLANT CITY ALREADY TRANSMITTED THEIR PLAN AMENDMENTS ON JUNE 14th, AND IT IS CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY DCA. THE CITY OF TAMPA WILL HOLD ITS TRANSMITTAL HEARING ON AUGUST 12th, AND IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL FOR THE TAMPA INDUSTRIAL PARK, WHICH IS JUST SOUTH OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA THERE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA. AND THEN FINALLY, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS STUDY IS UNDERWAY FOR THE CITY OF PLANT CITY. THAT PROCESS WILL BEGIN THIS FALL, AND THE COUNTY PROCESS WILL BE BEGINNING SOON THEREAFTER. JUST TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NOT AN ADOPTED PLAN, BUT IT DOES REFLECT THE OPINION OF SEVERAL OF OUR -- OR THOUSANDS OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS. WE HAD A REALITY CHECK PROCESS AND THEN A ONE BAY VISIONING PROCESS TO THE YEAR 2050. WHAT WAS REVEALED WAS -- THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WAS CLUSTERED DEVELOPMENT ALONG MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. AND THEN THIS WAS REAFFIRMED IN THE SUPER REGION EFFORT, AND THE -- WE HAVE A LOT OF INTERRELATED ISSUES ALONG INTERSTATE 4, THAT BEING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS, YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT, INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS OR POSSIBLY THE LACK THEREOF, ECONOMIC LINKAGES, SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN LAND USE, AND AS WELL A SHARED CULTURE AND HISTORY. THE SUPER REGION EFFORT ALSO IDENTIFIED ECONOMIC CENTERS, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT PINELLAS COUNTY AS WELL AS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND THE ORLANDO REGION AND DAYTONA BEACH, THEY'RE ALL MAJOR PLAYERS IN THE REGION. THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO IS IDENTIFIED BOTH BY THE SUPER REGION AS WELL AS BY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S OWN ONE BAY -- WELL, I GUESS THE REGIONAL ONE BAY EFFORT IS THAT THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO MEANS THAT WE ARE GROWING UP, WE'RE NOT GROWING OUT. SO THAT IS HOW THIS MAP CAME TO BE. YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE CONCENTRATING OUR GROWTH IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY ADOPTED, AND THEN WE ARE PLANNING FOR GROWTH IN THE FUTURE ALONG THE CORRIDOR IN THE RURAL AREA. THE CONCEPT OF GROWTH ALONG THE CORRIDOR IS THAT WE WOULD CLUSTER THE OVERALL ANTICIPATED GROWTH TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT 40% OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S ANTICIPATED GROWTH AND 60% OF THE GROWTH WOULD LOCATE ELSEWHERE, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE I- 75 CORRIDOR, THE CITY OF TAMPA, OR THE CITY OF PLANT CITY, AS WELL AS TEMPLE TERRACE. THE OVERLAY FUNCTIONS IN A WAY THAT THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY REMAINS AND CAN -- THE OVERLAY WILL ONLY APPLY WHEN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ARE MET. THIS PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AND DOES NOT TAKE AWAY ANY ENTITLEMENTS. THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITIES AND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IS FIVE ACRES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TAMPA INDUSTRIAL PARK, WHICH IS ONE ACRE. THAT WAS DETERMINED THE MOST APPROPRIATE LOT SIZE. IN THE JOINT PLANNING AREAS, THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WITH TEMPLE TERRACE AND PLANT CITY, IS 20 ACRES IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA. THE MINIMUM SITE SIZE IS RECOMMENDED AT 80 ACRES, AND THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS SET FORTH TO GUIDE THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. FOR INSTANCE, IN THE CITIES THE CORPORATE VILLAGE IS AN APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN BECAUSE OF ITS INTENSITY AND MIX OF USES. FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE -- THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WHICH IS MORE SUBURBAN IN CHARACTER WITH THE BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT PATTERN AND THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. AND FINALLY THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS ONLY PERMITTED IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA BECAUSE IT'S -- IT'S AKIN TO WHAT IS EXISTING IN THAT AREA, AGRICULTURALLY RELATED. A HOT ISSUE DURING THE PAST EIGHT WEEKS THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA. AS WE SET FORTH THE POLICIES, THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA DETERMINED THAT WATER AND SEWER MUST BE AVAILABLE AND THROUGH CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS THERE MUST BE ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, THE MINIMUM SITE SIZE IS 80 ACRES, AND THERE MUST BE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES. TO TAKE -- TO GATHER SOME PERSPECTIVE ON STATE LAW, STATE LAW DOES PROVIDE FOR SOME JOB CREATION IN THE RURAL AREAS, AND STATE STATUTE ALLOWS FOR RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LIMITED SOLELY ON PROJECTED POPULATION OF THE RURAL COMMUNITY, AND THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THOSE POLICIES TO -- TO MIRROR WHAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THAT LAW. SO WHY DID WE PICK 80 ACRES IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES ON THE BOOKS. OBJECTIVE NUMBER 1 IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSES THAT, THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND 80% OF THE GROWTH IS EXPECTED IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, 20% IN THE RURAL AREA. NOW, THIS REFERS TO POPULATION, BUT WE CAN MIRROR THAT TO ALSO COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, AND RESEARCH TYPES OF USES AS WELL. FURTHERMORE, ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COSTS IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA ARE SIGNIFICANT. THE STUDY IDENTIFIED $500 MILLION IN ANTICIPATED COSTS. WE'RE NOT READY TO PROVIDE THAT MONEY AS OF YET, AND IF UTILITIES ARE EXTENDED, THE LINES MUST BE MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY. THE CAPITAL COST IS PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER, BUT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO HAVE ENOUGH USERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LINES OPERATE IN A FUNCTIONAL MANNER, OTHERWISE THEY'LL HAVE TO REQUIRE REGULAR FLUSHING AND THEN A LOT OF WATER IS WASTED. THERE'S ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF MITIGATING THE IMPACTS. WE'RE NOT OPERATING IN A VACUUM. THE RURAL AREA ALREADY HAS A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT. PEOPLE ARE THERE IN THE RURAL AREA. SO IT REQUIRES SUFFICIENT BUFFERING, THERE'S CLUSTERING AWAY FROM NONRESIDENTIAL -- I'M SORRY -- AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL USES FOR THOSE NONRESIDENTIAL USES, CONSISTENT ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMMING IS IMPORTANT, AND IT AVOIDS A FRAGMENTED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. WE DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THE ERRORS MADE FROM THE PAST. THE SECOND ISSUE WAS TRANSPORTATION POLICY. THERE IS A MEMORANDUM THAT WAS ON YOUR DESKS AS YOU ARRIVED, AND I'VE ALSO PROVIDED COPIES TO THE PUBLIC. IT WAS SET OUTSIDE WITH THE AGENDA. AND PART OF THE POLICY REQUIRES AN 18-MONTH TIME FRAME FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE CORE STUDY GROUP DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT LENGTH, AND WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING IN EIGHT WEEKS AND GIVE IT JUSTICE. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THE MOBILITY FEE WORKSHOPS ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, AND SO THERE'S -- THERE'S A LOT OF BASE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE. IN ADDITION THE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WAS RECENTLY ADOPTED FOR 2035, SO WE CAN GATHER ALL THAT INFORMATION AND CREATE AN EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE CORRIDOR. IN OUR MEMORANDUM THAT'S ADDRESSED TO YOU, WE DISCUSS HOW IT COULD POSSIBLY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CORRIDOR PRESERVATION MAP UPDATE SO THAT IT ADDRESSES THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE BECAUSE I-4 IS NOT A ROADWAY THAT OPERATES WITH -- BY ITSELF, IT'S PART OF A SYSTEM. THE ISSUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ADDRESSED. THERE WERE CONCERNS LAST TIME ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOT BEING A TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX, AND SO IT HAS BEEN SPELLED OUT AS A POTENTIAL WAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE TO COME IN AND UTILIZE THROUGH THE EXISTING REGULATIONS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. OTHER CHANGES INCLUDE JUST SOME VERY MINIMAL CHANGES, CHANGING "GOAL" TO "OBJECTIVE," REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO THE PORT. THE CITY OF TAMPA DECIDED TO NOT PURSUE THE PORT PORTION OF THE STUDY AT THIS POINT. REFERENCE TO THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING CODE. THAT IS ACTUALLY MORE SUITABLE THAN LEED. DR. JENNIFER LANGUELL, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL, GAVE US SOME VERY GOOD INFORMATION ON THAT, AND IT IS BETTER FOR CONSTRUCTION IN OUR UNIQUE CLIMATE. THE JOBS-TO-HOUSING RATIO CRITERION FOR THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION RATIO WAS PUT IN AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN STATE LAW. THE REALITY OF IT IS -- WHEN WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF HOUSING OUT THERE AND THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES IF EMPLOYMENT IS OFFERED OUT IN THAT GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, THEN THAT COULD ACTUALLY REDUCE IMPACTS BY HAVING SMALLER COMMUTES. SO THERE'S -- THAT TYPE OF ANALYSIS NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED, THE MEASURABLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT DEFINITION WAS INCLUDED, AND THERE IS A CLARIFICATION ON CONCURRENCY THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT THAT WAS INCORPORATED. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS, AND -- BECAUSE IT PROVIDES FOR PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT, SO WHEN THIS GIRL GROWS UP, SHE'LL BE ABLE TO STAY CLOSE TO HOME IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I BELIEVE OUR STAFF WANTED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. >>PETER ALUOTTO: YES, COMMISSIONERS. COUNTY STAFF HAS SOME COMMENTS. I BELIEVE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE 80-ACRE ISSUE AND THE 100 JOBS ISSUE, MINIMUM JOBS ISSUE. I WILL SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION, AND MS. HARVEY WILL ADDRESS HERSELF TO THE LEVELS OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES OR WHAT WE CALL FULL COST RECOVERY. >>BRUCE REGISTER: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M BRUCE REGISTER WITH THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. AS MR. ALUOTTO SUGGESTED, WE HAVE SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE AND SUGGEST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WE BELIEVE THE PLAN, IN ESSENCE, HAS A LOT OF FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND ASPECTS TO IT, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME -- SOME REVISIONS IN SEVERAL REGARDS. THE FIRST WOULD BE SUGGESTING THAT WE REDUCE THE 80-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR ELIGIBILITY IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA TO 30 ACRES. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE GOAL OF THIS WHOLE INITIATIVE WAS TO PLAN EFFECTIVELY FOR ECONOMIC -- THE FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY AND MANAGE THE DEVELOPMENT IN AN ORDERLY FASHION AND A DESIRABLE FASHION ALONG A VERY HIGH-VALUED ASSET BETWEEN THE TWO COMMUNITIES ALONG THE I-4 CORRIDOR WITH TAMPA AND PLANT CITY. WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE THREE FUNDAMENTAL SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE INHERENT TO THE PLAN THAT ARE GOING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CONFIDENCE THAT THE 30-ACRE THRESHOLD FOR PARTICIPATION WILL ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCE, NOT DEGRADE, THIS COMMUNITY. THOSE THREE SAFEGUARDS ARE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, THE RIGOROUS DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING ALONG THE I-4 CORRIDOR. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT WE'RE SEEING ARE GOING TO RESTRICT THE TYPES OF USES TO MORE COMPATIBLE USES THAN THE EXISTING ZONING IS ALLOWING CURRENTLY, AND THAT IS MSU-6, RESIDENTIAL-1. THIS RESTRICTION IS GOING TO ENCOURAGE TRUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND NOT BE SUBJECT TO RETAIL AND EXPANSION OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES IN THOSE AREAS. THE RIGOROUS STANDARDS IN POLICY 50.7 ARE GOING TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL TO 20% OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND THE CONFIGURATION FOR THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WILL BE CLUSTER AND NODAL IN NATURE, AND THAT WILL BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE PEDESTRIAN -- PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL, AND THE STRIP TYPE DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED. THE FINAL -- THE FINAL FEATURE THAT WE THINK IS A SAFEGUARD IS THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCEPTABLE RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT WITH -- THE RESTRICTIONS ARE GOING TO PROVIDE. IN THIS ZONE, IN THIS AREA, IN THIS OVERLAY, THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE GOING TO DEMAND THAT A COMPARABLY HIGH VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT AND CORRESPONDINGLY HIGH RETURN ON THE DEVELOPMENT YIELD FOR THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE NECESSARY FOR IT TO BE DEEMED FEASIBLE BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR, PRIVATE MARKET. LET ME TALK ABOUT SOME DISADVANTAGES THAT WE SEE WITH THE 80-ACRE RESTRICTION. FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRICTING PARTICIPATION. BY SETTING THE BAR AT 80 ACRES, WE ARE RESTRICTING THE PARTICIPATION WITH A POLICY AND PLAN THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE. THAT'S GOING TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN TO TWO CAMPS IN THIS AREA. ONE IS GOING TO RELY ON THE OLD STANDARDS THAT I BELIEVE ARE LESS DESIRABLE. THE OTHER CAMP IS GOING TO HAVE THE MORE DESIRABLE OPTIONS JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO PUTTING 80 ACRES TOGETHER. THE SECOND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, AS WE ALL, I THINK, CAN UNDERSTAND, IS IT'S DIFFICULT TO ASSEMBLE LAND. ADDITIONALLY, WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LACK OF ELIGIBLE PARCELS, AND THAT'S GOING TO REALLY RENDER THIS PLAN UNREALISTIC IF THE 80 ACRES IS NOT REDUCED. FINALLY, IF EXEMPTIONS ARE INCLUDED AND NECESSARY TO OVERCOME THIS 80-ACRE HURDLE, IT REALLY IS NOT GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT -- THAT OUR PROJECTS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN IMPROPERLY REZONED LAND. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO -- THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW US TO REZONE LAND WHILE THEY WAIT. THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THE MEANTIME, AND PROBABLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY OF THAT. SO HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS IN THE PLAN AND THAT BY KEEPING THE 80 ACRES, WE WILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, BRUCE. >>PETER ALUOTTO: THE SECOND POINT WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IS OBJECTIVE 50.9, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COORDINATION. IT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT IN THE SECOND SENTENCE, WITHIN 18 -- THAT BEGINS "WITHIN 18 MONTHS" THAT THE WORD "COUNTY" BE STRICKEN AND REPLACED WITH "PLANNING COMMISSION." THE REASON FOR THAT IS QUITE SIMPLE. HAD WE ANY NOTION THAT WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, WE COULD HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT, YOU KNOW, OVER THE PAST YEAR. WE HAVE -- WE -- THE BOARD PASSED AN AGREEMENT IN MARCH WHICH DELEGATED THESE RESPONSIBILITIES, AND WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS AN OBLIGATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION; HOWEVER, WE DO THINK THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A NEXT ITEM. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE TIME FRAME. WE DO SUPPORT THE PLAN. WE JUST THINK THAT THAT ITEM AS IT PERTAINS TO TRANSPORTATION, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE CHANGED. AND NOW MS. HARVEY WOULD ADDRESS HER ITEM. >>PAULA HARVEY: VERY QUICKLY, COMMISSIONERS, AGAIN, PAULA HARVEY WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. I WANT TO JUST BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHAT ONE MAY DEFINE AS A TECHNICALITY THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN THIS PARTICULAR POLICY FOR I-4 THAT AT LEAST FROM THE COUNTY'S PERSPECTIVE WE BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. WE HAVE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED BY THIS BOARD AND THEN TRANSMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INCLUDE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR VARIOUS FORMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT ALL OVER HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THE SHORT-TERM FOR ALL OF THIS IS CONCURRENCY IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH FOR IMPLEMENTATION. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS POLICY, THE CONSIDERATION FOR POLICE SERVICES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AND FIRE PREVENTION HAVE BEEN INCLUDED FOR SOME REASON ONLY WITHIN THE I-4 CORRIDOR. THESE ARE NOT LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS BOARD, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE, AND THEY ARE NOT PART OF OUR CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WE ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COUNTY NEEDS TO HAVE THOSE TYPE OF SERVICES, NEEDS SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE. NO ONE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN A LARGE INVESTMENT WITHIN THE CORRIDOR AND DEVELOPING THAT CORRIDOR ONLY TO HAVE THEIR BUILDING BURN TO THE GROUND BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T PROVIDE SERVICE. WE WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW THAT, AND ANY TYPE OF REVIEW IN DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO INVOLVE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING THOSE SERVICES TO ASSURE THAT THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING PROPERLY AND THAT ALL THE PREVENTION TECHNIQUES THAT ARE NECESSARY ARE IN PLACE, AND THAT INCLUDES SECURITY SYSTEMS. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, WE DO NOT BELIEVE AS A STAFF THAT WE OUGHT TO BE REQUIRING OF THE PEOPLE WHO DEVELOP IN THE I-4 CORRIDOR ANY MORE TYPE OF REQUIREMENTS THAT ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF CONCURRENCY OUTSIDE OF ANY OTHER ENTITY IN THE COUNTY FOR WHICH WE DO HAVE LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED AND THEY ARE PROVIDED FOR IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BEGINNING WITH THE VERY INITIATION OF THE STATEMENTS IN OBJECTIVE 50 OF THIS POLICY THAT APPLY TO THE OVERALL CORRIDOR, IN FACT, THEY START INSERTING THE LANGUAGE REGARDING EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW THESE THINGS ARE DEFINED, THEY ARE INCLUDING ESSENTIALLY SERVICE BY THE SHERIFF, SERVICE BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND OUR EMERGENCY SERVICE PERSONNEL WHO ARE RESPONDING ON INJURIES. WE ARE REQUESTING WITH THE CHANGES THAT I'VE PASSED OUT TO YOU THAT THAT PHRASEOLOGY THROUGHOUT THE POLICY BE DELETED. WE'VE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT IN ITS PLACE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SURETY THAT ALL OF THE CONCURRENCY ELEMENTS ARE BEING MET THAT YOU INCLUDE THE PROVISIONS INCLUDING SOLID WASTE AND PARKS AND RECREATION, AND ALTHOUGH SOME HAVE SAID -- AND SCHOOLS. SOME HAVE SAID SINCE THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED THAT WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE OTHER ISSUES, BUT IN FACT, IN PARTS OF THE CORRIDOR AND WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THOSE ISSUES, THERE'S PROVISION FOR SOME LIMITATION OF HOUSING IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING A CERTAIN TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. WITHIN THE EXPANSION AREA, THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, BUT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CERTAIN TYPES OF SUPPORT HOUSING AT EITHER END OF THE CORRIDOR, AND SO WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL -- IN OUR REVIEW, THAT WILL DEFINITELY BE LOOKED AT. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, PAULA. OKAY. NOW -- PAULA. OKAY. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. THOSE THAT WISH TO -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: OH, I THOUGHT BRUCE SPOKE FOR YOU, GENE. QUICKLY. >>GENE GRAY: YES, SIR. GENE GRAY WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. COMMISSIONERS, I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO ADDRESS OBJECTIVE 53- G-5. THIS PARTICULAR OBJECTIVE, RECENTLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF INSERTED SOME ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS REGARDING -- RELATED TO REZONING SUCH AS REQUIRING AT LEAST 100 JOBS AND A COMMITMENT TO REMAIN IN THE CORRIDOR FOR FIVE YEARS. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE POTENTIALLY DUPLICATIVE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY PLACE A BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT IN CONTROL OF AND UNABLE TO COMMIT TO. ONLY THE END USER BUSINESS CAN MAKE THOSE KINDS OF COMMITMENTS, WHICH IS A PART OF THE NEGOTIATED INCENTIVE AND INDUCEMENT PROCESS TYPICALLY INVOLVING COMPANIES SUCH AS THOSE THAT ARE TARGETED FOR THIS. THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS DON'T RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENT ROLES OF THE LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER VERSUS THE END USER, AND WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE CREATION OF PERMIT-READY AND/OR -- AND/OR CONSTRUCTION OF MOVE-IN READY BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. AND COMMISSIONERS, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THE ISSUE OF MOVE- IN READY BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR HAS LARGELY BEEN OVERLOOKED IN THIS DISCUSSION. REALITY IS NOT EVERY CORPORATE PROSPECT WANTS TO DO A BUILD-TO-SUIT, WHICH HAS BEEN THE BASIS OF MOST OF THIS DISCUSSION. MANY OF THEM DO NOT. FREQUENTLY IF A BUILDING THAT MEETS THEIR NEEDS IS AVAILABLE, THEY'LL MAKE THE MOVE AND GO WITH THAT. FOR THOSE THAT DO WANT TO BUILD-TO-SUIT, THE UNCERTAINTY OF HAVING TO OBTAIN A LAND USE CHANGE OR A REZONING IS A RISK THEY SIMPLY ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE. LAND USE AND ZONING MUST BE IN PLACE FOR A SITE TO BE PERMIT READY. THESE NEW CONDITIONS IN THIS SECTION WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL DETERRENT TO THAT HAPPENING. WE RECOMMEND DELETING THE ENTIRE PARENTHETICAL STATEMENT THAT WAS ADDED TO OBJECTIVE 53-G-5 AND BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDED WORDING IS ADEQUATE. IF YOU CONCUR IN THIS, THEN WE WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT YOU DELETE THE WORDING FROM THE DEFINITION SECTION IN APPENDIX "B" UNDER "ECONOMIC BENEFIT." >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, GENE. OKAY. AT THIS TIME WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES. PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD EVENING. >> HI. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS OUR THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECT. I'M FRED JACOBSEN. I'M WITH THE SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, POST OFFICE BOX 879 IN RUSKIN 33575. AND I'M HERE TO ASK YOU JUST SIMPLY TO PLEASE REMOVE THE GREEN EXPANSION AREA FROM THE -- FROM THE CORRIDOR PLAN, AND THERE'S THREE JUST BASIC REASONS FOR THAT, THAT'S NEED, COST, AND JOBS. QUESTION, HOW MUCH OF THE TARGETED LAND THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALREADY EXISTS THROUGHOUT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IN THE URBAN SERVICES AREA TODAY? NEED. SECOND IS COST. CAN THE COUNTY TAXPAYERS AFFORD NEW FACILITIES, ROADS, WATER, ET CETERA TO A NEW URBAN SERVICE AREA WHERE IT IS NOW RURAL AREA? THREE IS JOBS, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. WHEN WOULD THE FIRST JOBS SHOW UP IF YOU APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS, 20 YEARS? DO YOU KNOW THAT JOBS CAN GO INTO THE I-75 CORRIDOR IN THE URBAN SERVICES AREA TOMORROW? AND JUST FINALLY, JUST I'M ASKING TO HAVE YOU PLEASE REMOVE THE OVERLAY FROM THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. JACOBSEN. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> COMMISSIONER HAGAN, MY NAME'S GRACE McCOMAS. I LIVE AT 805 OLD DARBY STREET IN SEFFNER, AND I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE GTEA, THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA, WAS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED TO US FOR OVERLAY FOR LONG- TERM PROTECTION OF THE RURAL AREA SO INDISCRIMINATE AND PREMATURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT OCCUR. THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD OCCUR ONLY IN THE PERMIT-READY URBAN SERVICE AREA FIRST. THIS CONCEPT HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE I-4 STUDY. SINCE WE DON'T GET A CHANCE TO KEEP COMING BACK UP HERE, LET ME SAY RIGHT NOW THAT YOU'LL PROBABLY HEAR TONIGHT THAT THE PEOPLE IN SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY DO NOT WANT DEVELOPMENT, NOT NOW, NOT LATER, NOT EVER. I WOULD LOVE FOR THAT TO BE THE TRUTH. I'VE SAID THAT MYSELF, BUT IT'S NOT REALISTIC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SMART USE OF THE RURAL SERVICE AREA WHEN AND IF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IS TOTALLY DEVELOPED. LET THE RURAL AREA REMAIN RURAL NOW, AND WHEN THE TIME COMES THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMUNITY PLANS HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AND ESTABLISH THAT THE NEED IS THERE TO DEVELOP URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL AREA, THEN THAT'S THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT. ISN'T THAT WHY THIS SYSTEM IS DESIGNED AND WHY REEVALUATIONS ARE DONE? DO NOT OPEN THE BACK DOOR FOR UNSCRUPULOUS PERSONS TO ENTER THE RURAL AREA. MANY PEOPLE FOLLOWING ME TONIGHT WILL PRESENT INTELLIGENTLY PREPARED AND ELOQUENTLY DELIVERED STATEMENTS WHICH I CAN'T DO THAT WILL INFORM YOU OF THE MANY REASONS IT IS UNREASONABLE TO DEVELOP IN THE RURAL AREA. PLEASE LISTEN TO THEM, ALL OF YOU. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. McCOMAS. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. ANNETTE FRIESE, 607 POND WAY, SEFFNER. IF THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA IS ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS, WE SHOULD VIGOROUSLY PURSUE INDUSTRY FOR SITE-READY AREAS THAT HAVE UTILITIES IN PLACE, NOT ONLY ON I-4 BUT ALSO UTILIZE THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF EMPTY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON I-75. LET'S BE HONEST HERE, THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA IS NOT ABOUT JOBS, IT IS ABOUT GIVING A FEW LANDOWNERS RIGHTS TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL AREA ALONG HIGHWAY 92, WHICH IS A FAILING ROAD. I READ AN ARTICLE RECENTLY ABOUT A MAYOR IN ALASKA WHO SEVERAL YEARS AGO WAS APPROACHED BY A LARGE OIL COMPANY ABOUT OFFSHORE EXPLORATION. THE OIL COMPANY WAS TOLD NO BECAUSE IT WAS TOO MUCH TOO SOON TOO FAST. THE OIL COMPANY LISTENED TO THE MAYOR AND OTHER GROUPS AND HAS BEEN ISSUED A MORE REGULATED PERMIT. THE OIL COMPANY SAID THEY ORIGINALLY HAD NOT LISTENED CLOSELY ENOUGH AND IT WAS A MISTAKE. YES, WE NEED TO LOOK AHEAD AND PLAN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RURAL AREA AT THIS TIME. THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA ALONG HIGHWAY 92 IS TOO MUCH WAY TOO SOON AND TOO FAST. LET'S TRULY GO GREEN TECH AND USE FACILITIES ALREADY BUILT BEFORE WE ADD ANYMORE EMPTY BUILDINGS TO OUR LANDSCAPE. COMMISSIONERS, YOU NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE LIKE THE OIL COMPANY AND TRULY LISTEN TO US. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. FRIESE. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. STEVEN MORRIS, WAYNE ROAD, ODESSA 33556. I REALLY HAVE TO HAND IT TO YOU, COMMISSIONERS. IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT THIS BOARD PROCLAIMED IT WOULD URBANIZE I-4 FROM TEMPLE TERRACE TO PLANT CITY, NO MATTER WHAT, ALL IN THE NAME OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. TO AID YOU IN THIS PROCESS AND TO PROVIDE YOU AN AIR OF LEGITIMACY, YOU ENLISTED THE HELP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHO, OF COURSE, GIVES THIS PROJECT A GLOWING RECOMMENDATION. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE PHONE CALLS AND CONVERSATIONS HELD THAT BROUGHT THIS ALL TOGETHER. WHILE IT MAY SEEM THAT YOU ACHIEVED ALL THAT YOU SET OUT TO ACCOMPLISH, THE REALITY UPON A CLOSER REVIEW IS THAT YOU REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING. TO BEGIN WITH, IT APPEARS YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THE ORIGINAL INTENT FOR CREATING THIS URBAN CORRIDOR. OH, SORRY, GREEN TECH CORRIDOR. IF YOU WILL REMEMBER, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT SHOULD A COMPANY WISH TO BUILD A LARGE PROJECT THERE, THERE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH LARGE CONTIGUOUS TRACTS IN WHICH TO BUILD IT. THEREFORE, THE URBAN CORRIDOR WOULD BE CREATED TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN BY PROVIDING THESE LARGE CONTIGUOUS TRACTS OF LAND, YET AT THE LAST HEARING IT WAS YOU THAT STARTED DOWNSIZING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 30 ACRES. 30 ACRES CAN BE FOUND WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IF THAT'S ALL YOU WANT, THEN IT NEGATES THE NEED FOR THIS URBAN CORRIDOR. COINCIDENTALLY, THIS 30-ACRE MINIMUM JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME NUMBER BEING PROPOSED BY THREE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THEIR CLIENTS. THERE IS NO TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO DATE, THOUGH ONE IS SUPPOSEDLY BEING WORKED ON. WITHOUT IT, HOW CAN WE BE SURE THIS PROJECT CAN LEGALLY PROCEED? THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR CRITERIA IN PLACE. WHO KNOWS WHEN THIS WILL EVER BE COMPLETED. THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THE STATE WILL BE ONBOARD WITH YOUR PLAN. AS I REMEMBER, THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM FDOT APPEARED AND SEEMED QUITE MIFFED AT THE WHOLE PROJECT AND PROCESS. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN STATED AS THE DRIVING REASON FOR CREATING THIS URBAN CORRIDOR. I SUSPECT IT WILL BE AN ECONOMIC BOON TO THE SPECIAL INTERESTS AND A FEW LARGE LANDOWNERS AND, AS USUAL, WILL BECOME AN ECONOMIC ALBATROSS FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TAXPAYERS AS A WHOLE. I FIND IT IRONIC, COMMISSIONERS, IF I OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS ROOM WENT TO PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT WITH A PROJECT LACKING AS MUCH DETAIL AND DESCRIPTION AS THIS ONE DOES, I AM QUITE CONFIDENT WE WOULD BE TOLD TO COME BACK WHEN WE COULD PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION, YET HERE WE ARE, YOUR FINGERS ARE ON THE BUTTON READY TO APPROVE THIS ILL-CONCEIVED AMENDMENT. FROM THIS CAN WE ASSUME THAT ONE SET OF RULES APPLIES TO THE CITIZENS WHILE ANOTHER ONLY APPLIES TO THE BOCC? IN SUMMARY, GIVEN ALL THE AVAILABLE LAND LOCATED IN THE TEMPLE TERRACE/USF AREA, WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, ALONG WITH THOSE LANDS AND RESOURCES STANDING IN THE READY IN THE I-75 CORRIDOR COMBINED WITH ALL OF THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND UNFILLED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND AS YET A DEMONSTRATED ACTUAL NEED FOR THIS CORRIDOR, WE CAN CONCLUDE THERE IS ONLY ONE RATIONAL DECISION THAT CAN BE MADE AT THIS TIME, AND THAT IS TO DENY THIS TONIGHT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. DENISE VERRILL, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION PLAN MIGHT AS WELL BE CALLED THE GREEN TAX EXPANSION PLAN. WIDENING AND ADDING ROADS WILL INCREASE OUR TRANSPORTATION TAX. WATER AND SEWER LINES THAT WILL HAVE TO BE EXTENDED WILL ALSO INCREASE OUR TAXES. NOT ONLY WILL SEWER, WATER, AND ROADS BE BUILT AT THE RESIDENTS' EXPENSE, SEWER PLANTS AND WATER PUMP STATIONS WILL NEED TO -- WILL BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE EXTRA GROWTH WITH PERMITTING FOR ADDITIONAL WATER USE DOUBTFUL. THE EXPANSION WILL CAUSE THE TRAFFIC ON ALREADY CHOKED I-4 AND STATE ROAD 92 TO BECOME WORSE WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PAID FOR BY ALL OF FLORIDA RESIDENTS IN THE FORM OF INCREASED STATE TAXES. IT IS REALLY UNCLEAR HOW MUCH WE WILL BE -- WE WILL NEED TO INVEST TO GET A SINGLE JOB OUT OF THIS PROJECT. WHAT IS CLEAR IS WE HAVE ENOUGH EXISTING SPACE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO SUPPORT GROWTH FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. PLEASE USE GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES NOW. REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RURAL AND -- RURAL LANDS SLATED TO BE DEVELOPED, REUSE THE ALREADY ZONED URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND RECYCLE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY REINVESTING IN ALREADY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. I URGE THE COMMISSIONERS TO REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE AND REJECT THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION PLAN AND MAKE A VOTE TO KEEP THE AREA OF THIS COUNTY THE COLOR THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, GREEN. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. VERRILL. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] >> HELLO. I'M MARIELLA SMITH, 108 JANIE STREET IN RUSKIN, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE TAMPA BAY SIERRA CLUB AS THEIR GROWTH MANAGEMENT CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO ASK EVERYBODY HERE WHO'S OPPOSED TO THE EXPANSION OF THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA TO PLEASE STAND UP JUST TO GET A SENSE OF THE OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THIS IS A POSTER CHILD FOR AMENDMENT 4. EXCEPT FOR A FEW LANDOWNERS WHO STAND TO PROFIT, THERE ARE NO TAXPAYING VOTERS HERE CLAMORING FOR YOU TO SPEND MORE OF OUR MONEY ON INFRASTRUCTURE JUST TO PAVE OVER MORE FARMLAND AND DESTROY MORE WETLANDS. AMENDMENT 4, THE HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER, WOULD GIVE THE VOTERS A SAY ON GROWTH, AND IF WE HAD A SAY ON THIS, WE'D SAY NO. THIS SO-CALLED GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA IS NOT GREEN, IT'S GREEN WASHING. UNDERNEATH THE GREEN WASHING THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A NEEDLESS EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA INTO A HUGE AREA THAT IS NOW RURAL. THIS WILL SET A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT FOR OTHER EXPANSIONS INTO THE RURAL AREA. THE JOB CREATION EXCUSE IS AS PHONY AS THE GREEN WASHING. IF JOBS COULD ACTUALLY BE CREATED SIMPLY BY BUILDING COMMERCIAL JUNK, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY UNEMPLOYMENT IN THIS STATE. WE HAVE TONS OF EMPTY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS FROM STRIP PLAZAS TO OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUT NONE OF THAT IS CREATING ANY JOBS. WE HAVE PLENTY OF BUILDABLE COMMERCIAL LAND AND PLENTY OF VACANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADD MORE COMMERCIAL CAPACITY AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR FARMLAND AND WETLANDS, NOT AT THIS TIME. CERTAINLY WE DON'T NEED TO RUSH AHEAD OF THE NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION STUDIES. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SPENDING 18 MONTHS DOING THAT. THEY'RE ASKING YOU TO RUSH AHEAD OF THAT. THE BIGGEST EXCUSE FOR WHY YOU NEED TO GO OUT INTO THE RURAL AREA IS FOR THAT 80 ACRES. NOW YOU'RE CONSIDERING 30 ACRES. YOU CAN FIND 30 ACRES INSIDE THE URBAN AREA. THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR EXCUSE IS PHONY TOO. THIS IS NOT TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THE HIGH-SPEED TRAIN IS JUST GOING TO GO WHOOSHING BY WITHOUT STOPPING. I-4 IS NOT AN ACCESS ROAD FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, SO YOU SHOULD STOP CALLING THIS THE I-4 CORRIDOR, STOP CALLING IT GREEN TECH. IT'S NOT THE I-4 CORRIDOR. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REALLY TURN RURAL HIGHWAY 92 INTO A MESS LIKE DALE MABRY AND HIGHWAY 60. YES, THEY'VE WRITTEN IN SOME RESTRICTIONS, BUT THOSE WILL GET MODIFIED ONCE THIS BIG BATTLE IS OVER WITH LITTLE AMENDMENTS AND REZONINGS. WE'VE SEEN THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THIS COUNTY WITH LAND THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RESERVED FOR HIGH-TECH DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH COUNTY DRIs AND ON THE I-75 CORRIDOR. ONCE THE LAND IS CHANGED FROM AG TO URBAN, IT'S EASY TO GET THAT HIGH-TECH LANGUAGE CHANGED AND GET THE LAND REZONED FOR THE SAME OLD SAME OLD, APARTMENTS, STRIP MALLS, AND WAREHOUSES. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. PAM CLOUSTON, RLAND, RURAL LITHIA AREA NEIGHBORHOOD DEFENSE. AND WHILE THIS IS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE I LIVE REALLY, I JUST HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT RLAND IS OPPOSED TO ANY TAKING OF RURAL LAND, PUTTING IT IN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT OR JUST OUTRIGHT CHANGING IT AND CLUMPING IT IN TO THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. YOU JUST DID THAT WITH 3100 ACRES, 3100 ACRES FOR AN ENERGY INDUSTRIAL PARK. THEY GOT A LITTLE AGRICULTURE GOING ON THE BOTTOM, THEY'VE GOT AN ENERGY INDUSTRIAL PARK, THEY'RE GOING TO BRING GARBAGE FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY BY TRAINS IN THERE, AND THEN THEY'VE GOT THIS OTHER AREA UP HERE WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF THAT, OH, WHEN THEY CAN SUPPORT IT, THEY'LL PUT IN SHOPPING AND HOTELS, TO VISIT A GARBAGE BURNING PLANT? OKAY. THAT'LL BE GOOD. INSTEAD OF THAT, WHY DON'T YOU USE THAT BIG CLUMP IF YOU NEED BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT, WHERE THAT'S LOCATED, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE YOU HAVE TO DO STUFF ON ROUTE 60, TURKEY CREEK, SOUTH DOVER ROAD, DURANT ROAD THAT'S ALREADY CRAMMED UP. THERE'S TWO SCHOOLS ON HIGHWAY 92, SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE WISDOM OF THIS, ADDING MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD. HOW'S THAT WORKING FOR LITHIA-PINECREST WHERE YOU'VE GOT TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS LETTING IN AT RUSH HOUR? HOW'S THAT WORKING FOR BLOOMINGDALE WHERE YOU GOT A HIGH SCHOOL LETTING IN DURING RUSH HOUR? HOW'S THAT WORKING FOR FISHHAWK BOULEVARD WHERE YOU'VE GOT TWO SCHOOLS LETTING IN DURING RUSH HOUR? HOW'S THAT WORKING FOR BOYETTE WITH RIVERVIEW HIGH LETTING IN DURING RUSH HOUR? NOT SO MUCH. OKAY. WE'VE GOT EMPTY STOREFRONTS, WE'VE GOT COMMERCIAL. THERE'S SOME BIG, OLD BUILDING ON 60 I WENT BY THE OTHER DAY. IT'S LIKE -- I DON'T KNOW. I WAS HERE LISTENING TO THEM WANT MORE STORIES ON IT, SO THEY'VE GOT THIS BUILDING STICKING UP ALONG 60 THAT'S EMPTY. IF YOU DRIVE BY, THERE'S EMPTY STOREFRONTS. BULLDOZE SOME OF THOSE NASTY OLD STRIP MALLS THAT DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THEM BUT A TATTOO PARLOR OR SOMETHING AND A BAR AND, YOU KNOW, PUT YOUR GREEN TECH THERE. IT'S RIDICULOUS. EVERY TIME SOMEBODY SAYS SUSTAINABLE, GREEN, OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THIS COMMISSION RUBBERSTAMPS IT. I REALLY -- I KNOW YOU'RE SMARTER THAN THAT. I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS CAN MAKE A SENSIBLE DECISION LIKE THIS. AND YOU KNOW, MARIELLA JUST ASKED EVERYBODY THAT WAS OPPOSED TO STAND UP. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE EVERYBODY THAT'S FOR IT STAND UP AND THEN HAVE YOU LOOK AND SEE WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE THAT ARE FOR THIS. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. >>MARK SHARPE: HELLO, MS. MARCELLA. >> MR. NORMAN -- WELL, ANYWAY, THERE'S AN OLD TENET, PROBABLY -- IT'S AGE-OLD -- IT FOR SURE STARTED IN THE DEPRESSION -- THAT PROMOTES THRIFT, ECONOMY, AND FINANCIAL WISDOM, AND THAT LITTLE CLICHE WAS USE IT UP, WEAR IT OUT, MAKE DUE OR DO WITHOUT. FOR EXAMPLE, HERE'S AN EXAMPLE, THIS BLAZER, I'VE HAD IT FOR PROBABLY 20 YEARS, HAD TACKY BUTTONS ON IT, LOOKED A LITTLE OUTDATED, SO I GOT SOME NEW BUTTONS AND PUT IT ON AND I SHORTENED IT A LITTLE BIT, AND NOW I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE MALL, LOOK AROUND, SPEND MONEY THAT I DO NOT HAVE LOOKING FOR A NEW BLAZER. THAT ILLUSTRATES THE I-75 CORRIDOR, WHICH WAS THE CORRIDOR DU JOUR COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. NOW IT'S FALLEN OUT OF FAVOR FOR SOME REASON, AND YOU'RE SCURRYING AROUND TO LOOK FOR A NEW CORRIDOR. I PUT IT TO YOU THAT I-75 CORRIDOR, IF YOU'D PUT 10% OF THE EFFORT AND MONEY THAT YOU PUT INTO THE SUPPOSED I-4 CORRIDOR, WE COULD HAVE JOBS NEXT WEEK. YOU THROW SOME INCENTIVES ON THAT -- THAT LAND, AND YOU COULD GET SOME JOBS QUICKLY, NOT 20 YEARS FROM NOW, NOT 15 YEARS FROM NOW. THE EXPANSION AREA IS A POSTER CHILD FOR SPRAWL. LET'S NOT JUST MINCE WORDS ABOUT IT, IT IS SPRAWL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE TRIED TO PUT A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER, AND IT'S SO OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH SOME COMMON SENSE THAT IT'S NOT WORK -- GOING TO WORK. IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE COMP PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR THE 20% AND 80%. IT'S JUST NOT A GOOD THING. IT ALSO FLIES IN THE FACE OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND INFILL, THESE SHIBBOLETHS THAT WE'VE PUT ON HIGH THAT WE'RE JUST GIVING LIP SERVICE TO. WHAT HAPPENED TO TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT? THIS IS NOT IT. WHAT HAPPENED TO INFILL? THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT IT. SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR YOU HAD ALLOWED FOR THE EXPANSION AREA TO BE TAKEN OUT, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT. IT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THIS HAS BEEN STUCK ON TO THIS AMENDMENT, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE OPPOSE IT. IT'S NOT THE CLOUD AREAS, IT'S NOT THE PART IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, IT'S THE EXPANSION AREA WHICH IS SPRAWL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> HELLO. MY NAME IS MICHELLE O'CONNOR. I LIVE AT 4606 CASTLEWOOD ROAD IN SEFFNER, AND I AM AT GROUND ZERO IN THE NOTCH EXPANSION AREA THAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO DO, AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I DO RESPECT THE NEED FOR GROWTH. I'VE WORKED AT TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL FOR 20 YEARS. I'VE OWNED MY HOME FOR 21 YEARS. I FEEL LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE FORGETTING THE RESIDENTS IN THE RURAL AREA. THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE RURAL AREA HAVE CHOSEN THIS LIFESTYLE. WE'VE CHOSEN TO LIVE WITHOUT DEED RESTRICTIONS, HOAs, AND ZERO LOT LINES FOR A REASON. WHEN MY CHILDREN LOOK OUT THEIR BACKYARD, THEY SEE A BEAUTIFUL GREEN FOREST, NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S BACK WALL. BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY -- WE HAVE A LITTLE OVER HALF ACRE -- IS COMPLETELY FENCED IN, MY KIDS CAN GO OUT AND PLAY WITHOUT WORRYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET HIT BY A CAR OR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO KNOCK OUT SOMEBODY'S WINDOW WITH THEIR BASEBALLS. THEY ALSO HAVE PLENTY OF AREA TO RUN AND PLAY. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ME. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN RURAL AREAS THAT HAVE LAND. AND I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT IT. WE DECIDED BACK IN 2006 TO EXPAND OUR HOUSE INSTEAD OF WALKING AWAY FROM IT. IT'S AN OLDER HOME. WE'VE GUTTED EVERY SINGLE ROOM IN OUR HOUSE WITH OUR BARE HANDS, AND NO, I'M NOT IN CONSTRUCTION, NOR IS MY HUSBAND. I FEEL SAFE WHERE WE LIVE. MAYBE IT'S A FALSE SENSE OF SAFETY, BUT I DO, AND I LOVE IT OUT THERE, AND I LOVE MY NEIGHBORS. WHEN THIS ALL CAME ABOUT, I HAVE TO SAY I WAS PRETTY FLOORED BY THE COMMISSION BECAUSE I FELT LIKE THEY WERE SAYING, OH, THIS IS SO GREAT FOR GROWTH, BUT WHAT ABOUT US? BUT WHAT ABOUT US RESIDENTS THAT HAVE LIVED HERE AND THAT PUT OUR ROOTS HERE AND PLAN TO LIVE THERE UNTIL I RETIRE FROM TAMPA GENERAL AND I WATCH MY KIDS GO TO COLLEGE SOMEWHERE IN FLORIDA? THEY HAVE TO BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEIR EDUCATION FUNDS ARE. SO I'M -- I'M STAYING HERE. I STAYED HERE, I WAS BORN IN THE HOSPITAL I WORK IN, I GREW UP IN BRANDON, I'VE SEEN THE GROWTH EVERYWHERE, I'VE SEEN THE CONGESTION EVERYWHERE. WE MOVED OUT TO THE RURAL AREA FOR A LIFESTYLE THAT WE LOVE. I THINK AL HIGGINBOTHAM GREW UP IN THE AREA. I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE RECONSIDER NOT DOING THIS OVERLAY NOW. WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREAS. WE HAVE THE AVAILABILITY. WE NEED TO UTILIZE IT, AND I'D JUST ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT US THAT LIVE OUT THERE BECAUSE WE WANT TO LIVE OUT THERE AND THAT WE WORK HARD TO MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTIES AND OUR KIDS TO GROW UP THERE. I GREW UP LIKE THAT IN SOUTH BRANDON A LONG TIME AGO, UNTIL IT GOT OVERGROWN AND WE MOVED TO THE OTHER SIDE, AND THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF PLACES TO LIVE. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MRS. O'CONNOR. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING. ELIZABETH BELCHER, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. ONE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ISSUE MUST BE CLARIFIED BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, WHERE EXACTLY ARE THE CLOUDS? WHAT EXACTLY IS THE I-4 GREEN TECH EXPANSION? CONSIDER THAT ON JUNE 9th, 2010, MS. LAMBOY MADE A STATEMENT BEFORE THE BOCC WORKSHOP ON THE I-4 CORRIDOR IN WHICH SHE STATED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT NOT TO BE TOO SPECIFIC REGARDING THE BUBBLES. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? 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 COLLECTION ROAD OR CONNECTION THROUGH ANOTHER TARGETED INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT. IF THIS IS THE CRITERIA, WHY WOULDN'T ANY PARCEL OF LAND ANYWHERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN? BEFORE THE COMMISSION APPROVES SOMETHING, SHOULDN'T YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS? SINCE THE BUBBLES AND CLOUDS ARE NOT TO BE TOO SPECIFIC, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY CAN BE EXPANDED FOR ANY PROPERTY OWNER? DOES THIS MEAN THAT ANY PROPERTY WITHIN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CAN GET FREE ZONING? IF NOT, WHY NOT? AND EXPANDING TO THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION, IF MY NEIGHBOR CAN GET FREE COMMERCIAL ZONING, WHY CAN'T I? REMEMBER, THE CLOUDS AND BUBBLES ARE NOT TO BE TOO SPECIFIC. CONSIDER THAT UNDER YOUR OWN COMMISSIONERS' GOAL 3, OBJECTIVE 5, IT'S TO ENCOURAGE COMMON OR FUNDAMENTALLY SIMILAR LAND USE AND ZONING CODES ACROSS ALL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY JURISDICTIONS. CONSIDERING THE 480 ACRES IN SEFFNER-MANGO WHICH ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND SCHOOLS, THE OWNERS NOW WANT TO BE REZONED COMMERCIAL. PER FLORIDA STATUTE 163.3177 PAREN "C" -- 6 -- EXCUSE ME -- INCLUDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, A SCHEDULE MUST INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE APPROPRIATE MPO IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM. THE SCHEDULE MUST ALSO BE COORDINATED WITH APPLICABLE MPO LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY IT WOULD BE NICE, IT SAYS "MUST." A STATEMENT IN YOUR I-4 PACKAGE SAYS THAT A TRANSPORTATION PLAN WILL BE DELIVERED WITHIN 18 MONTHS. DOESN'T CUT IT. THIS IS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES IF I WILL PAY YOU ON TUESDAY FOR THE HAMBURGER I'M GOING TO EAT TODAY. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SINCE I HAVE LIMITED TIME, I WILL SUMMARIZE 163.3177 PAREN 5, PAREN "C" AND "D," PARAGRAPH "D" ALSO INCLUDES SUBPARAGRAPHS 1, 4, AND 5. THESE ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEED TO IDENTIFY WATER RESOURCES, SEWAGE CONCERNS, NATURAL RESOURCES, ET CETERA. THIS PACKAGE FAILS TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. STATUTE 163.3177(6), ITEM 2, REQUIRES COORDINATION WITH SCHOOL BOARDS. I KNOW THAT THIS REQUIREMENT WAS WAIVED BY STATING THAT THIS LAND USE ONLY ADDRESSES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, REAL LIFE INTRUDES. AT LEAST ONE LOCATION IN THIS PLAN LISTS A FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ON A FAILED ROAD WITH SIX SCHOOLS. GOING ON TO CONSIDER THAT THE CLOUDS AND BUBBLES ARE NOT TO BE TOO SPECIFIC, HOW CAN YOU NOT COORDINATE WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD? IN SHORT, THIS APPLICATION IS INADEQUATE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE GOOD COMPUTER EXERCISE, BUT THIS IS REAL LIFE, AND IN REAL LIFE SOME OF THE BUBBLES INCLUDE LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, LAND THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO WATER FLOW FOR THE COUNTY, PROPOSALS -- >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT, PLEASE. >> OKAY. RIGHT HERE. [APPLAUSE] >>KEN HAGAN: WELCOME. >> HERBERT BELCHER, 617 PENN NATIONAL ROAD, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. IN SHORT, THIS APPLICATION IS AT BEST INADEQUATE. TO YOU IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD SIMS CITY COMPUTER EXERCISE, BUT THIS IS REAL LIFE, AND IN THIS REAL LIFE SOME OF THE BUBBLES, INCLUDING LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, LAND THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO WATER FLOW FOR THE COUNTY, PROPOSALS OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR TO SCHOOLS, FAILED ROADS, AND SCHOOLS LOCATED ON THE ROADS AND THE PROMISE THAT WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A TRANSPORTATION PLAN WITHIN 18 MONTHS, TRUST ME, I THINK NOT. UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE I-4 PROPOSAL HAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THIS PLAN SHOULD NOT GO FORWARD. AGAIN, I'VE HAD TWO REBUTTALS FOR MS. LAMBOY. ONE OF THE ITEMS WAS THAT THERE WAS -- OKAY. GIVEN THE ENTITLEMENTS. SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY ENTITLEMENTS FROM PEOPLE. YOU JUST HEARD A YOUNG LADY COMING UP HERE, THE ENTITLEMENT OF HAVING A LIVABLE LIFE, I BELIEVE, IS AN ENTITLEMENT, BUT GIVING ENTITLEMENTS IS WHAT MS. LAMBOY AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WISHES TO DO TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT $1,000 PER REZONING, AND THIS IS A -- THIS IS GOING AGAINST AND TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE TAXPAYERS' -- THE TAXPAYERS' POCKETS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. AGAIN, WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS THIS GREEN TECH CORRIDOR? IS IT 100 ACRES? IS IT 80 ACRES? IS IT 30 ACRES? IS IT FIVE? IS IT ONE ACRES? PIN THE TAIL ON THE DONKEY. HOW MANY EMPLOYEES? ONE? 100? WHEN? 2050? NO NEED FOR THE I-4 CORRIDOR. THERE IS NO NEED. ALL THE AVAILABLE LAND IS AVAILABLE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREAS. YOU DO NOT NEED THE I-4 OVERLAY. THAT'S IT. IT'S SIMPLE. THERE ARE NO IDENTIFIABLE LAND IDEAS UP ON THIS LIST. AS ELIZABETH JUST SAID, THE WHOLE IDEA THERE IS THAT YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE AREA THAT YOU WISH TO REZONE, THAT YOU WISH TO DEAL WITH. YOU ARE NOT IDENTIFYING IT. IT HAS TO BE KILLED. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] >> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LINDA SAUL-SENA, AND I LIVE AT 157 BISCAYNE, TAMPA. I'M SO IMPRESSED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE, PASSION, AND ARTICULATENESS OF THE CITIZENS WHO ARE SPEAKING TO YOU HERE TODAY. I'M -- I WILL SHARE SOME BRIEF THOUGHTS. I TOOK PART IN THE ONE BAY EXERCISE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN SMART GROWTH. THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU, SPECIFICALLY THE EXPANSION AREA, IS NOT GOOD PLANNING, IT'S POOR PLANNING. THE CITIZENS HAVE ARTICULATED THE REASONS, BUT IN SUM, IT'S NOT NECESSARY AND IT WON'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WANT TO FOR THIS COMMUNITY. I URGE YOU THIS EVENING TO LISTEN TO YOUR CITIZENS AND NOT ACCEPT THE EXPANSION AREA. IT IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANKS. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] GOOD EVENING. >> PAMELA JO HATLEY, 14517 NORTH 18th STREET, TAMPA. I'M AN ATTORNEY, AND I HAVE A CERTIFICATE IN ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE LAW. I'M ALSO A PH.D. STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA. MY GRADUATE RESEARCH HAS TO DO WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA, AND MY DISSERTATION PROJECT WILL FOCUS ON CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY PLANNING IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. IN MY OPINION, THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA PART OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IS -- PUTS -- PUTS TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF PROTECTION OF RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE LANDS IN FLORIDA. THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PLAN AND TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION OF RURAL LANDS. THERE ARE THREE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA. THOSE ARE CONSISTENCY, CONCURRENCY, AND COMPACT DEVELOPMENT. IN MY OPINION, THIS CONCEPT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH EITHER OF -- WITH ANY OF THOSE POLICIES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT SECTION 187.201, SUBSECTION 15 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, REQUIRES THAT DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO AREAS THAT HAVE IN PLACE LAND AND WATER RESOURCES, FISCAL ABILITIES, AND SERVICE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE MANNER. ALSO, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY'S OWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REQUIRES EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, IT REQUIRES THE RURAL AREA TO BE -- REMAIN IN LONG-TERM AGRICULTURE, MINING, OR LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND WE ALL KNOW ABOUT HOUSE BILL 697 THAT WAS PASSED IN 2008 WHICH REQUIRES PLANNING TO -- PLANNING FOR EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT LAND USE PATTERNS AND REDUCTION IN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED. I BELIEVE THAT THIS CONCEPT IS CONTRARY TO ALL THOSE POLICIES, AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS MAKES A MOCKERY OF SPRAWL, IT MAKES A -- I'M SORRY -- IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF PLANNING, IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE CONCEPTS OF SUSTAINABILITY AND CERTAINLY THE CONCEPT OF GREEN. IN CONCLUSION, SPRAWL BY ANY OTHER NAME, GREEN, GREEN TECH, IS STILL SPRAWL. IT ISN'T GREEN, AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MASS HATLEY. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. KARLA HOLDING ALONG THE HIGHWAY 92 CORRIDOR IN DOVER. I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WOULD AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. I AM, HOWEVER, VERY MUCH AGAINST STUPID AND UNNECESSARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL AREAS. THERE'S BEEN NO COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES DONE ON THE GEOLOGY OF THE AREA; I.E., ARE THERE SINKHOLES AND OTHER PROBLEMS WHICH COULD PRECLUDE BUILDING IN THE RURAL AREAS? ALSO KNOW STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE OUTLINING HOW MANY HOMES OR BUSINESSES WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN EITHER THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN OR OTHER MEANS AND WHAT IT WOULD COST TO DO SO TO SECURE THE LANDS NEEDED TO RUN SEWER AND WATER LINES AND ALL THEIR ATTENDANT INFRASTRUCTURE. ALSO, NO STUDIES DONE WITH PROJECTED COSTS TO ALL HOME AND BUSINESS OWNERS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WHO WILL HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL FOR NOT ONLY WATER AND SEWER BUT SCHOOL, PUBLIC SAFETY, ET CETERA. TO SAY DEVELOPMENT PAYS FOR ITSELF IS AN EXTREMELY TIRED AND RIDICULOUS LIE. IT DOESN'T. IT NEVER HAS. I KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD IS UP FOR REELECTION OR YOU'RE PURSUING GREENER PASTURES AND THE TEMPTATION OF FUNDRAISERS THROWN BY DEVELOPERS, SPECULATORS, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS AND THE POSSIBILITY OF MAXIMUM DONATIONS IS A SIREN CALL THAT MANY, THOUGH NOT ALL OF YOU, HAVE BEEN UNWILLING OR UNABLE NOT TO SUCCUMB TO. LET ME REMIND YOU, HOWEVER, THAT YOU ARE MY EMPLOYEE. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN. ALL OF YOU WORK FOR ALL OF US. [APPLAUSE] AND IF YOU IGNORE WHAT YOUR EMPLOYERS WANT YOU TO DO, WHICH IS KEEP DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREAS; I.E., I-75, EAST TAMPA, SOUTH COUNTY WHERE APPROPRIATE, THEN THE WOULD- BE KING MAKERS AND ALL THOSE OVEREAGER TO CONTINUE THEIR CAREERS ON THE PUBLIC DIME WILL FIND THEMSELVES OUT OF LUCK VIA WE, THE PEOPLE, YOUR EMPLOYERS. DO THE RIGHT THING, NOT THE THING IN YOUR OWN SELF- INTEREST. KEEP URBAN URBAN AND RURAL RURAL. IT'S THE ONLY INTELLIGENT THING TO DO. [APPLAUSE] >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE. >> 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 OF 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. FIRST, THE STUDY USED OLD POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR GROWTH PRIOR TO THE CURRENT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. SECOND, THE STUDY SAID 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 THOUSAND ACRES ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED BY THE STUDY TEAM. THIRD, THE STAFF REPORT STILL MAKES NO MENTION OF SINKHOLE HAZARD AREAS IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA. I WILL REMIND YOU THAT I SHOWED YOU A MAP LAST TIME FROM SWFWMD ABOUT THAT. 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. FIFTH, THE FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY, ONE OF THE TARGETED INDUSTRIES THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE USING TO BRING IN TO THIS AREA, IS CONTINUING TO CONTRACT AND CONSOLIDATE. THIS CONTRACTION HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THIS STUDY. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY AS AN ATTENDEE OF MANY OF THESE MEETINGS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE 80 ACRES IS BECAUSE RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STUDY WHEN WE HAD A PRESENTATION FROM SEVERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] FROM TAMPA, 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 A HUNDRED ACRES OR MORE TO ATTRACT SOME OF THESE LARGE KEY INDUSTRIES INTO THESE CAMPUS-STYLE DEVELOPMENTS. NOT 30 ACRES, CAMPUS-STYLE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE PARKS, LIKE STAMFORD. 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 AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY THE 12th, SHE TOLD US THAT 80 ACRES IS TOO MUCH. THERE'S NO INFORMATION ON THE MAP ABOUT ALL THE ACRES IN THE RURAL AREA OWNED BY MOSAIC MINING OR THE BORROW PITS. THE ONLY RURAL LIFESTYLE THAT'S GOING TO BE LEFT IS NEXT TO A BORROW PIT OR A PHOSPHATE MINE. [APPLAUSE] >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> NANCY O'CONNOR, HINSON ROAD IN DURANT. I'M AGAINST GOING OVER THE URBAN SERVICE LINE ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY. ALSO, I THINK YOU HAVE A BIG PROBLEM, WHEN YOU DO, WITH WATER. WE ALREADY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WATER. WE'RE GOING TO -- IT LOOKS LIKE THIS YEAR, UNLESS WE GET A HURRICANE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE PROBLEM WITH WATER, AND THAT'S MY OBJECTION. I JUST WANTED TO READ YOU SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. WOE UNTO THEM THAT JOIN HOUSE TO HOUSE, THAT LAY FIELD TO FIELD, TILL THERE BE NO PLACE, THAT THEY MAY BE PLACED ALONE IN THE MIDST OF THE EARTH. IN MINE EARS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, OF A TRUTH MANY HOUSES SHALL BE DESOLATE, EVEN GREAT AND FAIR WITHOUT INHABITANT. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A LOT OF OUR HOUSES AROUND HERE? THIS WAS A PROPHESY FROM ISAIAH 2000 B.C. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] GOOD EVENING. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS PAMELA FLAHERTY, AND I LIVE AT 2103 LITHIA- PINECREST ROAD IN VALRICO, AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME GET ON -- GO ON THE RECORD. I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY PLEASE REMOVE THE OVERLAY FOR THE I-4 CORRIDOR FROM THE I-4 ECONOMIC CORRIDOR PLAN. PLEASE PUT THE RESIDENTS FIRST FOR A CHANGE. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THIS TIME, GIVING ME THIS TIME TO MEET WITH YOU FACE-TO-FACE, MAYBE GIVE YOU A SMILE, SAY HELLO. MY NAME IS CHARLES WHEELER. I'M A STUDENT AT ECKERD COLLEGE. I FIRST HEARD ABOUT THIS ISSUE ON WMNF, AND -- IT'S A COMMUNITY SERVICE RADIO, AND I THOUGHT ABOUT THE ISSUE, AND I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KIND OF -- KIND OF HIT ME IN THIS PRESENTATION WAS THAT YOU STARTED LISTENING TO WHAT EVERYBODY'S SAYING, THAT THERE'S A RUSH TO GROWTH. NOW, THAT WOULD BE MY TOPIC TITLE FOR THIS WHOLE THING, THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST RUSHING TO GROWTH, RUSHING TO GROWTH ON THE HEELS OF THE PROJECT BETWEEN ORLANDO AND TAMPA IN PRODUCING THIS HIGH-SPEED RAIL. THAT'S ONE THING. I THINK WE SHOULD THINK IT THROUGH AS EVERYONE HAS SAID. IT TAKES -- IT TAKES -- IT TAKES -- I DON'T KNOW. IT TAKES GUTS TO BE ABLE TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT THINGS AND THINK IT THROUGH. NUMBER ONE ISSUE I THINK SHOULD BE A CONCERN TO THIS BOARD IS OUR WATER TABLE BECAUSE WE -- WHEN WE CONSIDER THE STRIP MINING FOR PHOSPHATE, THE URBAN GROWTH, THE SPRAWL, THE WATER HOLES, THE SINKHOLES, WE ARE REALLY GOING TO DIE WITHOUT OUR WATER, SO IF WE START CREATING ALL THIS SPRAWL IN ALL THESE AREAS, WHERE IS OUR WATER GOING TO FLOW? HOW IS IT GOING TO FLOW TO OUR EVERGLADES, HOW IS IT GOING TO FLOW TO OUR RIVERS, HOW IS IT GOING TO SUSTAIN YOU AND I BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT YOU AND I. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. THE SECOND THING, YOU HAVE TO REALLY CONSIDER THIS AS AN ETHICAL ISSUE. IT'S AN ETHICAL ISSUE BECAUSE WILL THIS BENEFIT THE MOST PEOPLE? CONSIDER THAT. OR THE LARGEST -- WOULD THIS PROJECT CREATE THE LARGEST BENEFIT TO THE MOST PEOPLE? AND IT SOUNDS BY WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING IT WON'T. AND IF IT DOESN'T, THAT SHOULD BE LIKE A RED FLAG TO YOU. IF IT DOESN'T -- IF IT DOESN'T HELP THE MOST PEOPLE AND CREATES THE MOST JOBS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GREATER GOOD OF THIS COMMUNITY, THEN YOU SHOULD REALLY RECONSIDER THIS, SERIOUSLY. NOW, I WANT TO PRESENT THIS -- I DON'T KNOW -- I THINK EVERYBODY WANTS GROWTH. I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM WANTS GROWTH. I THINK EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD WANTS GROWTH. I THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO CREATE JOBS. I THINK EVERYBODY COULD SAY YAY ON THAT, BUT WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE WHOLE ISSUE, I THINK SOMETIMES WE WANT TO USE QUAINT TERMS OR, QUOTE, GREEN TECH TERMS TO CREATE THE GREATER GOOD, BUT I DON'T THINK THE GREATER GOOD IS BEING HERE, SO WHAT I CONSIDER THIS -- I CONSIDER THIS AS A RED HERRING, AND A RED HERRING IS A DISTRACTION FOR WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT HERE, NOT IS DOING RIGHT BY THE COMMUNITY THAT ELECTED YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS MARCIA CURL, AND I'M A PROUD RESIDENTS OF SEFFNER. I WISH TO REMIND YOU THAT APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE VOTERS OF OUR FAIR COUNTY VOTED FOR ELAPP. THEY WANT TO PRESERVE WHAT IS RURAL AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. WITH SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE, YOU MUST KNOW THAT THESE ARE YOUR CONSTITUENTS WHO VOTED YOU INTO OFFICE. I HOPE THAT YOU HOLD THAT THOUGHT IN YOUR MINDS AND HEARTS TONIGHT. WITH THAT SAID, WHY CAN'T URBAN AREAS THAT ACTUALLY WANT DEVELOPMENT TO BE BUILT BE FIRST WITHOUT VENTURING INTO THE RURAL AREA? THIS QUESTION SEEMS TO GO UNANSWERED, AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHY THE RUSH. IS IT TO APIECE THREE LANDOWNERS WITH EXPENSIVE LAND USE ATTORNEYS? DOES IT TAKE PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE 70% OF THE VOTERS WHO WANT TO SAVE SOMETHING OF VALUE? BAKER AND PEMBERTON CREEK FLOW THROUGH OUR RURAL AREAS, INCLUDING -- INCLUDING THE INFAMOUS NOTCH PART OF OUR AREA. I WISH I COULD TELL YOU ALL SORTS OF STUDIES JUSTIFY TAKING THIS LAND, BUT INSTEAD, I TELL YOU THAT WHILE I WAS ON THE I-4 CORRIDOR CORE STUDY GROUP, I ASKED FOR A STUDY SIMILAR TO ONE DONE BY THE UF FORESTRY DEPARTMENT IN PLANT CITY FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA. I WAS TOLD THAT STUDY COST $100,000. HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK IT TOOK TO TAKE CARE OF 700 OR SO DRY AND/OR RUINED WELLS AS WELL AS THOUSANDS OF CUBIC YARDS OF CONCRETE POURED INTO SINKHOLES THIS WINTER? THE STUDY WOULD HAVE BEEN A BARGAIN. IT WOULD HAVE KEPT MONEY IN OUR COUNTY AND BEEN USED TO PROMOTE THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PROGRAM IN PLANT CITY. FOR THE SAKE OF THE CONSTITUENTS IN OUR AREA, PLEASE PUT ASIDE YOUR PERSONAL PARTISAN POLITICS AND GIVE US WHAT IS BEST FOR US AND FOR OUR COUNTY. THE FORESTS ARE IRREPLACEABLE AND THE WETLANDS WILL DETERMINE OUR FUTURE. WATER IS THE KEY. IT MATTERS NOT WHERE THE WATER COMES FROM. THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH AVAILABLE FOR US. WE MUST NOT OVERTAX OUR RESOURCES. VOTE YES FOR OUR COMMUNITY PLAN, VOTE NO FOR THE I-4 OVERLAY. WE WANT AN 80-ACRE MINIMUM, NO DROPOUTS, NO POLITICS. KEEP IT RURAL. PLEASE DO WHAT IS MORALLY CORRECT I ASK OF YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. CURL. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS PAT CHISHOLM. MY ADDRESS IS 3333 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA. I WORK FOR MAURY CARTER & ASSOCIATES. WE'VE BEEN INVESTING IN CENTRAL FLORIDA REAL ESTATE FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS. ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO WE PURCHASED 94 ACRES ON I-4 IN THE EXPANSION AREA. WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE I-4 EXPOSURE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO AN EXISTING INTERCHANGE ALONG I-4. I-4 IS AN ECONOMIC GENERATOR. WE OWN OTHER PROPERTY ALONG THE I-4 CORRIDOR IN OTHER COUNTIES. WE KNOW FIRSTHAND THE POTENTIAL OF I-4 FRONTAGE PROPERTIES. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS ROADWAY LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTY ALONG I-4 HAS AND REALIZE THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE I-4 ROADWAY THAT YOU DO HAVE. I-4 SHOULD EQUATE TO QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, QUALITY JOBS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. THREE YEARS AGO WE FILED OUR OWN COMP PLAN AMENDMENT INDIVIDUALLY FOR OUR PROPERTY. AT THAT TIME THE BOARD TOLD US TO -- TO STEP BACK, SLOW DOWN, INCLUDE OUR PROPERTY IN AN AREA PLAN. WE DID THAT. WE'VE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS. WE'VE BEEN CLOSELY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. WE SUPPORT THE OVERALL PLAN. IN CONCLUSION, IT'S TIME FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR I-4 EXPOSURE, USE IT TO THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY, AND SAY YES TO QUALITY DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY JOBS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. ANDREA ZELMAN, 501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, FOWLER WHITE BOGGS, AND YES, I AM A LAND USE LAWYER. I'M REPRESENTING A PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS PROPERTY NEAR McINTOSH ROAD, AND ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT FROM THE OUTSET, HIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF SUBURBAN MIXED USE-6 ON IT. HE COULD DEVELOP IT WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TODAY. NOTHING IN THIS PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE THAT. HE COULD DEVELOP IT WITH COMMERCIAL TODAY. THERE'S ACTUALLY A BURGER KING AND A 7-ELEVEN ALREADY RIGHT NEAR HIM, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT. EVERYONE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THE RURAL AREA. WELL, BY DEFINITION, IN YOUR COMP PLAN ANYTHING THAT'S NOT IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IS THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE LAND ITSELF IS RURAL. I'M SORRY. WHEN THIS WAS BEFORE YOU BACK ON MAY 6th, YOU CONTINUED THIS PLAN AMENDMENT TO THIS PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE AND DIRECTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF TO ADDRESS TWO ISSUES. ONE WAS THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK IN THE AREA, AND THE OTHER WAS THE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE. AND A NUMBER OF US AT THE HEARING, AS YOU REMEMBER, SAID THAT THE 80-ACRE MINIMUM WAS TOO MUCH. YOU VOTED TO CONTINUE THESE, BUT A NUMBER OF YOU STRONGLY VOICED YOUR SUPPORT FOR CREATING JOBS AND SUPPORTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND FOLLOWING THAT HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, AS THEY TOLD YOU, CONDUCTED SOME CORE STUDY TEAM MEETINGS AND A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, AND I ATTENDED THOSE CORE STUDY MEETINGS, AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THEM WERE LOOKING AT IT AS, OKAY, 80 IS TOO MUCH, WHAT SIZE SHOULD IT BE, AND HOW CAN WE REDUCE THAT SIZE AND STILL PROVIDE THE NEIGHBORS WITH THE PROTECTIONS THAT THEY WANTED IN TERMS OF BUFFERING AND THIS AND THAT? ANOTHER OF THE ITEMS WE TALKED ABOUT AT THOSE MEETINGS WAS WHAT ABOUT THE PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY GOT THE SMU-6 CLASSIFICATION, MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. INTERESTINGLY, AFTER ALL THAT, AFTER ALL THAT TALK ABOUT CHANGING IT, WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH TODAY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE EXACT SAME 80-ACRE MINIMUM THAT WAS ALREADY THERE BUT OTHER CHANGES THAT MADE IT EVEN MORE DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO DEVELOP PROPERTY WITHIN THE EXPANSION AREA FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU BOARD MEMBERS HAD IN MIND WHEN YOU SENT THIS BACK. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT BY NOT ONLY KEEPING THAT 80 ACRES THAT A NUMBER OF US, INCLUDING YOUR OWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OBJECTED TO BUT ADDING THAT 100-JOB REQUIREMENT AND CHANGING THE FACT THAT IT USED TO SAY THAT PROPERTY WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA ONLY HAD TO HAVE A 20-ACRE MINIMUM, NOW THEY HAVE TO HAVE 80 ACRES TOO. I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS OVERLAY WILL NOT OPEN THE FLOODGATES TO DEVELOPMENT. IT HAS VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS AS TO THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN GO IN. IT REQUIRES FULL PAYMENT OF THE EXTENSION -- >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> -- OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICES BY THE DEVELOPER SO IT'S NOT COSTING THE TAXPAYERS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> AND THIS IS LONG-RANGE PLANNING, IT'S NOT -- >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT, PLEASE. >> -- PIECEMEAL PLANNING. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK, PLEASE LINE UP. WE'RE GETTING READY TO CUT OFF PUBLIC COMMENT. YES, MA'AM. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M RHEA LAW WITH FOWLER WHITE, 501 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD. I ALSO REPRESENT A LANDOWNER WHO IS IN THE URBAN EXPANSION AREA THAT IS EAST OF McINTOSH AND HAS AN SMU-6 CLASSIFICATION. WE SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL THAT IS BEFORE YOU WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY YOUR STAFF FROM PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND FROM YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. WHY IS THAT? YOU'VE BEEN HEARING TONIGHT FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT APPARENTLY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS A BAD WORD. I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS ABOUT JOBS, IT'S ABOUT HAVING -- INCREASING YOUR TAX BASE, AND IT IS ABOUT ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THIS PLAN AMENDMENT GOES BACK TO YOUR STIMULUS TASK FORCE THAT WAS CREATED SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT CAME TO YOU WITH A PLAN AND ASKED YOU TO DO SEVERAL THINGS. ONE WAS IDENTIFY AREAS THAT COULD BE USED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COUNTY. YOU'VE HEARD THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTY AVAILABLE, BUT THE TRUTH IS THERE IS NOT. WE HAVE HAD MANY TIMES MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME HERE LOOKING TO BRING THEIR BUSINESSES. THEY HAVE NOT FOUND ADEQUATE PLACES TO SET UP THEIR BUSINESS, AND THEY HAVE GONE SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE'VE GOT TO DO A BETTER JOB. YOUR ECONOMIC STIMULUS TASK FORCE ALSO SAID SUPPORT THE I-4 PLANNING PROCESS BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED THIS WAS AN AREA WHERE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR. SO BASED UPON THAT, THE CURRENT PLAN CAME ALONG WITH A FOCUS ON TARGETED INDUSTRIES, AND I WANT TO FOCUS ON TARGETED INDUSTRIES. WHY DO WE SUPPORT A REDUCTION IN THE 80 ACRES? BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF POLICY 50.2 STATES, THE AREA MUST ENCOMPASS AT LEAST 20 BUILDABLE UPLAND ACRES AND A MINIMUM OF 80 ACRES. IF 20 BUILDABLE ACRES IS WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO WRAP AROUND IT ANOTHER 60 ACRES IN THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. SECONDLY, THERE IS NO BASIS TO SUPPORT AN 80-ACRE NUMBER. WHAT YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REQUIRES IS QUALITY JOBS. ANOTHER PROVISION THAT WAS ASKED BY GENE GRAY TO BE DELETED HAD TO DO WITH THE 100 JOBS, AND I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT TARGETED INDUSTRIES CURRENTLY GET INCENTIVES FROM YOU, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FROM THE STATE, AND THE FEDS IF YOU HAVE AS LITTLE AS TEN JOBS, SO WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT MORE STRINGENT? THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN A COUNTY WHICH HAS THE -- ONE OF THE HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF ANYPLACE IN THE STATE. I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. I'M WORRIED ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HERE. WE NEED TO HAVE IT. WE NEED TO HAVE MORE JOBS. THIS IS A MECHANISM BY WHICH THAT CAN OCCUR. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. KRISTEN TOLBERT, BRICKLEMYER, SMOLKER & BOLVES, 500 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, TAMPA, FLORIDA. I'M HERE TONIGHT JUST TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE I-4 CORRIDOR. BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF HAVE SPENT MANY LONG HOURS OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO MOVE THIS ALONG, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. OTHER COUNTIES AND THE CITY OF TAMPA ARE MOVING FORWARD, AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHOULD MOVE FORWARD TO CREATE JOBS FOR OUR FUTURE. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. KAMI CORBETT, 100 NORTH TAMPA STREET, SUITE 2700. AS MANY OF YOU ALL ALREADY KNOW, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU SEVERAL TIMES ON THIS ISSUE, I REPRESENT MAURY CARTER, PAT CHISHOLM AND THEIR PROPERTY, AND THREE YEARS AGO THEY WERE TOLD, WAIT, LET US DO A STUDY, LET US BE PART OF A PLAN, AND NOW THE VERY SAME FOLKS WHO CAME OUT IN OPPOSITION TO THE PIECEMEAL PLANNING ARE NOW IN OPPOSITION TO THE ENTIRE PLAN, AND IT'S TIME TO ACT NOW. YOU'VE BEEN STUDYING THIS FOR OVER TEN YEARS. WE HAVE SPENT -- THERE'S A LOT OF DATA AND ANALYSIS IN THE RECORD THAT SUPPORTS THE NEED TO GO INTO THE RURAL AREA. THAT'S WHAT YOU FOUND WHEN YOU ADOPTED THE STUDY LAST MAY. THIS IS JUST THE IMPLEMENTING PLAN AMENDMENT. AND JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, I WANTED TO PASS OUT FOR YOU THE MINUTES FROM THE CORE STUDY TEAM MEETING WHERE YOUR ELAPP STAFF ACTUALLY SAID THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A GOOD -- THE CORRIDOR WAS ACTUALLY A GOOD PLACE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS IN THAT AREA, SO ... >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M CHARLES McCOMAS, 805 OLD DARBY STREET, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. A LOT OF EDUCATION IN THIS ROOM TONIGHT, A LOT OF BIG MONEY MAKERS, AND I HOPE YOU WILL BE MUCH WISER THAN TO LISTEN TO SOME OF THEM. TO START WITH, THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SO-CALLED NOTCH WHO ARE SAYING THEY'RE ON I-4 FRONTAGE ARE NOT ACTUALLY FRONTAGE ROAD PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY OFF OF HIGHWAY 92 WHICH, AGAIN, ACCESSES PAST ABOUT FOUR, FIVE, OR SIX SCHOOLS, A LOT OF CHILDREN, A LOT OF CROSSWALKS. THEY CAN BE HURT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT. WE NEED DEVELOPMENT. WE'VE GOT AREAS IN SOUTH FLORIDA -- SOUTH COUNTY THAT'S READY. LET'S NOT WASTE OUR MONEY AND OUR RURAL AREA AND OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE PUT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MR. McCOMAS. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] >> YES. I'M STANLEY HARRIS, 2110 HINSON ROAD. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE REAL QUICK COMMENTS IS FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BUNCH OF HOUSEHOLD -- OR HOUSING DEVELOPERS IN HERE WANTING TO BUILD. NOW THEY'RE GONE BECAUSE THE HOUSES ARE -- THE HOUSE MARKET'S DRIED UP. NOW YOU HEAR -- NOW IT'S ALL INDUSTRIAL, AND EVERYBODY'S PUTTING A GREEN LABEL ON EVERYTHING. WE ALREADY -- YOU ALREADY APPROVED 3100 ACRES IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL -- OR THE INDUSTRIAL THING THAT'S GOING TO BE -- OR THE EIP, AND THAT'S GOING TO BRING 600 JOBS, BUT HOW MUCH TROUBLE IS IT GOING TO COST? THE ROADS ARE FAILED ALL AROUND IN THAT AREA. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, IS IT -- ARE THESE THINGS WORTH 600 JOBS, A HUNDRED JOBS, 200? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH FAILED -- I MEAN, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY -- I MEAN, WE NEED TO START CONCENTRATING ON THE RESOURCES THAT ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE AND DOING SOMETHING WITH THOSE, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST QUIT DEVELOPING UNTIL WE FIX EVERYTHING. DO A MAINTENANCE PLAN ON HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. [APPLAUSE] ANYONE ELSE? >> RAISE IT UP. RAISE IT UP. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. GEORGE NIEMANN, UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK, DOVER, FLORIDA. I HOPE YOU REALIZE THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL END UP BEING CALLED THE FOOL'S GOLD AMENDMENT. WE TOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT -- IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A NUMBER OF COMP PLAN POLICIES, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NEVER REALLY ANSWERED OUR COMPLAINTS AT THEIR HEARING. THE STAFFS SEEM TO SELECT POLICIES THAT ARE COMPLIANT, AND THE REST OF US LOOK AT ALL OF THE POLICIES. I THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE -- WITH THE PLANNING AND THE SCRUTINY BEING DONE IN SUCH A SELECTIVE AND ARBITRARY MANNER. THEY ARE PROPOSING -- I MEAN, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY YOU GUYS ARE PROPOSING TO TAKE 5800-PLUS ACRES OUT OF THE RURAL SECTOR AND TREAT IT AS THOUGH IT WERE URBAN WHILE STILL CALLING IT RURAL, ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT YOU JUST TOOK 3100 ACRES OUT OF THE RURAL SECTOR WHEN YOU APPROVED THE ENERGY INDUSTRIAL PARK. THE COMP PLAN SAYS THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DIRECTING 80% OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IN THE URBAN SECTOR. YOUR ANSWER TO THAT RULE IS TO KEEP CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM RURAL TO URBAN SO YOU CAN DIRECT MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN CORE. THAT'S WRONG. IF NOTHING ELSE, IT VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF OUR COMP PLAN POLICIES. THERE ARE BETTER, MORE SUITABLE AREAS OF THE COUNTY TO PLAN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT SO FAR YOU'VE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THEM. PLEASE PUT THE POLITICS ASIDE AND LET'S DEVELOP A BETTER PLAN THAT WILL GARNER SUPPORT FROM THOSE OF US THAT HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL AS WELL AS LIVE WITH THE RESULTS. WITH ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE FACE TODAY WITH REDUCED REVENUE, FAILED ROADS, AND THE LACK OF ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE, HOW CAN YOU EVEN CONSIDER CREATING MORE SPRAWL? AS EVERYONE KNOWS, GROWTH DOESN'T PAY FOR ITSELF, CITIZENS DO. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A POSTER CHILD FOR AMENDMENT 4, FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY. IF YOU WERE TO LET THE COMMUNITY VOTE ON THIS PLAN CHANGE, IT WOULD MOST LIKELY FAIL, YET YOU MAY BE APPROVING IT TONIGHT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS MANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE AND URGE ALL CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY TO VOTE FOR AMENDMENT 4, FLORIDA HOMETOWN DEMOCRACY THIS NOVEMBER. WE HAVE TO BEAR THE COST OF AMENDMENTS LIKE THIS ONE WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS, OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, AND THE LIFESTYLE CHOICES THAT WE END UP LOSING. AFTER AMENDMENT 4 PASSES, WHEN PLANS LIKE THIS ONE THAT ARE LOADED WITH FLAWS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ARE PUT FORTH, WE'LL HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE AND BE ABLE TO CAST OUR VOTE FOR THE TYPE OF COMMUNITY WE REALLY WANT. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. CHAIRPERSON OF UCAN, UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK, AND SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE. URBAN SPRAWL IS DEFINED IN THE COUNTY'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS UNCONTROLLED AND UNTIMELY EXPANSION AND SPREADING OF -- IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY INTO THE OUTLYING NONURBAN AREAS EXEMPLIFIED BY SCATTERING UNPLANNED LOW- DENSITY WITHOUT PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE -- FOR FACILITIES AND SERVICES AT AN ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE LEVEL. IT'S NOT -- THIS PLAN IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH -- JUST IN BRIEF WITH THE OVERALL POLICIES AND PLANS. NOW I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT I HEARD TONIGHT. WHY THE 20 BUILDABLE ON A LARGER PARCEL? BECAUSE YOU ARE BRINGING IT IN TO THE RURAL AREA AND YOU'RE CRAMMING IT IN BETWEEN -- IN BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMPLETELY SURROUNDING ONE IN ONE CASE, AT LEAST ONE THAT I KNOW OF. SO I WOULD SAY THOSE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SIZABLE BUFFER FOR THEM TO LIVE IN. SO THAT'S THE ONE REASON. I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT. ECONOMIC GROWTH IS NOT EQUAL TO NEW BUILDING. BUILDING OVER AND PAVING OVER RURAL PROPERTY ISN'T EQUAL TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAN OCCUR IN REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, HEALTHY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE TOTALLY OVERLOOKING THAT, AND THIS IS WHY -- ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS I'M OPPOSED TO THIS. ONE BAY EFFORT, I DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS YET ON THIS TAMPA BAY PARTNERSHIP PLAN THAT CAME UP. IT'S NEVER BEEN ADOPTED, AND YET WE'RE PLANNING FOR IT RIGHT NOW AS IF IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED. SO IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE SO IT'LL MAKE IT EASIER WHEN IT DOES COME IN THE E.A.R. PROCESS. VERY HIGH-VOLUME TRAFFIC ALONG I-4. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO GO SPEEDING BY. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH PRETTY MUCH A RESIDENTIALLY BUILT NEIGHBORHOOD NOW ALONG I-92 TO GET IN AND OUT OF SOME OF THESE PARCELS. RETAIL, NOT GOING TO BE RETAIL, YET TWO SENTENCES LATER THERE WAS GOING TO BE RETAIL. I'M TELLING YOU WE'VE HEARD EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN, AND WE'RE ASKING YOU NOT TO APPROVE THE ECONOMIC -- THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA. I WOULD SAY DON'T -- DON'T SACRIFICE THE ENTIRE PLAN, JUST TAKE OUT THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA. WE CAN DO IT, AND I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, PLEASE. >> OKAY. MARILYN SMITH, GRANDMOTHER-AT-LARGE. LET ME ASSURE YOU, MR. NORMAN, THAT FARMERS ARE NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOW ABOUT AGRICULTURE. WE ALL EAT, AND WE WANT TO KEEP OUR AGRICULTURE AS LOCAL AS POSSIBLE. OKAY? GOT THAT UNDERSTOOD? YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT ME NOW, JIMMY. [LAUGHTER] THERE'S ONLY ONE THING WORSE THAN THIS PLAN. YES? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> TAKE THAT OFF THERE. HE'S TAKING MY TIME. THERE'S ONLY ONE THING WORSE THAN THIS PLAN, AND THAT'S THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSPORTATION PROPOSAL. WHAT A LOAD OF CRUMMY JUNK THAT IS. I'VE AMENDED MY LANGUAGE. WE NEED A TRUTH METER HERE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE REALLY DO BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF POPPYCOCK BEEN THROWN AT YOU THAT WASN'T TRUE, BUT BOY, THEY SURE SHAPED IT AND PUSHED IT AND BENDED IT. OH, BOY, IT LOOKS GOOD NOW; RIGHT? THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CRUMMY PASTICHE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS, A LOUSY ADD-ON, THAT'S WHAT THOSE ARE, PASTICHE. WE PAY YOU TO BEAT US UP -- I'M GETTING TIRED OF IT -- TO MAKE BAD OR POOR DECISIONS AU CONTRAIRE TO WHAT WE ASK YOU NOT TO DO AND SANE PLANNING ASKS YOU NOT TO DO, BUT YOU DO IT ANYWAY FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON. ONE BAY IS A SELF-SERVING OUTFIT. LOOK WHO'S ON THERE. COME ON. YOU JUST SAW ONE OF THEM. SHE KIND OF OWNED UP TO IT. THESE ARE WALK-ONS, THESE PLOYS ABOUT CUTTING IT DOWN. IF WE WERE IN A COURT SETTING, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE A WITNESS COME UP AND IMPEDE OR EVEN GET INTO THE PROCESS. YOU CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS ON THAT. THAT IS NOT RIGHT. THIS CHISELING AWAY, OH, HERE'S SOMETHING. CAME ON AT 2:40 TODAY? WE NEVER GOT TO LOOK AT THAT UNTIL WE GOT HERE. THAT'S WRONG. NOW LET ME FINISH UP HERE. 80 ACRES, WELL, HUNG MAI, YOUR PLANNING COMMISSIONER, ONE OF THEM, GOT TO HAVE CONTIGUOUS, CONTIGUOUS 80 ACRES, GOT TO HAVE CONTIGUOUS PARCELS. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU'RE ALLOWING IT TO BE CHOPPED UP. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES. THESE DELETIONS BY PGM ARE LUDICROUS. WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET UNDER THE RADAR, GET UNDER THE RADAR SO THAT THEY CAN JUST SHOVE THIS PASTICHE THROUGH. SOME OF YOU HAPPEN TO CLAIM YOU HAVE DEGREES IN BUSINESS AND FINANCE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE USING THEM. DOESN'T APPEAR THAT WAY TO ME ANYWAY, BUT WHAT DO I KNOW, I'M JUST A GREAT-GRANDMOTHER. AGAIN, I THINK WE NEED TO EMPLOY THE TRUTH METER HERE. WE DON'T WANT THIS. I DON'T LIVE OUT THERE, BUT I HAVE PARTICIPATED FOR 25 YEARS, WHICH IS MORE THAN ANY OF YOU HAVE, IN THE LAND USE AND PLANNING OF THIS COUNTY, AND THIS IS GETTING WORSE THAN IT EVER WAS IN THE '90s WHEN WE HAD GUYS DRIPPING WITH MONEY THROWING THEM AT THE COMMISSIONERS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. >> YOU SUPERSEDED THEIR BEHAVIOR. AREN'T YOU PROUD? >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. NEXT, PLEASE. [APPLAUSE] >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME'S JIM HOSLER. I AM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SHED, SOUTH HILLSBOROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, COUNCIL. I'VE KIND OF GONE PAST THE BOARD MEETING TONIGHT AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF OUR LITTLE ROAD TRIP TO DCA AND WHEN THIS EVENTUALLY GOES TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE TO THEM, AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR IS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THAT'S ONE OF THE NEAT THINGS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING LAW IS LEGISLATIVE BODIES LIKE YOURSELF CANNOT JUST BY WHIM DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING, IT HAS TO BE BASED UPON COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. CHAIRMAN HAGAN CHAIRED THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS TASK FORCE. NONE OF THE MEMBERS ON THAT TASK FORCE WOULD BE SEATED AS EXPERT WITNESSES FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-RELATED LAND USE EVENT. NONE OF THE STAFF WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WROTE THIS ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN COULD BE SEATED AS EXPERT WITNESSES. NONE OF YOU COULD BE SEATED AS EXPERT WITNESSES. AND THAT'S WHY THERE SHOULD BE COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL DATA AND ANALYSIS TO BACK THIS UP. THERE IS NONE. THERE IS NO ANSWER TO COMMISSIONER BECKNER'S QUESTION AT THE LAST MEETING ON HOW MANY PARCELS THERE ARE WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY THAT ARE 20 ACRES OR MORE. I GUESS YOU CAN IGNORE QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THESE DAYS. DIDN'T USED TO BE THAT WAY. HIS QUESTION WAS IGNORED. HE'S NOT HERE TONIGHT. THERE'S NO DATA AND ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT STAFF'S CLAIM THAT A LACK OF VACANT LAND IS A CAUSE FOR EMPLOYMENT LOSS OR THAT MORE VACANT LAND WILL INCREASE EMPLOYMENT. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE STATED. IT HAS TO BE DOCUMENTED WITH DATA AND ANALYSIS FROM PROFESSIONALS, AND THERE HASN'T BEEN A SINGLE BIT OF THAT IN ANY OF THIS ENTIRE EFFORT, AND THAT WILL BE WHAT WE'LL ARGUE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER. ALONG THE SAME LINES, THERE'S NO DEMONSTRATED NEED. YOU'VE GOT 90 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF VACANT SPACE WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. THAT'S TEN -- ALMOST TEN WESTSHORE BUSINESS DISTRICTS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY RIGHT NOW THAT COULD BE FILLED. YOU HAVEN'T MET THE URBAN SPRAWL CRITERIA. THIS IS IN -- THIS IS CONTRARY TO MANY OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES WITHIN THE LAND USE PLAN HASN'T BEEN NOTED, AND BY THE WAY, THERE'S ANOTHER TASK FORCE THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW, ALSO CHAIRED BY COMMISSIONER HAGAN, THE BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT'S ON THE BALLOT RIGHT NOW FOR THE LIGHT RAIL. THAT'S IN CONFLICT WITH THIS. THE LIGHT RAIL IS TRYING TO CRAM WAY TOO MANY FOLKS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND NOW YOU-ALL ARE TRYING TO PUT MORE BUSINESS OUT IN THE -- OUT IN THE RURAL EXPANSION AREA. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE DATA THAT'S IN THE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, THE RURAL EXPANSION AREA HAS 2,000 JOBS PLANNED FOR IT OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS, SO THERE IS NO DATA AND ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THIS. THE LAST STUDY THAT WAS DONE THAT WAS RELEVANT FOR THIS WAS DONE BY SRI INTERNATIONAL BACK IN 1990. THEY'RE NOW OVER IN PINELLAS COUNTY. PRETTY SMART FOLKS. IT WAS TOWARD A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. THEY NOTED THAT BIOTECHNOLOGY NEEDS SMALL PARCELS OF LAND CLOSE TO UNIVERSITY, NOT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. THEY ALSO NOTED THE I-75 CORRIDOR SHOULD BE THE NEXT PLACE YOU LOOK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. [APPLAUSE] THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I WANT TO THANK, ONCE AGAIN, THE CITIZENS FOR COMING OUT, AND MANY COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, ACTUALLY. THERE ARE MANY COMMENTS WHICH I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH, AND I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT I WANT TO ASK STAFF. I WANT TO GO BACK OVER FOR ME AT LEAST ONE OF THE REASONS AND RATIONALES FOR WHY I WAS INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE I-4 CORRIDOR. IT WASN'T JUST MYSELF. I MEAN, I ATTENDED A CONFERENCE THAT MS. SAUL-SENA I THINK REFERENCED -- I BELIEVE IT WAS MS. SAUL-SENA. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE -- AS PART OF THE ULI EFFORT LOOKING AT THIS -- THIS CORRIDOR BETWEEN TAMPA AND ORLANDO. THE TAMPA AND ORLANDO CORRIDOR, IS THAT A CORRIDOR THAT HAS ANY GREATER RELEVANCE AS FAR AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH THAN, LET'S SAY -- WELL, I-75 SOUTH? WHY IS THE TAMPA-ORLANDO CORRIDOR OF VALUE OR IS IT OF VALUE? IS IT AN AREA THAT WE JUST PICKED OUT OF A HAT AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SPOT TO HAVE GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: COMMISSIONER SHARPE, THE I-4 CORRIDOR HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS BECAUSE, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE AN ORGANIZING RELATIONSHIP AMONGST THE 23 COUNTIES THAT ARE ALONG AND AROUND THE CORRIDOR THROUGH THE FLORIDA HIGH-TECH CORRIDOR COUNCIL. OUR OWN UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA IS REPRESENTED ON THAT, AND THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE ALONG THE I-75 CORRIDOR. FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ARE DIFFERENT. >>MARK SHARPE: ALL RIGHT. MR. HOSLER WAS THE LAST SPEAKER, AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE RICHARD FLORIDA, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BRUCE KATZ. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY -- I MEAN, I'M ON YOUR WEB PAGE RIGHT NOW. YOUR OWN WEB PAGE HAS TALKED ABOUT THE CORRIDOR AND HOW IT'S GOING TO GROW OR DEVELOP OVER THE NEXT 50 YEARS. IT'S IDENTIFIED AS A MEGA REGION, AND THE TAMPA-ORLANDO AREA -- WHICH I WOULD SUSPECT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SELECTED IT AS ONE OF THE FIRST DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR A HIGH-SPEED IS THAT IT'S AN AREA WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE GROWTH. MY CONCERN WAS THAT I-75 WAS ALLOWED TO GROW IN A WAY THAT WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF GROWTH, DOES GROWTH PAY FOR ITSELF, IS ALL GROWTH THE SAME, IS RESIDENTIAL GROWTH THE SAME AS COMMERCIAL GROWTH, IS ALL SPRAWL THE SAME, IS SOME -- DOES SOME GROWTH ACTUALLY PAY FOR ITSELF? THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM WILL TELL YOU THAT WHILE HOUSING DOES NOT PAY FOR ITSELF BUT LOSES MONEY, CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ACTUALLY GENERATES REVENUE, SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE I-4 CORRIDOR, IS IT OUR OBJECTIVE TO HAVE IT -- HAVE HAPPEN ALONG THE I-4 CORRIDOR WHAT HAPPENED ALONG I- 75? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: IT IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED ALONG I-75 IS A BIG MISTAKE. >>MARK SHARPE: WHAT HAPPENED ALONG I-75? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL -- THERE'S ACTUALLY A MAP IN YOUR PACKET WHERE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL -- >>MARK SHARPE: WAS I-75 PLANNED THAT WAY? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: IT WAS NOT PLANNED THAT WAY, IT WAS PLANNED -- >>MARK SHARPE: SO WOULD IT BE BETTER FOR US TO JUST NOT PLAN AT ALL AND ALLOW GROWTH ALONG I-4 THE SAME WAY YOU ALLOWED GROWTH ALONG I-75, JUST KIND OF LET IT GO? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, AND WE'VE WRITTEN REGULATIONS SUCH THAT WE WILL NOT MAKE THESE SAME MISTAKES AGAIN. >>MARK SHARPE: BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT'S HAPPENED IS WE HAD SPRAWL MASQUERADING AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALONG I-75 WHICH GENERATED A LOT OF COST. PEOPLE WERE UPSET, BUT THERE WAS NO PLANNING FOR IT, IT OCCURRED. NOW WE'RE TRYING TO PLAN TO PROTECT THE SAME THING FROM HAPPENING ALONG I-4, BUT PEOPLE DON'T WANT US TO PLAN. I GUESS WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS LET'S CONTINUE ALONG EITHER "A," THE SAME DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS -- AND LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WE CURRENTLY HAVE. IS THE I-4 CORRIDOR NOW, MR. ALUOTTO, RURAL? >>PETER ALUOTTO: THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IN THE EXPANSION AREA, IT'S IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, BUT THE PLAN CATEGORIES ARE LARGELY RESIDENTIAL ONE UNIT PER ACRE, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, IS LARGE-LOT SUBURBAN. IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT RURAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S ONE TO FIVE OR ONE TO TEN OR ONE TO 20, AND IF THE -- THE THING THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE PEOPLE IN THESE AREAS TODAY ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD AT THAT DENSITY. IF THEY DO, A COUPLE OF THINGS HAPPEN. ONE IS IT TAKES OUT THE -- IT FORECLOSES THE FUTURE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSEMBLE LAND IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT PARCELS AND MAKE THEM NOT CONTIGUOUS. IF THEY ALL DEVELOP -- >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION. I HATE TO INTERRUPT, BUT -- >>PETER ALUOTTO: SURE. >>MARK SHARPE: -- THE AREA THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT YOU SAY IS ONE LOT PER ACRE OR ONE UNIT PER ACRE CURRENTLY NOW, IS IT BUILT OUT? >>PETER ALUOTTO: NO. >>MARK SHARPE: IF IT BUILT OUT ALONG WHAT WAS ALLOWED, WOULD THAT COST US MORE MONEY? >>PETER ALUOTTO: PROBABLY SO. >>MARK SHARPE: I THINK IT WOULD. >>PETER ALUOTTO: BECAUSE THEY -- GENERALLY RESIDENTIAL -- >>MARK SHARPE: SO IF WE ALLOW THE GROWTH PATTERN TO CONTINUE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH NO PLANNING, JUST -- LET'S JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS, WE WOULD OVER TIME HAVE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH, BUT WOULD THE GROWTH END UP COSTING US MONEY OR MAKING MONEY FOR THE COUNTY? >>PETER ALUOTTO: FROM THE HIP I WOULD SAY IT WOULD PROBABLY COST US MORE -- >>MARK SHARPE: COST US MONEY. SO IF WE'RE TALKING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT TRYING TO PLAN FOR -- NOW, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PLANNING FOR GROWTH TODAY, TOMORROW, NEXT WEEK, NEXT YEAR OR ARE WE TALKING STILL ABOUT OUT INTO THE FUTURE? >>PETER ALUOTTO: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUT TO THE FUTURE. >>MARK SHARPE: HOW FAR OUT IN THE FUTURE MAYBE? >>PETER ALUOTTO: I THINK TO 2025. I FORGET -- >>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE PLAN HORIZON IS 2025. TRULY, IN REALITY IT'S GOING TO BE LONGER THAN THAT. WE ONLY PARTICIPATE -- OR ANTICIPATE 5% OF THE GROWTH ALONG THAT CORRIDOR -- >>MARK SHARPE: SO WE'RE PLANNING OUT TO 2025, BUT WE'VE GOT SOME FOLKS THAT DON'T EVEN WANT US TO PLAN OUT TO 2025, BETTER JUST TO PLAN THE ONE -- THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. SEE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE SYSTEM WE CURRENTLY HAVE IS WORKING, AND I'M WILLING TO TAKE A STEP TOWARDS TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO IMPROVE UPON WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THERE'S LAND THAT'S DEVELOPABLE WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO THERE. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: CORRECT. >>MARK SHARPE: IF THEY GO OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AND THEY GO ALONG THIS CORRIDOR -- AND THIS IS WHY I DON'T SUPPORT THE EFFORT BY THE STAFF TO REMOVE CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH REQUIRE THAT WE -- THAT WE LAY OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE CERTAIN SERVICES. I THINK WE NEED TO SET THE BAR HIGH TO DEMONSTRATE OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT GROWTH IS GOING TO -- THERE'S GOING TO BE A COST. I WANT TO SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO RUSH THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY. IS THERE ANY INDICATION IN THIS PLAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE RUSHING IT BEYOND THE 18 MONTHS? WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT MADE TO SPEED THAT UP? >> NO. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT IT WOULD BE RUSHED, BUT WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO DETERMINE WHO SETS THE PRIORITIES. >>MARK SHARPE: AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING, MR. ALUOTTO, IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DO THE STUDY FOR THE -- THE TRANSPORTATION STUDY? >>PETER ALUOTTO: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: AND THAT WOULD BE WITH THE MPO? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: THE MPO, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND TBARTA, ALL OF THOSE WOULD BE INVOLVED. >>MARK SHARPE: THE ONE AREA WHERE I STILL HAVE A LOT OF CONCERN IS THE 80-ACRE ISSUE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE 80 ACRES WAS SELECTED NOT BASED UPON WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR A BUSINESS WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT BUT JUST SIMPLY A LARGE ACREAGE THAT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO ASSEMBLE FOR THE LIFE SCIENCES WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT AND EASIER FOR THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WHICH WE HAVE, WHICH COST THE COUNTY MORE MONEY. HOW DO WE -- IF IT WERE TO GO DOWN TO 30 ACRES, IS THAT 20 BUILDABLE AND TEN AS A BUFFER? >>PETER ALUOTTO: COULD BE. IT DEPENDS ON THE SITE. WE'VE NOT WRITTEN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR IT. IF WE SAY THE MINIMUM IS 30, YOU KNOW, IT'S 30, AND THEN DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WE'D ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S WETLANDS OR SETBACKS OR BUFFERS ACCORDING TO HOW WE WRITE IT. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: BUT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT POTENTIALLY YOU COULD SHORTCHANGE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY GOING DOWN THAT LOW. >>MARK SHARPE: HOW -- THE ISSUE OF TRANSPORTATION, WHO'S GOING TO BE COVERING THE COST FOR THE ACTIVITY IF -- IF YOU ATTRACT A BUSINESS, IT COMES, IT IDENTIFIES A LOCATION ALONG THE I-4 CORRIDOR -- AND I'M -- AND I WANT TO GET TO THIS POINT -- PART WHICH IS I STILL WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE -- WE ARE TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE NOW, AND -- BUT HOW DO WE MAKE CLEAR THAT BEFORE GROWTH OCCURS -- BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SEVERELY CONSTRAINED ROADS ALONG THAT CORRIDOR -- THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A TRANSPORTATION PLAN IN PLACE, PAID FOR NOT BY THE TAXPAYERS BUT BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE GOING OUT THERE, HOW DO YOU DO THAT? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: WELL, THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BE A STAFF-RUN TYPE OF PRODUCT, AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A BUDGET FOR IT AS WELL, SO I WILL HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER SHARPE, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INVESTMENT OF TAXPAYER MONEY IN THE NATURE OF STAFF BEING -- >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, THE STUDY, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT -- THAT'S MINUSCULE COMPARED TO THE ACTUAL COST OF BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OUT THERE. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: THAT IS CORRECT, AND IT HELPS US TO ESTABLISH PRIORITIES AND ALSO HELPS THE COMMUNITY PARTICIPATE THROUGH A PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD RESULT IN SPECIFIC ITEMS OF HOW DEVELOPER MITIGATION WOULD OCCUR SO THAT IT -- THERE IS A PREDICTABLE PROCESS AT THE END OF THIS, AND THAT IS WHY WE FEEL IT'S MORE OF AN IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITY. >>MARK SHARPE: IS IT PRETTY PREDICTABLE, THOUGH, WITH THIS PROCESS IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO WHOEVER WANTS TO DEVELOP ALONG THAT CORRIDOR? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YES, THE AMOUNT OF DEFICITS OF ROADWAY NEEDS IS LARGE IN THAT AREA. IT'S -- >>MARK SHARPE: SO WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT EVEN IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS THE REQUIREMENT -- AND SEWER AND WATER, WHO'S PAYING FOR SEWER AND WATER? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR SEWER AND WATER. >>MARK SHARPE: SO THE DEVELOPER'S PAYING FOR SEWER AND WATER AND THE DEVELOPER IS PAYING FOR THE -- >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. >>MARK SHARPE: -- ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS? IS THAT IN ITSELF A PRETTY BIG BARRIER TO ANYBODY -- TO A RUSH TO DEVELOPMENT ALONG THAT CORRIDOR? >>PETER ALUOTTO: WELL, IT ALL DEPENDS. I'M SORRY I CAN'T GIVE YOU A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THAT. GENERALLY THE DEVELOPER PAYS FOR ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS AND TO MAINTAIN CONCURRENCY, WHICH IN THIS AREA THERE'S GOING TO BE A LEVEL OF SERVICE "C," WHICH IS A VERY HIGH STANDARD. WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON NOW AND THE CURRENT THINKING IS THAT WHEN THE MOBILITY FEE COMES IN PLACE, THE -- THE DEVELOPER WILL PAY THE MOBILITY FEE AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE DONE BY THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA THAT THE FEES ARE COLLECTED FROM. THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT IS THAT THE FEE IS CONSTRUCTED SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE -- IT REDUCES VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, AND SO BY BEING -- BY BEING IN THE TWO ENDS, IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT CHEAPER THAN IT WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE, SO IT'LL BE SELF-EXECUTING. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE'LL HAVE THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED SO THAT WHEN THEY DO COME IN, THERE WILL BE SOME CERTAINTY AS TO WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS, AND WE WON'T HAVE TO ASK THEM TO DO THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION STUDY RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: AND MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY LIKES TO JUST KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THEM. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, LET ME ASK -- BRUCE, COULD YOU COME UP FOR ONE SECOND. THE PURPOSE HERE -- IS THE PURPOSE HERE, BRUCE, TO TRY TO CREATE DEVELOPABLE LANDS THAT'S READY TODAY NOW SO THAT WHEN, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT SRI, DRAPER LABS, SCRIPPS, WHOMEVER IT MIGHT BE COMES DOWN AND IS LOOKING FOR A SPOT ALONG THE CORRIDOR THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, I THINK BY BOTH SIDES, AS AN AREA OF IMPORTANCE -- IS THE PURPOSE TO HAVE THE -- HAVE LAND THAT IS DEVELOPABLE NOW OR IS IT TO INDICATE TO PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE THINKING OUT INTO THE FUTURE AT SOME POINT OR MAYBE EVEN LANDOWNERS WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, BUILD NOW WITH WHAT THEY CAN DO, WHICH COSTS US MONEY, OR PERHAPS HOLD BACK AND WAIT AND SELL FOR FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES TO DEVELOP? I MEAN, ARE WE TRYING TO CREATE DEVELOPABLE LAND TODAY OR DEVELOPABLE LAND FOR THE FUTURE? >>BRUCE REGISTER: COMMISSIONER, BRUCE REGISTER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. YOU'VE POINTED OUT SEVERAL KEY FACTORS. YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE RESTRICTIONS, THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TO A LARGE -- IN LARGE PART THE EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SERIOUS SCALE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS EXPANSION AREA. MY PREDICTION IS THAT YOU'LL SEE INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT ENCROACHING FROM THE CURRENT ENDS OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA ON BOTH SIDES, IN PLANT CITY AND -- AND TAMPA AND THE COUNTY, BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. THE -- THE PURPOSE AND GOAL WAS, IN MY -- IN MY PERSPECTIVE, TWOFOLD. ONE, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WAS TO TRY TO PRESERVE FOR THE FUTURE THAT LAND THAT IS GOING TO BE CRITICAL FOR OUR COMMUNITY IN THE FUTURE, AND I'M THINKING 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS OUT BECAUSE IF WE ALLOW THE PATTERN TO CONTINUE IN THE VACUUM OF -- OF NO LEADERSHIP, NO DIRECTION, IT'S GOING -- THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A -- AN AREA THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CONSISTENCY OR CONTINUITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PROUD OF. THAT'S WHY TAKING THIS CHANCE, TAKING THIS STEP TO TRY TO BRING SOME ORDER INTO THE TRANSITION OF THAT PERIOD -- I MEAN TRANSITION OF THAT ZONE THAT'S BETWEEN TWO MAJOR URBAN AREAS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THAT BORDERS THE ENTRANCE TO OUR COMMUNITY FROM THE MAJOR EAST-WEST ROAD. SO WITH THAT, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >>MARK SHARPE: IT ANSWERS MY QUESTION BECAUSE -- AND I RECOGNIZE -- I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A GREATER SENSE OF UNANIMITY BETWEEN THE CITIZENS AND THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IT'S GOING TODAY. MY CONCERN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAS BEEN THAT IF IT -- IF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS CONTINUE AS THEY ARE TODAY, WE'LL END UP WITH SOMETHING THAT 20, 30 YEARS FROM NOW NONE OF US WANT AND THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO THEN FIGURE OUT HOW WE FIX IT BECAUSE WE JUST LET IT OCCUR OUT OF FEAR FOR WHAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE IF WE ACTUALLY SAT DOWN AND TRIED TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF OUR DIFFERENCES. THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN EVERY TIME WE GET IN HERE AND HAVE THESE MEETINGS, THE CONVERSATION FALLS BACK TO THE SAME OLD STUFF. IT'S THE SAME BATTLE. IT'S A LEVEL OF DISTRUST BECAUSE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACTS ON THE GROUND. I LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE TODAY, AND MY SENSE IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY IS NOT WHERE WE WANT TO BE, AND I -- BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE A DEEP RESPECT AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, "A," THE CITIZENS ARE INVOLVED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND THAT THEY WALK AWAY AT THE END OF THE TIME CONFIDENT THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING TOWARDS IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AND I KNOW THERE ARE -- AND THERE ARE RISKS THERE BECAUSE IT'S A LOT EASIER JUST TO DO NOTHING. DOING NOTHING IS EASIER, AND I THINK THAT EVEN HAVING THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE BECAUSE I'VE GOTTEN ALL THE REPORTS BACK FROM THE BATTLES BACK AND FORTH, BUT I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE THE BATTLES AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION THAN JUST SIT BACK IN OUR CAMPS BECAUSE WHAT WE THEN END UP WITH IS THE SPRAWL THAT WE HAVE IN OTHER AREAS. WE WANT TO -- I MEAN, MY PURPOSE HAS BEEN TO TRY TO DEFEAT THE SPRAWL AND FIND A SMARTER WAY OF GROWING, SO I'LL LISTEN TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING SO MUCH TIME, BUT I THINK THAT WE KIND OF ARE HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THE ONE AREA, LIKE I SAID, WITH STAFF'S COMMENTS, I -- I DON'T SUPPORT ANY WEAKENING OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO SHOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THE -- THE REQUIREMENTS FROM FIRE AND POLICE AND ON THAT YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO GROW OUT THERE. I THINK YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT, AND TO TRY TO TAKE THAT AWAY, IN MY MIND, IGNORES THE PROBLEMS WE'VE HAD IN OTHER AREAS WHERE WE GROW AND WE LATER SAY, WELL, GEE, WE DON'T HAVE ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE NEED AND THEN WE SCRAMBLE AND TAKE IT FROM THE PROPERTY TAX OWNERS TO TRY TO COVER THOSE COSTS. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT. BUT I DO HAVE A PROBLEMS, HEATHER, WITH THE ISSUE OF THE 80 ACRES BECAUSE I JUST DON'T THINK THE 80 ACRES IS BOUND WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT'S A LARGE NUMBER THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR ANYBODY TO ASSEMBLE, AND THAT CONCERNS ME. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: WELL, I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT MY RESEARCH. AND IN OTHER SUPER REGIONS INCLUDING THE TEXAS TRIANGLE, IN CALIFORNIA, AS WELL AS IN THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE, I WILL TELL YOU THE -- THE WINDOW IN TERMS OF MINIMUM SITE SIZE HAS VARIED FROM 50 ACRES TO 150 ACRES, SO WE DO NOT WANT TO SHORTCHANGE OUR URBAN SERVICE AREA OR OUR CITIES, AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A VARIETY OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THAT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE, SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE 80 ACRES, BUT THERE -- THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER INCREASE OR DECREASE THAT BASED ON THE RESEARCH THAT I HAVE DONE. >>MARK SHARPE: THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. AND COMMISSIONER SHARPE, SOME GOOD QUESTIONS, AND MY POINT WHEN I GOT STARTED WITH THIS PROJECT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WAS THE CONCERN ABOUT SPRAWL AND A WAY TO PREVENT THE MESS THAT WE HAVE IN BRANDON. YOU HEAR ABOUT IT, I HEAR ABOUT IT, I KNOW THE REST OF THE COLLEAGUES HERE HEAR ABOUT THAT. THIS IS A STEP IN PREVENTING THAT PROBLEM OF SPRAWL AND UNCONTROLLED AND UNGUIDED GROWTH. IT PREVENTS THE PROBLEMS THAT WE SEE ON INTERSTATE 75. IF WE -- AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'RE SAYING LET'S DO NOTHING TONIGHT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS HEARING, BUT IF WE DO NOTHING -- I DON'T FEEL THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE GOING, AND MR. ALUOTTO WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS -- WE END UP WITH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT WILL BE ON WELL, WILL BE ON SEPTIC, NOT GOING TO BE AN ASSET AND A BENEFIT TO OUR ENVIRONMENT. IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PAINT, NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE START PROCESS WAS 20 -- 2025, WAS THAT WHERE -- THE NUMBER I WAS HEARING? I'LL BE LONG GONE, I'M SURE, BUT I'VE GOT A QUESTION OF PAULA, IF I COULD ASK. IT KIND OF COMES BACK TO A QUESTION -- AND IT'S ON OBJECTIVE 53-E. I DON'T KNOW IF PAULA'S STILL HERE. >>PETER ALUOTTO: SHE'S COMING. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OH, OKAY. HI, PAULA. >>PAULA HARVEY: [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I THINK AS I WAS LISTENING TO COMMISSIONER SHARPE, HIS CONCERN ON HERE IS THAT IN STRIKING THE WORDS "EMERGENCY SERVICE," WE WON'T HAVE AN ADEQUATE WAY TO DEMONSTRATE PAYMENT FOR THESE SERVICES SOME DECADES IN THE FUTURE. HOW DO -- HOW DO -- HOW DO WE GET AROUND THAT? I MEAN, NOT GET AROUND IT. HOW IS IT THAT WE ARE GOING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE CAN BE PAID FOR? >>PAULA HARVEY: COMMISSIONER, THE REAL BASIS FOR THE COMMENTS REALLY DOESN'T HAVE -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. >>PAULA HARVEY: THE REAL BASIS OF OUR COMMENTS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THAT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE COST IS GOING TO BE FOR PROVIDING FOR THOSE SERVICES. WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO KNOW THAT. THE ISSUE HERE, THOUGH, IS IF WE NEED -- IF WE HAVE A SMALL COMPANY COME IN ON ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES AND THROUGH A PREVIOUS PROCESS OF SETTING A LEVEL OF SERVICE AT THIS POINT I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW WE ACCOMPLISH THAT FOR, SAY, FIRE SERVICE, BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS ONE DEVELOPER TRIGGERS -- OR THE COUNTY DETERMINES THAT IT TRIGGERS NOW THE NEED FOR A FIRE STATION, THE IMPLICATION HERE IS THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY BE MAKING THAT DEVELOPER PAY FOR OR WAIT UNTIL THE FIRE STATION IS BUILT WHEN IN REALITY YOU MAY ACTUALLY HAVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TELLING YOU THEY HAVE A STATION TWO MILES AWAY THAT CAN ADEQUATELY PROVIDE THE FIRE PROTECTION TO THAT SITE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID. WHEN YOU GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF TRYING TO IDENTIFY AND CHANGE LEVELS OF SERVICE THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THOSE ITEMS THAT WE'RE MANDATED TO ADDRESS BY STATE LAW, WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOW TO SET THEM. THEY ADDRESS OUR ROADS, THEY ADDRESS POTABLE WATER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC SEWER, AND I'VE TRIED TO IDENTIFY ALL THE DIFFERENT MEASURES THAT WE LOOK AT. WE'VE DONE IT FOR SCHOOLS AS WELL. WE HAVE NOT EVER GONE THROUGH A PROCESS TO IDENTIFY AS -- IN THE FORM OF A CONCURRENCY MEASURE HOW WE PROVIDE FIRE SERVICE, SHERIFF'S RESPONSE, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, AMBULANCE SERVICES, IF YOU WILL. THAT CREATES A WHOLE NEW PROCESS THAT THE COUNTY HAS NOT CONTEMPLATED, WE HAVE A PROGRAM FOR, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO DO IT IF IT'S INCLUDED HERE IN THIS PLAN, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND -- I MEAN, NO ONE WANTS DEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN WITHOUT THE PROTECTION AND KNOWING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO RESPOND ADEQUATELY IN THAT WAY, BUT THE REAL QUESTION TO ASK IS ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THEMSELVES PAY FOR THAT TYPE OF SERVICE? RIGHT NOW YOU ADDRESS THAT ISSUE EVERY YEAR IN YOUR BUDGETING PROCESS. THAT'S HOW YOU ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE, AND GENE GRAY, WHO'S TON ACTUALLY A LOT OF STUDY IN THIS REGARD, CAN EXPLAIN THAT MUCH BETTER THAN I CAN. BUT THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED FOR THIS MODIFICATION. WE NEVER INTENDED IN ANY OF OUR STUDY EFFORTS, NOR DID IT COME UP IN ANY OF OUR DISCUSSIONS IN THE WORK STUDY GROUP IN DEVELOPING THIS PROPOSAL SAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR I-4. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MR. GRAY, CAN YOU COMMENT ON IT. THANK YOU, PAULA. >>GENE GRAY: YES, COMMISSIONER. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IF YOU COULD ADDRESS -- SHE TALKED ABOUT YOUR STUDIES. COULD YOU KIND OF TAG ON TO THAT AS WELL. >>GENE GRAY: SURE, I'LL BE GLAD TO. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'M LOOKING FOR SOME COMFORT LEVEL HERE WITH STRIKING THIS LANGUAGE OR LEAVING IT AS IS. >>GENE GRAY: WELL, COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE COST OF SERVICES -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YES. >>GENE GRAY: -- COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES? OVER THE LAST 15 TO 20 YEARS HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAS HAD A SIGNIFICANT INVOLVEMENT AND EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE THE RETENTION AND EXPANSION OF AGRICULTURE IN OUR COMMUNITY. AS A PART OF THAT EFFORT, WE HAVE CONDUCTED TWO DIFFERENT STUDIES, TWO DIFFERENT COST OF SERVICES STUDIES, THAT HAVE CONSISTENTLY IN BOTH CASES DEMONSTRATED THAT THE COST OF SERVICES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY COMPARED TO THE REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IS FOR EVERY DOLLAR OF REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED, IT COSTS US A DOLLAR AND A HALF OR SO, PLUS OR MINUS, TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES, SO THERE'S A NET LOSS AUTOMATICALLY ON AVERAGE WITH REGARD TO RESIDENTIAL. WITH REGARD TO COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL, THERE IS A -- THERE IS CONSISTENTLY A SURPLUS OF REVENUE BASED ON THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES -- SERVICES TO THEM. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I HAVE LOOKED AT THE RESULTS OF OVER A HUNDRED SIMILAR STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY, AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION THAT I CAN RECALL, THOSE NUMBERS ARE CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL HAVING TO BE -- HAVING TO BE SUPPLEMENTED IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THE SERVICES VERSUS INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ON 50.9, I'VE GOT A QUESTION OVER HERE. THANK YOU, THOUGH. I HAVE A QUESTION. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'M GETTING THERE. MR. ALUOTTO, ON YOUR COMMENTS ON 50.9, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IN MARCH THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ACCEPTED THROUGH BOARD DIRECTION OR TAKEN BOARD DIRECTION TO ACCEPT THESE RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THROUGH THIS -- THROUGH THIS NEW LANGUAGE PASSED IT BACK TO YOU, AND YOU'RE JUST SIMPLY SAYING GO BACK TO THE MARCH DIRECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION? >>PETER ALUOTTO: THAT WOULD BE MY -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. MR. SHARPE, ON THESE ITEMS HERE AND THE OBJECTIVES, ARE THERE OTHERS OTHER THAN -- I THINK YOUR STRONGEST CONCERN - - AND I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS STILL BUT IS 53-E AND SHOWING THE FUTURE COSTS? I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION. >>MARK SHARPE: I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT -- AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. GRAY IS SAYING, WHICH IS THAT -- WHICH I SAID -- RESIDENTIAL LOSES MONEY, COMMERCIAL -- AND SO THE RESIDENTIAL SPRAWL IS COSTING US MONEY. THE COMMERCIAL GENERATES REVENUE, BUT THE QUESTION I STILL HAVE IS THAT IF WE'RE -- RECOGNIZING AND ACCEPTING THAT WE'RE GOING OUT -- THAT WE'RE GOING ALONG A CORRIDOR, WHICH MAKES US UNIQUE, BUT IT'S OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ALONG THIS CORRIDOR. I STILL THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EXTRAORDINARY PROTECTION WHICH IN SOME WAY MAKES CLEAR TO THE CITIZENS THAT THESE SERVICES ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED IN A WAY THAT -- I MEAN IN A RESPONSIBLE FASHION WHERE WE'RE NOT ADDING TO THE BURDEN THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS. I MEAN, THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WE'VE NEVER DONE IT BEFORE. WELL, WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE DOESN'T WORK, AND THAT'S BEEN MY PROBLEM FROM THE BEGINNING. WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW ISN'T WORKING, SO I'M -- I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH SOME FORM OF AN EXTRAORDINARY PROTECTION WHICH DOES NOT PUT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON ANY ENTERPRISE WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT HERE, HIGH-WAGE, HIGH-PAYING JOBS THAT WE WANT TO COME HERE. THEY'RE ALREADY GOING TO PAY WATER AND SEWER, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROAD, AND NOW WE HAVE THESE OTHER SERVICES, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. >>PETER ALUOTTO: WELL, AS PAULA AND MR. GRAY HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO POLICE SERVICES, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, THEY DEPLOY THEIR RESOURCES BASED ON THE INCIDENTS AND FREQUENCY OF CRIME. THEY DON'T DEDICATE IT TO ANY PARTICULAR CORRIDOR OR AREA. HE LIKEWISE WITH, YOU KNOW, PLEASE AND FIRE. GOING BACK TO YOUR POINT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROTECTIONS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE AMPLE PROTECTIONS IN HERE WITH -- AND IF I JUST MIGHT JUST LIST SOME OF THEM SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. IF YOU -- IF YOU KEEP THE 80 ACRES, THAT IN ITSELF IS VERY -- YOU KNOW, IS A PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY LIKE FOUR PARCELS, AS I UNDERSTAND, THAT MEET THAT CRITERIA. CONCURRENCY FOR ALL STATE-MANDATED SERVICES PLUS IF YOU ADD THESE NEW LOS SERVICES FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND EMS, YOU HAVE TO BE ONE OF THE FIVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, YOU HAVE TO TIE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ZONING, MAINTAIN TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE "C." IF YOU CREATE 20 -- BEFORE YOU CAN DO ANY HOUSING, IT'S 20 JOBS -- THE HOUSING/JOBS RATIO IS, YOU KNOW, ONE TO 20. YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH LIVABLE STREETS, LIVABLE COMMUNITIES. YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO I-4 VIA AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR ROAD. YOU MEET THE FLORIDA GREEN BUILDING CODE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF A HUNDRED JOBS. >>KEN HAGAN: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE GET THE POINT. >>PETER ALUOTTO: I THINK IT'S -- >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM STILL HAS THE FLOOR. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: RIGHT. AND YOU WERE KIND OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION, BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE SOME MOTIONS HERE, AND I THINK, THOUGH, THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THESE MOTIONS IN STEPS SO THAT WHEN WE VOTE ON THE FINAL PRODUCT OR THE FINAL PROPOSAL WE HAVE THE NECESSARY LANGUAGE IN HERE, AND THE FIRST MOTION THAT I WILL MAKE WILL BE ON POLICY 50.2, AND THAT'S TO ADDRESS THIS 80 ACRES AND CHANGE IT TO THE -- THE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION OF 30 ACRES, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE MY FIRST MOTION. DO -- AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M ASKING A QUESTION OF YOU. IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION HERE, WITH THESE RECOMMEND -- WITH THESE ITEMS THAT PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HAS SUGGESTED, SHOULD WE ADDRESS EACH ONE OF THEM IN A SEPARATE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL AND THEN HAVE AN OVERALL VOTE ON THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR PLAN? >>KEN HAGAN: I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE -- FOR THE ATTORNEY. WHAT DO YOU THINK, ADAM? >>ADAM GORMLY: THAT MAY BE A WAY TO WILLOW DOWN WHICH ISSUES ARE -- THE BOARD WANTS TO ADDRESS IN TERMS OF TRANSMITTING THE AMENDMENT. IT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE -- AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS NOT A VOTE ON TRANSMITTAL OF THESE POINTS, IT'S JUST A VOTE ON HOW THE -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: YEAH, ON CORRECTIVE ACTION ON LANGUAGE. >>ADAM GORMLY: -- HOW THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE PRESENTED FOR THE VOTE TO TRANSMIT, AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE -- THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO MANAGE THE DISCUSSION ON -- ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE THE SUBJECT OF A VOTE OF TRANSMITTAL IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: ALL RIGHT. THAT'LL BE MY FIRST MOTION. >>MARK SHARPE: I'VE GOT A QUESTION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER WHITE'S NEXT. COMMISSIONER WHITE, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK AT ALL TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR OR -- >>KEVIN WHITE: NO. I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION. I WAS JUST -- I JUST HAD SOME COMMENTS I NEEDED TO MAKE, AND IF COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM DOESN'T MIND, I MEAN, YOU CAN -- MAYBE STATE THE MOTIONS YOU INTEND TO MAKE, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE MY COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'LL RELINQUISH THE FLOOR, BUT KNOW THAT I HAVE A MOTION PROPOSED ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHERS, AND I'LL COME BACK IN LINE. >>KEVIN WHITE: I'M NOT GOING TO STEAL YOUR MOTION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: NO, NO, THAT'S FINE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT -- MS. FLOTT, I WANT YOU TO KNOW I GOT YOUR E-MAIL, I READ ALL THREE PAGES. [LAUGHTER] MS. BACCA, I GOT YOUR NOTE AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT APPEARS THAT OUR GREEN TECH EXPANSION CORRIDOR -- IF WE LOOK AT IT, IT SEEMS OUR BUZZ WORD FOR THE DAY OR FOR THIS YEAR OR MAYBE EVEN FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS, IF WE PUT "GREEN" IN FRONT OF ANYTHING, I THINK WE THINK IT SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT -- IT GIVES THAT CONNOTATION OF IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE, I'VE HEARD OUR STAFF -- AND STAFF, I THINK YOU-ALL HAVE DONE A YEOMAN'S JOB WITH WHAT YOU HAD BEEN GIVEN TO WORK WITH. I WILL MAKE NO QUALMS ABOUT IT AS FAR AS THIS PARTICULAR COMMISSIONER IS CONCERNED. I LOVE GROWTH AND I LOVE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I LOVE SMART GROWTH AND I LOVE SMART DEVELOPMENT. WE HEAR FROM OUR STAFF JOBS, JOBS, AND ECONOMIC ENGINE AND AN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR, BUT NO ONE CAN GIVE US A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON WHEN THESE JOBS WILL COME OR IF THEY WILL EVEN COME OR HOW MANY WILL COME. WE'RE LOOKING AT QTIs THAT KEEP COMING TO OUR COMMUNITY AND WE KEEP GIVING TAX INCENTIVES, AND I FORGOT WHO IT WAS -- I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. HOSLER THAT SAID THE COMMISSION HAS ASKED STAFF OF THINGS, IN HIS DAY OR WHATEVER NEVER WOULD THERE NOT HAVE BEEN AN ANSWER. I'M HERE TO PUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TEAM ON NOTICE. I ASKED A QUESTION. I STILL DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO IT. AND WHAT THAT ANSWER IS -- WE KEEP GIVING COMPANIES INCENTIVES AND TAX BREAKS, AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDING SO MANY JOBS TO STAY HERE FOR SO MANY YEARS. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE DOING. HAVE THEY PROVIDED AND MET ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS AND CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE SET OUT FOR THEM? AND I HAVE NOT GOTTEN THAT ANSWER YET. SO WE KEEP INCENTIVIZING, BUT WE DON'T KNOW AS A COMMISSION, WE DON'T KNOW AS A COMMUNITY WHETHER WE'RE EVEN GETTING A RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT OR NOT. OUR I-75 CORRIDOR, AS WE LOOK AT IT NOW, WE HAVE SO MANY VACANT WAREHOUSES THAT -- AND STORAGE FACILITIES AND BUSINESS PARKS THAT ARE SITTING EMPTY THAT CAN BE USED RIGHT NOW, AND IF WE -- AND FORGET JUST FOR A SECOND ORLANDO, PLANT CITY. WE STILL HAVE MANATEE COUNTY NORTH AND SOUTH. THAT'S A MAJOR CORRIDOR TOO THAT -- WE STILL HAVE THIS AVAILABLE AS WE SPEAK, AND IT'S NOT ATTRACTING BUSINESS. AND WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE AWAY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE DEVELOPERS ARE GOING BROKE BECAUSE THEY'RE SITTING ON EMPTY COMMERCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, I LIVE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, AND MY NEIGHBOR IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I CAN THROW A ROCK AT THEIR HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT I CHOOSE TO DO. YOU, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE SITTING IN THIS AUDIENCE, CHOOSE TO LIVE IN A RURAL AREA. YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE YOUR NEIGHBOR, YOU WANT SOME SPACE BETWEEN. THAT'S A QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUE FOR ME. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO, THAT'S WHAT YOU INVEST YOUR MONEY IN, THAT'S HOW YOU WANT TO LIVE. I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE AS GOVERNMENT SHOULD NECESSARILY INFRINGE UPON THAT UNNECESSARILY. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO SAY THAT COMMISSIONER SHARPE MENTIONED, HE SAID THAT, WELL, THE REASON THAT WE'RE -- WE'RE POSSIBLY WHERE WE ARE IS BECAUSE WE FAILED TO PLAN A LONG TIME AGO. THAT WAS -- THAT WAS WAY BEFORE ME, BUT I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT OUR GROWTH, ESPECIALLY IN OUR FAILED ECONOMY THAT WE'RE IN NOW -- I BELIEVE THAT OUR CURRENT ECONOMY IS GOING TO DICTATE WHERE THE GROWTH WILL GO FROM THIS POINT ON BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO GO OUT HERE AND START POURING MONEY IN TO EMPTY DEVELOPMENTS THAT AREN'T GOING TO PRODUCE A PROFIT FOR THEM. I SAW SOME REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE MAURY CARTER'S GROUP OUT OFF OF I-4 AND McINTOSH. I -- I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO SELL THAT PROPERTY FOR THE LONGEST, AND I -- AND I FEEL FOR THEM. 94 ACRES ALONG I-4, I HAVE EVEN TOLD PEOPLE ABOUT THAT PROPERTY, BUT IT'S NOT -- IT HASN'T SOLD. THEY'RE TRYING TO GIVE IT AWAY. IT HASN'T SOLD. McINTOSH, 92, ALL OF THESE ARE FAILED ROADWAYS. I'M OUT AT -- I HAVE CLIENTS OUT AT LITHIA-PINECREST AND FISHHAWK. IT'S A HIKE TO GO OUT THERE. SOME OF YOU-ALL LIVE OUT IN THAT AREA. IT'S A TANK OF GAS TO GET OUT THERE, AND IT'S -- AND I GO DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, LET ALONE TALKED ABOUT AT RUSH-HOUR TRAFFIC, AND I JUST THINK THIS IS JUST AN IMPEDIMENT ON THE RURAL LIFESTYLE THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO LIVE, BUT THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. JUST LIKE I'VE MADE MY CHOICE, YOU'VE MADE YOUR CHOICE AND YOUR INVESTMENT, AND I -- AND I GREATLY APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I'LL WRAP THIS UP IN JUST A SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I ALSO HEARD THAT WE WANT THE PUBLIC INVOLVED IN EVERY BIT OF THIS PROCESS AND DISTRUST VERSUS FACTS. WELL, DISTRUST AND FACTS ARE APPARENT HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL THE PUBLIC OUT HERE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. 98% OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE OPPOSED TO THIS AND ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE DECISION WE'RE MAKING OR ATTEMPTING TO MAKE TONIGHT, AND WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO THEM. AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE ME. I'M GOING TO LISTEN TO YOU. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING FOR OFFICE OR ANYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE 90% OF YOU, PROBABLY 99% OF YOU IN THIS ROOM CAN'T VOTE FOR ME ANYWAY, SO IT'S NOT A DECISION BASED OFF OF A POLITICAL DECISION OF WHETHER I'M TRYING TO BE POPULAR WITH THE CROWD BECAUSE I -- I CAN CARE LESS ABOUT THAT. WE ALL KNOW SOME OF YOU OUT THERE THAT WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS, I WON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH YOU, BUT WHEN I AM AGREEING WITH YOU, I'M WITH YOU; AND WHEN I'M NOT, I'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY I'M NOT, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS SMART FOR OUR ECONOMY, I DON'T THINK THIS IS SMART FOR OUR COUNTY, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SMART FOR OUR AREA RIGHT NOW. [APPLAUSE] >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I'M IN -- IN THE GROUP THAT THINKS THAT THE CURRENT DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING ISN'T WORKING AND THAT ONE UNIT -- IF WE DEVELOP OUT ALONG THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, THE IMPACT ON OUR REGION AND ON FUTURE TAXPAYERS WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN IF WE -- THAN IF WE PLAN WITH -- WHETHER -- IF IT'S 80-ACRE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, 30 ACRES OUT OVER 25 YEARS AT A SLOWER PACE, YOU'LL ACTUALLY HAVE BETTER DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE THAN WE'LL HAVE IF WE DO NOTHING AND JUST ALLOW THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS TO CONTINUE. THAT'S WHAT WE CAN'T SUSTAIN. IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE NOW, AND -- AND MY CONCERN, THOUGH, IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE TRAFFIC STUDY DONE AND THAT IT'S DONE IN A WAY THAT IS THOROUGH, NOT RUSHED, SO I'M NOT LOOKING FOR ANY -- ANY -- ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING ASKED FOR. I DO WANT TO SEE HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICES. THE ISSUE OF THE 80 OR 30 -- AND I'M NOT GOING TO PICK A NUMBER AND SAY WHY NOT 50 OR 40, BUT WHY NOT 50 OR 40? WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR 30 AS OPPOSED TO 40 ACRES? >>BRUCE REGISTER: COMMISSIONER, BRUCE REGISTER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 30 ACRES -- LET ME PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT. HIGHLAND OAKS, CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, ONE OF OUR JEWELS AND OUR CROWN FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WAS 27 ACRES. CAPITAL ONE, YES INDEED, THERE'S BEEN A TRANSITION, BUT THOSE BUILDINGS ARE FULL. THERE'S EMPLOYMENT THERE. THERE IS EMPLOYMENT THERE. THAT WAS 72 ACRES. CORPOREX PARK, 40 TO 45 ACRES. COMMISSIONER, YOU DON'T -- YOU DON'T WANT TO DICTATE HOW WE'RE GOING TO SEE OUR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES COME ALONG WITH AN ACREAGE SIZE OF 80 ACRES. 30 ACRES IS GOING TO BE VERY COMPATIBLE WITH THE PARCEL SIZES THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THIS ZONE, IN THIS DISTRICT. I THINK -- I THINK AT 30 ACRES THERE'S A DEMAND. THERE'S BEEN A DISCUSSION THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN, THE SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE BUILT IN, THAT YOU REALLY DON'T NEED A SIZE LIMIT. I'VE HEARD -- I'VE HEARD THAT FROM QUITE A FEW PEOPLE, QUITE A FEW FOLKS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAT YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. >>MARK SHARPE: THERE WAS -- >>BRUCE REGISTER: SO THE 30 ACRES IS A RATIONAL COMPROMISE THAT WE FEEL IS GOING TO PROVIDE SOME ASSURANCES THAT THERE WILL BE SOME CONTINUITY IN THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S -- THAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPING THE 30 ACRES. >>MARK SHARPE: SEE, AND MY SENSE HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE PICKING AN ACREAGE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. IF WE'RE JUST PICKING A LARGE NUMBER BECAUSE WE WANT TO PREVENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WELL, THEN, WE OUGHT TO SAY IT AND FIND ANOTHER BARRIER, BUT IF WE'RE TRYING TO ACTUALLY ATTRACT COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES TO COME DOWN HERE, YOU PICK A NUMBER WHICH IS RATIONAL FOR ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS WHICH WOULD BE LOOKING TO DEVELOP. THAT'S WHY I'M LOOKING AT OTHER AREAS OR OTHER NOT SO MUCH BARRIERS BUT PROTECTIONS. WHAT -- WHAT IS TO PROTECT, THOUGH -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 25 YEARS, AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME. HOW, THOUGH, WOULD SOMEONE -- IF THEY WERE TRY TO CHISEL AWAY WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS WHEREBY SOMEONE COULD COME IN BECAUSE IT WAS STATED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU ALLOW IT AND THEN THEY'LL COME IN LATER AND THEY'RE START JUST CHISELING AWAY AND CHISELING AWAY UNTIL PRETTY SOON YOU'VE GOT THE RAMPANT SPRAWL. WHAT'S THE PROCESS WHEREBY THIS IS MODIFIED IF THIS IS APPROVED? >>PETER ALUOTTO: THIS IS A -- THIS IS AN OVERLAY, AND THE ZONING WILL -- WILL FLOAT. IT WILL FLOAT AND DEPENDING UPON SOMEBODY FINDING THE PROPERTY THAT MEETS ALL THESE REQUISITE REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR PROJECT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. THE DIFFICULTY IS IF WE SET A NUMBER LIKE 80, I THINK THERE'S ONLY THREE OR FOUR PARCELS NOW THAT WOULD QUALIFY. EVERYONE ELSE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, SO IF YOU'RE -- IF YOU'RE A PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAS LESS THAN 80 ACRES, YOUR CHOICE IS TO DEVELOP WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED NOW OR NOTHING BECAUSE THERE'S NO PLAN -- YOUR CHOICE IS WHAT YOU HAVE NOW OR THE OVERLAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SO YOUR CHOICE IS THIS, THE I-4 CORRIDOR, OR WHAT YOU HAVE NOW. THOSE ARE YOUR TWO CHOICES. IF YOU DON'T QUALIFY FOR I-4, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE -- HAVE WHAT YOU HAVE. I MEAN -- DID I GET THAT RIGHT OR AM I WRONG? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: WELL, BECAUSE THE ACREAGE IS SPELLED OUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE ONLY WAY IT CAN CHANGE IS EITHER THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, TEXT AMENDMENT, OR WE ALSO HAVE PROVISION IN HERE FOR EVERY UPDATE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS EVERY SEVEN YEARS, WE WILL ANALYZE IT LIKE WE DO ANALYZE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA IN THAT IDENTIFIED PRIORITY AREA. >>MARK SHARPE: OKAY. WELL -- AND I WON'T BE ASKING ANYMORE QUESTIONS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT -- AND WHERE I DO AGREE, AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR. HOSLER SAID, WHICH IS THIS SHOULD BE SCRUBBED, IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY DCA. YOU KNOW, WE'LL TAKE OUR ACTION. THEN THEY'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW OUR ACTION AND SEE IF THEY AGREE, WHICH IS WHY I'VE SUPPORTED THE CONTINUANCE OF DCA, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE SOME THAT WANTED TO ELIMINATE IT. SO, YOU KNOW, I -- THE PROTECTIONS EXIST, AND I HOPE WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST, BUT I THINK THE STEPS THAT ARE BEING MADE, I KNOW THEY'RE CONTROVERSIAL, BUT I THINK THE STEPS THAT ARE BEING TAKEN WILL, I HOPE, TAKE US IN ANOTHER DIRECTION AS OPPOSED TO WHERE WE'VE BEEN GOING, WHICH -- WHICH HAS BEEN COSTLY AND INEFFECTIVE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THANK YOU. AND I DON'T SENSE A WILL OF THE BOARD HERE TO ADJUST THIS 30 ACRES, ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT IT'S HELPFUL. I DON'T -- I'M LOOKING AT MR. SHARPE HERE BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN RAISING THE MOST QUESTIONS TONIGHT, AND THE FEEL ON THIS -- THIS PLACEMENT OF -- MR. SHARPE, ON THE HUNDRED JOBS, PLACING THAT EARLY ON, DESPITE WHAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM THE ECONOMIC ADVISORS, YOU'RE COMFORTABLE THERE TOO? >>JIM NORMAN: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT -- WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW. I MEAN, WHERE -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'M WORKING ON LANGUAGE BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE I -- MR. NORMAN, I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE -- >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: MAKE A MOTION TO -- FOR APPROVAL? >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >> CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>ROSE FERLITA: WHAT IS THIS? >>KEN HAGAN: PLANNING COMMISSION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: IS THERE A SECOND? >>JIM NORMAN: SECOND. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. HIGGINBOTHAM -- WHOA, WHOA, WHOA. >>KEN HAGAN: JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, YOUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: I KNOW, BUT YOU-ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING FOR A LONG TIME. RESTATE THE MOTION, PLEASE. >>KEN HAGAN: -- WITH STAFF'S -- WITH STAFF'S FOUR ITEMS? OKAY. THAT'S THE MOTION. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >> WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>MARK SHARPE: I DIDN'T EVEN HEAR, SO I'M -- >>KEN HAGAN: THE MOTION WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ITEM. COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I THINK SOME PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THE RURAL AREA, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. SOME PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN ENCOURAGING GROWTH IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. AND THEN, OF COURSE, SOME PEOPLE WANT TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE I-4 CORRIDOR. IF WE REDUCE THAT 80-ACRE THRESHOLD -- AND I THINK MS. LAMBOY SAID SHE HAD SOME COMPARATIVE STUDIES TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT; RIGHT? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: SO THE LOWER WE MAKE THAT ACREAGE REQUIREMENT, THE LESS LIKELY PEOPLE WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE TIER POTENTIALS, AND WE'RE DISCOURAGING GROWTH IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, IF I UNDERSTAND IT. I MEAN, MELISSA, LIKE IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA, THE THRESHOLD IS WHAT, VERY LOW? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: IT'S FIVE ACRES. >>ROSE FERLITA: THEN THE NEXT TIER WOULD BE? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE JOINT PLANNING AREAS IS 20 ACRES. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. I DON'T KNOW IF 80 ACRES IS THE MAGIC NUMBER, BUT I SURE AS HECK KNOW THAT 30 ACRES IS NOT THE RIGHT NUMBER, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT BECAUSE I'D RATHER ENCOURAGE THE PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE URBAN SERVICE AREA FIRST AND FOR HUGE PARCELS THAT PEOPLE HAVE ASSEMBLED, THEN PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT I THINK SUPPORTING WHAT THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR, I WOULD BE ENCOURAGING URBAN SPRAWL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND THIS BY NO MEANS -- IN DOING NOTHING AND DEFEATING THIS WILL ENCOURAGE URBAN SPRAWL BECAUSE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, MR. HIGGINBOTHAM -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I HAVE THE FLOOR. >>ROSE FERLITA: I KNOW, BUT YOU'RE DISPUTING WHAT I'M SAYING. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT ACCEPT YOUR MOTION, SO I'LL PUT THIS BACK ON AND THEN I'LL DISPUTE YOURS WHEN YOU GET OFF THE FLOOR, OKAY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: BY DOING NOTHING AND ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT AS PER THE ZONING THAT'S IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, WE'LL SEE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, WELL AND SEPTIC. WE WILL NOT HAVE -- IF WE FOLLOW THAT PROCESS, THERE WILL BE NO CONCURRENCY. THIS WILL ALLOW LONG-RANGE PLANNING TO AVOID THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I'VE MADE THIS MOTION. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN NOT SUPPORTING HIS MOTION AND DOING NOTHING. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN DOING NOTHING, BUT IN ORDER THAT PEOPLE COMPLY WITH THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR THOSE DIFFERENT AREAS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STILL ONLY 20 ACRES OF BUILDABLE UPLAND WITH A MINIMUM SIZE SITE OF 80 ACRES, SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EITHER WHAT MR. HIGGINBOTHAM IS SUPPORTING OR NOTHING AT ALL. I JUST THINK 30 ACRES IS TOO SMALL A NUMBER, AND THERE'S A GRAVE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THAN DOING NOTHING. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>ROSE FERLITA: [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: THE 80 ACRES, YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHEN YOU'RE OUT THERE COMPETING WITH OTHER AREAS AND YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, WE WANT YOU TO COME ALONG THIS CORRIDOR, AND WHOEVER THE -- YOU KNOW, THE CFO IS FOR THE COMPANY, YOU'RE SAYING TO THEM, OKAY, NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ACREAGE FAR BEYOND WHAT YOU WOULD NEED WHICH IS RATIONALE FOR YOUR COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND -- TO SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT. WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY IS, WELL, THEN WE'LL GO ELSEWHERE, AND THE TYPE OF COMPANIES WE ARE TRYING TO ATTRACT, WHICH REALLY ARE THE HIGH-TECH, HIGH-WAGE JOBS, WE -- THIS IS A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. I THINK YOU'RE PROVIDING SIGNIFICANT BUFFERING WITH THE 30. MY CONCERN, THOUGH, IS WITH THE TWO THAT WE SEEM TO BE STRIKING. I STILL THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME WAY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT -- RELATED URBAN SERVICES SUCH AS EMERGENCY SERVICES, PARKS, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE AND SHOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE FOR THAT, AND THE OTHER ISSUE, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY 100 JOB, WHICH I THINK WE ARBITRARILY ESTABLISHED, WHAT ECONOMIC BENEFITS -- I MEAN, TO BE ABLE TO SUGGEST MEASURABLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT -- THE POINT OF THIS PROJECT IS WE WANT COMPANIES TO COME HERE THAT ARE GOING TO PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT, SO THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MEASURABLE THAT WE CAN SAY YOU'VE GOT TO HIT THIS BAR. I GUESS I'M ASKING BRUCE -- BECAUSE STAFF'S ASKING TO STRIKE IT. WHAT WOULD WE PUT THERE? IF WE STRUCK THIS, WHAT CAN WE PUT, NOTHING? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: CAN I PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION ON THAT? THAT'S ONLY AN EXCEPTION, SO WITH REFERENCE -- THAT IS PROVIDING THE BOARD WITH AN EXCEPTION SO THAT, FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE'S A PARCEL THAT'S NOT A LOGICAL EXTENSION, THEN THE BOARD CAN SAY, ALL RIGHT, WELL, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED THAT YOU SHOW US THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE A GOOD EMPLOYMENT SOURCE, SO THAT ONLY APPLIES IN THE CASE IF THE BOARD WANTS TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION TO ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA. OTHERWISE THE MEASURABLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT DOES NOT APPLY. ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT FULL COST RECOVERY ONLY APPLIES IN THE GREEN TECH EXPANSION AREA. REGULAR RULES APPLY IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA. >>MARK SHARPE: SO WOULD OUR STAFF AND GENE -- OR BRUCE, WOULD WE HAVE PROBLEMS MAINTAINING THIS LANGUAGE WHICH HAS BEEN STRICKEN, WHICH CALLS FOR A MEASURABLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT? >>GENE GRAY: GENE GRAY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. COMMISSIONER, I HAVE NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER WITH PROVIDING QUANTIFIABLE, MEASURABLE BENEFIT WITH REGARD TO THE EXCEPTION THAT MS. LAMBOY MENTIONED. I THINK THAT'S A VERY REASONABLE PROVISION. THE PROBLEM IS WHAT'S STIPULATED HERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC MINIMUM OF A HUNDRED JOBS, MINIMUM RETENTION OF THOSE JOBS FOR FIVE YEARS, AND AS I POINTED OUT IN MY EARLIER PRESENTATION, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THE LANDOWNER OR DEVELOPER CANNOT MAKE, ONLY THE END USER CAN MAKE THAT. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I THINK MR. SHARPE HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I MEAN, SO -- >>HEATHER LAMBOY: AND JUST ONE CLARIFICATION. >>MARK SHARPE: HOW DO YOU GET THERE WITHOUT AT LEAST THE ONE HUNDRED JOBS? >>HEATHER LAMBOY: IT SAYS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. IF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CAN PROVE TO YOU THAT THIS IS A GOOD INVESTMENT FOR THE COUNTY, THAT CAN BE JUSTIFICATION. >>MARK SHARPE: SO YOU'LL NEED THE 100 JOBS. >>HEATHER LAMBOY: [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>MARK SHARPE: SO BRUCE, WHY DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM IF IT'S NOT LIMITED TO A HUNDRED JOBS? >>GENE GRAY: COMMISSIONER, IF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS OFFERED UP SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT SUCH AS MEASURABLE BENEFITS, SUCH AS THE NUMBERS OF JOBS THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE CREATED, SUCH AS THE AVERAGE WAGES RESULTING FROM THOSE JOBS, SUCH AS THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT BEING MADE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S PART OF THE MEASURABLE BENEFIT. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, THEN I WOULD OFFER THAT AMENDMENT THAT WE ADD "SUCH AS." THAT WE ADD "SUCH AS." RATHER THAN STRIKING IT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE "SUCH AS" SO THAT THERE IS AN EFFORT BEING MADE TO DEMONSTRATE ECONOMIC BENEFIT. >>GENE GRAY: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER. >>MARK SHARPE: ALL RIGHT. I'LL SUPPORT IT WITH THE "SUCH AS." >>HEATHER LAMBOY: AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: I'LL ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. >>MARK SHARPE: AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION. OKAY. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: AND MR. -- AND THIS IS WHERE I WILL START AND GO ONE BY ONE, AND THIS IS FINE, OUR PROCESS. ON THE 30 ACRES, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ON THE 30 AND THE 80 ACRES. I KNOW THAT -- IF I CAN ASK MR. SHARPE -- AND MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COME BACK UP HERE AS WELL. >>MARK SHARPE: I'M SATISFIED. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: WITH THE 30 ACRES? OKAY. IF WE HAVE TO INCREASE. SO WE'LL LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE AS IS WITH THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE "SUCH AS" IN G-4. I'LL ACCEPT THAT OR INCLUDE THAT IN MY MOTION, AND I GUESS YOU CAN CALL A VOTE. THERE ARE NO LIGHTS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM, SECOND COMMISSIONER NORMAN FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE 30 ACRES AND TO ADJUST THE HUNDRED JOBS REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS STATED BY OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. >>GENE GRAY: SUCH AS THE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT WOULD BE CREATED AS OPPOSED TO A SPECIFIC NUMBER. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT IT? DOES THAT INCLUDE -- JUST TO MAKE SURE WE SEND THE RIGHT LANGUAGE TO DCA, DOES THAT INCLUDE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT'S SUGGESTIONS ON 50.9, 53, AND THE DEFINITIONS ABOUT EMERGENCY SERVICES? >>KEN HAGAN: WELL, THAT'S NOT -- YOU'RE ACCEPTING PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT? THAT'S NOT -- >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: RIGHT. >>KEN HAGAN: YES. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'VE GOT IT RIGHT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>MARK SHARPE: I DON'T LIKE THAT. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION FAILED 3-3. COMMISSIONERS FERLITA, HAGAN, AND WHITE VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. IS THERE ANOTHER -- ANY OTHER MOTION WE WANT TO MAKE? IF NOT, NEXT ITEM. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PLAN AMENDMENT 10-12, THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. >>JOHN HEALEY: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. JOHN HEALEY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. I WILL BE DOING A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THE CHANGES TO THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. I WILL BE ADDRESSING THE ADOPTION PROCESS TO DATE, HOW WE GOT HERE, AND JUST THE CHANGES TO THE PLAN. YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD THE FULL PRESENTATION WHEN I WAS HERE THE LAST TIME. AGAIN, THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA SHOWN ON THIS MAP TO YOU ENCOMPASSES ABOUT APPROXIMATELY 25,000 ACRES, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT LAND USES, RESIDENTIAL AND MORE INTENSIVE USES. THIS WAS A SUBJECT OF A PLANNING PROCESS THAT HAD A LOT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT STRETCHING OVER APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE ROUND 1 AMENDMENTS, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING WAS ON MARCH 8th AND THE BOARD HEARD THE AMENDMENT ON APRIL 8th. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE GREATER BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AS TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THERE WAS ALSO INDIVIDUALS THAT REQUESTED TO OPT OUT OF THE BRANDON PLAN. SINCE THAT CONTINUANCE, STAFF HAS MET WITH THE GREATER BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ALSO WITH THE WORKING COMMITTEE OF THE -- FOR THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. STAFF HAS ALSO HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO REQUESTED TO OPT OUT OF THE PLAN. A SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, THERE'S ONLY FOUR TEXT CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, AND THEY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE CHAMBER AND OF PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE WITHIN THE BRANDON MAIN STREET AREA, WHICH IS IN - - WITHIN THE GREATER COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. THERE'S TWO CHANGES TO GOAL 6, TWO CHANGES TO GOAL 8. THERE ARE CHARACTER DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED BY THIS PLAN. THERE'S FIVE OF THEM RANGING FROM URBAN TO GARDEN ESTATES, AND THOSE ARE GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED IN THE PLAN BY THIS MAP, WHICH SHOWS THOSE CHARACTER DISTRICTS. AND THE FIRST CHANGE WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN WAS THAT THE DESCRIPTIONS CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PLAN WERE SEEN AS DESCRIPTIVE RATHER THAN REGULATORY. THAT WAS A LARGE CONCERN BY FOLKS. SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE'VE ADDED LANGUAGE TO THE GOAL THAT PROVIDES THAT THE DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS -- THIS IS OF 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 THE ZONING OF PROPERTY MAY PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE HAS BEEN INCLUDED TO ENSURE THAT THE STRATEGIES ARE SEEN AS DESCRIPTIVE AND NOT REGULATORY. THE SECOND CHANGE ALSO TO GOAL 6 WAS TO CLARIFY THAT THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE BRANDON MAIN STREET AREA REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE BRANDON MAIN STREET REGULATIONS AS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AS YOU KNOW, THE BRANDON STREET MAIN STREET REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED IN 2003, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DISTRICTS. WE HAVE ADDED THE PHRASE TO THE GOAL WHICH PROVIDES EXPLICITLY 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. THIS WAS A CONCERN BOTH BY THE GREATER BRANDON CHAMBER AND ALSO BY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE BRANDON MAIN STREET DISTRICT. THE THIRD CHANGE IS TO ELIMINATE LANGUAGE THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS PERCEIVED AS IMPLYING THAT THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER REVIEW AGENCY CREATED BY THE PLAN. THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE PLAN, AND IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE CLEAR ON THAT, WE HAVE REPLACED LANGUAGE THAT REFERRED TO IMPLEMENTATION AND OVERSIGHT WITH A SIMPLE PHRASE, FURTHERING THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH SOUTHSHORE ROUNDTABLE. THIS IS WHAT THE PLAN IS CONTEMPLATING, NOT A REGULATORY AGENCY THAT WOULD BE SET UP BY THE COUNTY OR HAVE CITIZENS PERFORMING THE ROLE OF REGULATORS. THE LAST CHANGE IS SIMPLY TO ADD THE COMMUNITY OF LITHIA AS ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT THE BRANDON COMMUNITY HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO EXCHANGE IDEAS WITH. OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS IN OCTOBER. THE EXACT DATE HASN'T BEEN HELD AT THAT TIME, BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO THE PLAN SINCE YOU FIRST SAW IT. IT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE BRANDON CHAMBER AND ALSO BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD PROPERTIES WITHIN THE BRANDON MAIN STREET. I BELIEVE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS SOME BRIEF COMMENTS TO MAKE TO YOU ALSO. >>PEDRO PARRA: PLANNING COMMISSION -- I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONERS, PEDRO PARRA WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDES A RESPONSE TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS RAISED BY THE BOARD ON APRIL 8th RELATED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THE OPTION TO LET INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES OPT OUT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY 12th AT THE TRANSMITTAL RECOMMENDATION PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PLAN AMENDMENT DID NOT SUPPORT ALLOWING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND ALSO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DIRECTOR, BOB HUNTER, AND PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT'S DIRECTOR, PETER ALUOTTO, HAVE SUBMITTED A JOINT LETTER OPPOSING OPTING OUT OF COMMUNITY PLANS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO YOU -- >>KEN HAGAN: I'M SORRY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BRANDON PLAN RIGHT NOW; RIGHT? >>PEDRO PARRA: OH, I'M -- I'M SORRY. RELATED TO THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AGAIN IS THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDS ITS APPROVAL TO YOU, AND THE COMMENTS RELATED TO OPTING OUT WERE FOR BOTH THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS JOY STAFFORD. I LIVE AT 410 EL GRECO DRIVE, BRANDON, FLORIDA. I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO THE COMMISSIONERS A LETTER THAT WAS SENT BY OUR HONORARY MAYOR RECENTLY ELECTED LISA RODRIGUEZ. DEAR COMMISSIONERS, I'M WRITING YOU CONCERNING THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN FOR THIS THURSDAY'S MEETING, AS I'M CURRENTLY OUT OF TOWN AND I'M UNABLE TO ATTEND. AFTER YEARS AND YEARS WAITING OUR TURN FOR A COMMUNITY PLAN, WE HAVE FINALLY ACCOMPLISHED THIS GOAL. OUR WORKING COMMITTEE EMBRACED PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE, AND ALONG WITH THE GUIDANCE OF YOUR PG&M DEPARTMENT WE SPENT TWO YEARS CREATING WHAT WE THINK IS A VERY VIABLE, CAREFULLY THOUGHT-OUT PLAN FOR THE BRANDON COMMUNITY. BECAUSE OF THE ALREADY OVERDEVELOPED UNPLANNED AREA OF BRANDON AND THE FACT THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ALWAYS USE BRANDON AS THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE, WE WERE COMMITTED TO CREATING A VISION THAT WOULD MAKE OUR COMMUNITY BETTER FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS. FOR THIS VERY REASON, WE SET UP, QUOTE, CHARACTER DISTRICTS TO BE LOCATED IN SPECIFIC AREAS FOR OPTIMAL COMMERCIAL GROWTH WHILE STILL PRESERVING OUR SUBURBAN AND RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. OUR PLAN DOES NOT IN ANY WAY TAKE AWAY AN INDIVIDUAL'S PROPERTY RIGHTS. THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF OUR COMMUNITY PLAN. INSTEAD, IT IS ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY TO MAKE A SENSE OF PLACE THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OF. THERE'S BEEN MUCH TALK ABOUT AN OPT-OUT PRIVILEGE FOR LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS BECAUSE THEY DON'T SEE THE VALUE OF COMMUNITY PLANS, ONLY ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT. THESE LANDOWNERS HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY, AS WE ALL DID, TO BECOME PART OF THIS WORKING COMMITTEE AND TO SHARE THIS PROCESS, BUT NONE OF THEM DID. TO BE HONEST, THEY'RE SO USED TO BUILDING ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ANYWHERE IN BRANDON THAT THEY DON'T WANT ANY KIND OF CHANGE TO GET IN THEIR WAY. THE OPT-OUT WILL SET A PRECEDENT ON MANY LEVELS. ONE, IT OPENS THE FLOODGATES FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW SUIT IN OTHER COMMUNITY PLANS, PERHAPS EVEN THOSE THAT ALREADY EXIST. TWO, OPT-OUTS WILL COST THE TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY. INSTEAD, LET THE DEVELOPERS AND THE LANDOWNERS FOLLOW THE COURSE FOR A VARIANCE IF NEEDED, WHICH IS ALREADY SET ASIDE IN THE LDC. THREE, IT WILL NOT STREAMLINE THE PROCESS, ONLY HINDER, WHICH WILL PLACE UNDUE BURDENS ON THE PG&M STAFF WHEN DEALING WITH THESE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. >>KEN HAGAN: 30 SECONDS. >> FOUR, IT WILL CREATE HOLES IN OUR COMMUNITY PLANS. FIVE, IT WILL SHOW CITIZENS THAT NO MATTER HOW LONG AND HOW HARD THEY TRY TO MAKE A GOOD COMMUNITY PLAN, ONCE AGAIN, WE GET SLAPPED IN THE FACE. THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE REAPS YOU SHOULD NOT ALLOW OPTING OUT IN OUR COUNTY'S COMMUNITY PLANS. I FOR ONE CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOU WILL SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, IT'S AN ISSUE OF PERSONAL GREED AND NOT CARING ABOUT ONE'S COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING. VIVIAN BACCA, 413 EL GRECO DRIVE IN BRANDON, A MEMBER OF THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN WORKING COMMITTEE WHO ATTENDED ALL THE MEETINGS AND SOME OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS. AND TONIGHT THERE'S JUST A COUPLE THINGS I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT, AND ONE IS THAT COMMUNITY PLANNING SAVES TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY ALLOWING RESIDENTS TO ESTABLISH A SENSE OF PLACE WITHOUT THE DUPLICATIVE COSTS OF INCORPORATING INTO A MUNICIPALITY. WE SOMETIMES FOCUS ON THE COST OF PLANNING THE PLAN, BUT WE FAIL TO RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE SAVING OUR CITIZENS BY STREAMLINING OUR SERVICES. SECOND, I WANTED TO MAKE A POINT OF THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH I DON'T SEE THEM HERE TONIGHT, THE GREATER BRANDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE THROUGH THE POSITION OF LAURA SIMPSON SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY THE 12th DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THEY SUPPORTED THE PLANNING -- THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN WITH THE MODIFICATIONS AS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I HAVE LETTERS THAT I CAN PASS OUT FOR YOU FOR THAT. THIRD, I WANTED TO REITERATE THE FACT THAT ON MARCH THE 8th, 2010, AT THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN I SUBMITTED SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF TRANSCRIPTS AND CAPTIONING FROM THE ZONING HEARING FOR DR. HENDERSON'S HELIPORT, MM08-1269, DEMONSTRATING THAT HE HAD DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS WAS UNDERWAY AS EARLY AS DECEMBER 16th, 2008, AND THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD KNOWLEDGE IN FEBRUARY WHEN HE CAME -- 2009 WHEN HE CAME BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD. I HOPE YOU WILL APPROVE OUR PLAN AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS RECOMMENDED WITHOUT OPT-OUTS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. PAM CLOUSTON, RLAND. I -- I THINK THAT THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN AS WRITTEN BY THE PLANNERS THAT HELPED THE CITIZENS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESS OUGHT TO GO FORWARD. I DO HAVE ONE MINOR LITTLE THING THAT I THINK I WANT TO ADDRESS, AND THAT IS IN ONE OF THE VERY END THINGS IT MENTIONS LITHIA. LITHIA WASN'T MENTIONED BEFORE. I'D LIKE YOU TO STRIKE LITHIA OUT OF THERE AGAIN. I LIVE IN LITHIA IN THE RURAL AREA, IF YOU HAVEN'T GUESSED THAT BY NOW. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL SUBURBAN COMMUNITY OUT IN LITHIA NOW. YOU KNOW, WE WERE A BLIP ON THE MAP. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT KNEW WHO WE WERE WAS THE PHOSPHATE TRUCKS THAT STOPPED AT TIM'S DOWN THE ROAD. WE HOPE SOME DAY TO MAYBE HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY PLAN. WE HAVE FISHHAWK IN THERE NOW, CIRCA FISHHAWK, OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE THERE, AND I THINK WORKING IN CONJUNCTION IN THE FUTURE WITH THEM IS WHEN WE IN LITHIA SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN A COMMUNITY PLAN, SO I'D ASK YOU TO DO THAT. ALSO, OPTING OUT, I THINK PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS, AND TO WALK IN AT THE LAST MINUTE WITH SOME BIG GUNS AND SAY WE WANT OUT, PERHAPS THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT AT THE VERY BEGINNING INSTEAD OF AT THE VERY END AND THROW THIS THING OFF RAILS COMPLETELY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. >> VIN MARCHETTI FOR THE RECORD, REPRESENTING DR. HENDERSON. MY CLIENT OWNS SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREAS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AS DESIGNATED -- THAT ARE DESIGNATED GARDEN ESTATES, AND THE GRAPHIC I PUT ON THE OVERHEAD SHOWS A DEPICTION OF THE GARDEN ESTATE AREA. THE SUBJECT AREA IS NORTH OF BLOOMINGDALE. YOU CAN SEE BROOKER ROAD THERE TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN DR. HENDERSON OWNS PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THAT SUBJECT AREA SITE AS WELL AS PROPERTY -- GLH PROPERTY IS HIS PROPERTY AT THE TRIANGULAR PIECE I'LL REFER TO IN A MINUTE. BOARD MEMBERS, I HAVE FOUR POINTS TO RAISE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE FIRST, THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS THAT THIS COUNTY HAS DOES NOT PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL MAILED NOTICE TO ANY AFFECTED LANDOWNER. THIS COMMUNITY PLAN DOES CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE. IT IS REGULATORY IN NATURE. IT DOES AFFECT PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT DIRECT NOTICE. PROVIDING NOTICE WHEN YOU PREPARE THE CODES TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN IS TOO LATE. THE COMP PLAN RULES UNDER STATE LAW. PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT BECOME AWARE OF THESE PLANS UNTIL THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THEIR PROPERTIES. MS. BACCA REFERENCED MY REFERRING TO THE -- OR KNOWING OF THE PLAN LAST FEBRUARY, WHICH IS TRUE. I WENT IN TO TRY TO REZONE DR. HENDERSON'S PROPERTY, FILED THE APPLICATION, BECAME AWARE OF THE PLAN. TWO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, WHICH I HANDED OUT TO YOU AND WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRESUMABLY RELIED UPON TO APPROVE THIS PLAN, HAS A FATAL FLAW IN IT. IT STATES ON PAGE 4 THAT YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS A PROCESS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO USE TO OPT OUT OF COMMUNITY PLANS. THAT IS SIMPLY WRONG. MS. HARVEY AND MR. ALUOTTO CAN ATTEST TO THAT FACT THIS EVENING. THERE IS NO PROCESS, AND THIS BOARD MUST MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER YOU SHOULD ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS TO OPT OUT OF REGULATORY PLANS TO WHICH THEY HAVE RECEIVED NO INDIVIDUAL NOTICE OR THEY MUST, IN FACT, SUBJECT THEIR PROPERTIES TO WHAT COULD BE REGULATORY TAKINGS. NUMBER THREE, THERE WAS AN INHERENT INCONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPOSED PLANNED GARDEN DISTRICT WITHIN THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED ON THE GRAPHIC BEFORE YOU THERE. THESE PROPERTIES ALL HAVE A RES-4 LAND USE CATEGORY. THE GARDEN DISTRICT TARGETS NO LESS THAN ONE-HALF-ACRE LOTS. THIS WILL RESULT IN DOWNPLANNING AND A REDUCTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT REQUIRE A MINIMUM 75% OF THE DENSITY ALLOWED IN THE LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO BE REZONED OR DEVELOPED TO. THIS MEANS A MINIMUM ONE-THIRD-ACRE LOTS IN THE RES-4 LAND USE CATEGORY ARE MANDATED, NOT THE HALF-ACRE LOTS THAT THE GARDEN DISTRICT REQUIRES. AT A MINIMUM, THIS BOARD SHOULD CHANGE THAT AREA TO THE CHARACTER. FINALLY, MR. HENDERSON OWNS THE 19-ACRE PARCEL ON THE EAST SIDE AS WE TALKED ABOUT ON LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD. THIS PROPERTY'S THE ONLY PROPERTY SOUTH OF BROOKER THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN. THIS IS A TARGETED PROPERTY IN MY OPINION. THIS PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE PLAN, NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE IT MEETS THREE LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AT EACH INTERSECTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF NONRESIDENTIAL. THE PLAN ALLOWS FOR GARDEN ESTATE ONLY. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: NEXT, PLEASE. >> REED FISCHBACH, 510 VONDERBURG DRIVE, SUITE 302, BRANDON FLORIDA 33501, AND I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF GLH ENTERPRISES. I'M THE ONE THAT VIN TOLD ABOUT THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN, AND I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PLAN SINCE THE SPRING OF 2009. NOW, IT'S BEEN KIND OF LIKE A MERRY-GO-ROUND. I'VE MET WITH A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE. THEY'VE BEEN NICE, THEY'VE BEEN COURTEOUS. I'VE BEEN REASSURED SEVERAL TIMES THAT YOU'RE ON THE EDGE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN ACTIVELY PURSUING A PD ZONING, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE COMMUNITY PLAN SINCE WE'RE ON THE EDGE AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. THIS -- I MADE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE LAST HEARING APRIL 8th WHEN THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS TO OPT OUT OF THESE COMMUNITY PLANS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NOTIFICATION. SINCE THEN, I DIDN'T JUST GO AWAY, I CONTINUED TO WORK WITH COUNTY STAFF. WE HAD THREE MEETINGS, SEVERAL PHONE CALLS TO GO OVER DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO TRY TO HELP MAKE THE COMMUNITY PLAN BETTER, AND -- BUT I WAS PERSISTENT WITH THEM. I WANTED TO -- I WOULD TALK ABOUT THE OTHER PROPERTIES OF PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO OPT OUT BUT FEEL THAT THE TRIANGLE PROPERTY AT BROOKER, LITHIA-PINECREST, AND VALRICO SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THIS PLAN. YOU KNOW, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT THERE ARE TWO MAPS ATTACHED TO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, AND THEN THE MAPS THAT DESCRIBES THE CHARACTER DISTRICTS IS DEFINING AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO BE FUTURE FOR REGULATION, AND I GUARANTEE YOU THE GARDEN ESTATES DISTRICT WILL HAVE THE MOST INTENSE REGULATIONS COMPARED TO THE OTHER AREAS IN THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN, EVEN THOUGH THE ENTIRE AREA IS IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA WITH THE LOWEST LAND USE DENSITY OF RES-4. AGAIN, I'VE BEEN AT THIS A LONG TIME BUT WOULD ASK THAT WE COULD PLEASE REMOVE THE GLH ENTERPRISES PROPERTY FROM THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? GOOD EVENING. >> GREG HENDERSON, 2901 BRUCKEN ROAD, VALRICO. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I AM A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. LIKE YOU, I HAVE A PASSION, INTEREST IN ECONOMIC HEALTH AND ENJOYMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY. I PURCHASED MY HOME IN VALRICO 28 YEARS AGO AND HAVE BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN OUR COMMUNITY. SEVERAL OF THE PRECEDING SPEAKERS THIS EVENING EXERCISED CONCERNS -- EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT URBAN SPRAWL. FOR THIS REASON, THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED WITH SPECIFIC MECHANISMS TO LIMIT URBAN SPRAWL BY TRYING TO OPTIMIZE INFILL OF EXISTING AREAS OF THE URBAN SERVICE AREA; TO WIT, AS MENTIONED BY MR. MARCHETTI, IF THE LIMITATION EXISTS ALREADY LIMITING DENSITY TO NO LESS THAN 75% OF EXISTING DENSITY LEVELS. THE CONCEPT PUT FORWARD BY BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN'S CREATION OF GARDEN DISTRICTS PROMOTES UNDERUTILIZATION OF SEWER AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE, THEREBY VIOLATING THE VERY TENETS OF THE CONCEPT OF OPTIMIZATION OF UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES. I AND MY REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY ASSURED THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS AS PROPERTY OWNERS TO OPT OUT OF THIS VERY ILL-CONCEIVED BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN. IF OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IGNORED, I WOULD AT THE VERY LEAST LIKE TO BE ASSURED THAT THE MAP BE REDESIGNED TO SUBSTITUTE SUBURBAN DISTRICT NORTH OF BLOOMINGDALE ROAD TO BROOKER ROAD. ADDITIONALLY, AS MR. MARCHETTI AND MR. FISCHBACH MENTIONED, I OWN 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF LITHIA-PINECREST ALREADY DISCUSSED BY BOTH MR. MARCHETTI AND MR. FISCHBACH. AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, MY PROPERTY HAS BEEN RANDOMLY SELECTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THEREBY LIMITING MY DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. I AM ASKING THAT THIS PROPERTY BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AS THIS REPRESENTS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF MY PROPERTY RIGHTS. I RESPECTFULLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THESE REQUESTS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THE BRANDON COMMUNITY PLAN? >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M SURE THAT BY NOW YOUR FIVE-HOUR ENERGY DRINK IS WORN OUT, SO I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. [LAUGHTER] MY NAME IS JUAN LING. I'M A RESIDENT OF 5206 MERION COURT IN VALRICO, AND WE HAVE A SMALL PROPERTY WHICH IS ON THE MAP DENOTED BY THE ARROW. AND LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE IN THE LAST MEETING, THAT I FEEL LIKE THIS PLAN WILL LIMIT MY ABILITY TO -- FOR THE BEST LAND USE OF MY PROPERTY IN THE NEAR FUTURE, SO WE WISH TO BE OPTED OUT OF THIS PLAN. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LEROY GONZALEZ. I LIVE AT 612 CHASTAIN ROAD IN SEFFNER. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS AS IMPORTANT AS THIS MEETING IS TONIGHT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED. ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO OPT OUT OF THIS SITUATION WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THIS MEETING. I ACCIDENTALLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, AND I THINK THAT'S TRULY WRONG. WE'VE GOT A LOT PENDING ON THIS THING. I OWN A LOT OF REAL ESTATE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND I THINK IT'S -- SHOULD -- THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD AT LEAST NOTIFY US THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING LIKE THIS. IT UPSET ME VERY MUCH THAT I FOUND OUT THROUGH SOMEBODY ELSE, AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU PEOPLE VOTE THIS THING DOWN TONIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. WELCOME. >> HI. I'M DALE FISCHBACH, 804 LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD, BRANDON, FLORIDA. I WAS HERE AT THE LAST MEETING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO OPT OUT, AS I PRESENTED MY PAPERWORK THEN. THERE ARE A COUPLE PRETTY GOOD REASONS. YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY THAT I OWN ON BLOOMINGDALE OR THE AREA THAT THEY WERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT FOR SUBURBAN I'VE OWNED FOR JUST ABOUT 30 YEARS NOW. I PLANNED THAT ORIGINALLY FOR A VETERINARY HOSPITAL, BUT THEN AS THINGS WOULD HAVE IT, MY HOSPITAL WHO -- WHICH WAS GOING TO BY WAY OF THE CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY ENDED UP BEING SAVED, SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO USE THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR THAT. BUT I WAS NOT NOTIFIED ORIGINALLY ABOUT THAT, AND ALSO, A CURIOUS THING. THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT THEY TALKED TO THAT OPTED OUT LAST TIME ON THE MEETING. HOW MANY PEOPLE DID THEY ACTUALLY CONTACT THAT WERE IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN BRANDON? I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING. I HAVEN'T FOUND ANYBODY ELSE THAT WAS NOTIFIED THAT -- ABOUT THEIR MEETINGS AND EVERYTHING TOO. I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STRUCK ME LAST TIME MR. NORMAN MENTIONED ABOUT UP ON DALE MABRY ABOUT, WELL, HAVE YOU-ALL TALKED TO THE BUSINESS PEOPLE ON DALE MABRY? AND THOSE PEOPLE HADN'T BEEN REALLY NOTIFIED EITHER. MOST BUSINESSMEN ARE WORKING. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY HAD THEIR MEETINGS. I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING. OKAY. ALSO, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE ON THIS PLANNING COMMITTEE THAT WERE UNDER 40 YEARS OLD? OKAY. NOW, THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT, BRANDON IS A YOUNG COMMUNITY. IT'S GROWING. WHEN I CAME HERE IN 1975 THERE WERE 45,000 HERE. NOW WHO KNOWS, CLOSE TO 300,000. BUT THE THING IS THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO GROW AND GO WITH THIS COMMUNITY, BUT IF THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO COME INTO THIS COMMUNITY, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME HERE. THEY MAY PUT UP WITH GOING UP AND DOWN LITHIA-PINECREST TWO LANE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO GET TIRED OF IT. AND BY THE WAY, ON LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD, WHEN I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY AT 804 LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD BACK IN 1975, THAT WAS AT THAT TIME ZONED TO BE A FOUR-LANE ROAD. THAT WAS 35 YEARS AGO, 35 YEARS AGO, SO ANYBODY THAT'S BUILT ALONG LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD AND WASN'T AWARE IT WAS GOING TO TURN INTO FOUR LANE, THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR HOMEWORK AND RESEARCH, SO ANYHOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS GLADYS WILL. I LIVE AT 1006 HUMMINGBIRD LANE. AS FOR NOTICE, THE REASON I KNEW THERE WAS A PLAN, THERE WERE SEVERAL LARGE SIGNS IN THE AREA THAT TALKED ABOUT MEETINGS BEFORE THEY STARTED THIS, AND THE REASON THIS LITTLE SQUARE IS THE WAY IT IS IS BECAUSE VALRICO'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PLAN. WE MET WITH A GROUP BETWEEN BRANDON AND VALRICO TO DRAW BOUNDARIES SO THAT WE COULD DO A BRANDON PLAN AND THEY WOULD DO A VALRICO PLAN. THEY HAVEN'T DONE THEIR PLAN YET, SO THERE'S NOBODY TARGETING ANYTHING, AND THIS WAS DONE SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHILE THEY STILL HAD THE ORANGE GROVE THAT DIDN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. SO IT WASN'T A TARGET, I CAN ASSURE YOU OF THAT. IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY ANY RIGHTS FROM THESE PEOPLE. THEY HAVE THAT. BUT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS AREA CAME OUT THERE WHEN WE HAD ZONING THAT WAS DIFFERENT, AGRICULTURAL ZONING, AND THE REASON I WENT OUT THERE IS BECAUSE I WANTED SOME SPACE. I LOVE TO DO GARDENING, AND I HAPPEN TO BE 72, SO I'M NOT A YOUNG PERSON, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED THERE FOR YEARS, WANT TO LIVE THERE, AND WE'RE CONCERNED WITH DEVELOPMENT. NOW, YOU-ALL CAME UP WITH A COMP PLAN. I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. AND APPARENTLY IT'S NOT REQUIRED THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE CHANGING OUR WHOLE AREA YOU TELL US ABOUT IT. SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. WE DID NOT TARGET ANYBODY'S AREA. IT'S JUST -- YOU GOTTA REMEMBER TOO, YOU CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE SEWER LINES OUT THERE IN MOST OF THOSE AREAS. IT'S GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS EXPENSE IF YOU CHANGE IT TOO MUCH. I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE REST OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED THERE FOR YEARS, CARES ABOUT IT, AND EVEN THE NEW PEOPLE THAT HAVE MOVED IN AND BUILT HOMES WANT TO MAIN -- BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE LARGER LOTS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. WILL. OKAY. THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK, PLEASE LINE UP NOW. THIS IS THE LAST TIME WE'RE GOING TO CALL. YES, MA'AM. >> PAM FLAHERTY, VALRICO, FLORIDA, LITHIA-PINECREST. I JUST -- I HEARD SOME THINGS FROM MR. -- DR. FISCHBACH, AND HE WAS SAYING THAT -- HE'S TALKING ABOUT LITHIA- PINECREST WIDENING, AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT LITHIA-PINECREST WIDENING, ALTHOUGH HE'S -- HIS SECTION IS NOT GOING TO BE TOUCHED, SECTION "A." YOU'RE GOING TO REMAIN TWO LANES, SO EMINENT DOMAIN WILL NOT TOUCH YOU, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT EMINENT DOMAIN -- >>KEN HAGAN: YOU NEED TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >> -- IS PART OF THIS WHOLE SITUATION. EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET THEIR LAND SO THEY CAN GET MORE MONEY FOR IT MAYBE. THIS IS -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I THINK IF YOU ALLOW OPTING OUT, IT WOULD -- MIGHT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVE NOW, AND I -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FUTURE, BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO PROTECT IT THE BEST I CAN. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT, I WOULD SUGGEST WE -- THE BOARD TAKE A POSITION ON THE WHOLE OPTING OUT ISSUE AND THEN OPEN IT UP FOR THE MOTION FOR THE AMENDMENT. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO -- I'M GOING TO BE VERY CONSISTENT. I BELIEVE IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE, AND I'LL MOVE THAT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE PAID TAXES ALL THESE YEARS AND HAVE INVESTED IN THESE PROPERTIES HAVE THE ABILITY -- THESE ARE NOT TAKINGS, THESE ARE FUTURE PLANS TO VISIONING PLANS, AND I BELIEVE IF A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT WISH TO BE A PART OF THAT -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: SECOND. >>JIM NORMAN: -- HAS A RIGHT TO COME IN AND WITHDRAW THEIR PROPERTY. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: THERE'S A SECOND ON THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIR, I THINK MR. NORMAN BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT; HOWEVER, THEN THERE GOES THE BASIS FOR COMMUNITY PLANS. WE MIGHT AS WELL NOT HAVE THEM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A SITUATION OR A HARDSHIP ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, IF I'M CORRECT, MELISSA, THAT UNLESS THERE'S A CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OR A CHANGE TO THE LAND USE OR THE ZONING, THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER NOTICES; IS THAT RIGHT? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO IT'S NOT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY NOTICED. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO THERE'S THE DILEMMA. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: I -- THE THING -- TO ME, THE BASIS OF A COMMUNITY PLAN IS THE COMMUNITY BUY-IN, AND IF WE BEGIN TO MAKE -- YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN HAS BEEN HOW THIS WAS -- HOW THIS WAS DONE FROM THE BEGINNING. APPARENTLY A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS -- AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE WORKING, YOU KNOW. I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S A SIGN, I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY TO DO EVERYTHING -- OUR UTMOST TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE PROCESS AND LET THEM ENGAGE. OFTENTIMES WE ALMOST DON'T WANT CERTAIN PEOPLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED AND MORE CHALLENGING, WE JUST TRY TO RUSH IT THROUGH, AND THEN THEY FIND OUT ABOUT IT LATER, AND WHILE THAT MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MAKE THE PLAN WORK BECAUSE IF WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW UNWILLING ACCOMPLICES TO A COMMUNITY PLAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL THEY'RE GOING TO PARTICIPATE. I BELIEVE IN THE BASIS OF A COMMUNITY PLAN. I WANT PEOPLE PARTICIPATING AND MAKING, YOU KNOW, SACRIFICES BUT TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER AND FIND SOME FORM OF ACCOMMODATION. NOW, I THOUGHT WE HAD REACHED THAT ON THIS BRANDON PLAN. I THINK THAT THE PROPERTY -- THAT LITTLE -- THAT SLIVER TO THE EAST ON -- CAN WE PUT THE MAP BACK UP. WHO HAD THE MAP BECAUSE IT -- IT DOESN'T -- THERE WE GO. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXCLUDING THE GLH PROPERTY; CORRECT? IS THAT -- FROM THIS -- FROM THIS PLAN, WHICH TO ME MAKES SENSE. IT'S ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD, AND THEN THERE ARE -- HOW MANY OTHER PROPERTIES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THAT WANT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PLAN? THERE WAS A GENTLEMAN, MR. FISCHBACH. WE'VE GOT THREE INDIVIDUALS. IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? PLEASE. >> YOU HAD OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AT THE FIRST HEARING WHO DID REQUEST IN WRITING TO ASK TO OPT OUT, BUT SOME OF THEM AREN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT TONIGHT. I MEAN, I HAVE THAT LIST HERE. IT'S ABOUT -- I THINK IT'S -- IT'S OVER 20 PROPERTIES. >>KEN HAGAN: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IF THEY REQUESTED IT AND WE GO IN THAT DIRECTION, THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED. THE MOTION WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW IS NOT -- DOES NOT RELATE TO BRANDON OR SEFFNER, IT'S JUST ESTABLISHING -- >>MARK SHARPE: JUST A BASIS OF [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] >>KEN HAGAN: -- A POLICY ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW OPT-OUTS. ONCE WE DETERMINE THAT, THEN WE CAN GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL PLAN. >>MARK SHARPE: LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THE PROCESS ITSELF -- I MEAN, WHEN PEOPLE ARE FINDING OUT ABOUT IT AND ARE GOING IN FOR ANOTHER REASON AND THEY'RE FINDING OUT THAT THIS IS ONGOING, WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE -- CITIZENS WANT TO, YOU KNOW, ADMIT IT OR NOT OR AGREE TO IT OR NOT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE STATING THAT WAS THE CASE. IF WE ALLOW FOR THE OPT-OUT, DOES THAT MEAN WE'VE ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE? >>JIM NORMAN: YES. >>PETER ALUOTTO: [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: I'VE HEARD YES FROM EVERYONE ELSE. I JUST WANT TO -- >>JIM NORMAN: MY MOTION IS THAT IF A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS PROPERTY, PAYS TAXES ON THAT PROPERTY AND THEY BEFORE A PLAN IS PASSED ASK THAT THEIR PROPERTY BE WITHDRAWN, THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT BECAUSE THEY PAY PROPERTY TAXES ON THAT PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE -- LIKE THAT GENTLEMEN OWNED IT FOR 35 YEARS. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN A VISIONING PLAN. >>MARK SHARPE: AND WHAT INCENTIVES WILL WE HAVE FOR TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE VISIONING PLAN? >>JIM NORMAN: CONVINCE THEM THAT IT'S THEIR PROPERTY, CONVINCE THEM THAT -- >>MARK SHARPE: IT'LL BE A BENEFIT. >>JIM NORMAN: -- THAT IT IS A BENEFIT, CONVINCE THEM THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY -- >>MARK SHARPE: BECAUSE THAT'S THE PURPOSE. >>JIM NORMAN: RIGHT. AND THEY SHOULD BE CONVINCED THAT -- AND THAT'S WHAT HISTORICALLY HAS HAPPENED IN MANY, MANY CASES. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: I -- YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE THIS IF THERE WERE NO OTHER PEOPLE ASKING TO BE -- TO OPT OUT, AND I KNOW THAT DR. HENDERSON'S PROPERTY'S JUST A SLIVER ON THE SIDE. I REALLY WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT; HOWEVER, WHEN YOU'RE OPENING THE FLOODGATES, THE PEOPLE THAT THIS YOUNG MAN SAID WERE HERE LAST TIME, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT. NOW, SUPPOSE PEOPLE WEREN'T HERE LAST TIME AND THEY'RE NOT HERE THIS TIME. WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TOO. YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST STARTED DOING MY -- AND I DISAGREE ABOUT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS THING. THERE'S NO CHANGE IN LAND USE OR ZONING. WHEN I FIRST CAME ONBOARD HERE, ONE OF THE FIRST DOCUMENTS I LOOKED AT WAS WHAT THE COMMUNITY PLANS DID FOR WHAT PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF OUR COUNTY WANTED, SO IF WE SAY THIS IS WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS BUT THEN THE OTHERS WANT TO OPT OUT, I GUESS I'VE HEARD THE DESCRIPTION OF SWISS CHEESE, AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS, THEN THAT IS FOR NAUGHT. THEN YOU SHOULD VOTE ALSO TO GET RID OF COMMUNITY PLANS. THAT'S -- YOU CAN'T SATISFY EVERYBODY. I MEAN, I THINK DR. HENDERSON HAS A GOOD POINT, BUT IF I GO WITH THAT SLIVER, OKAY, AND SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS AREA WANTS IT, SO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT, SO DOES THE NEXT ONE, SO DOES THE NEXT ONE, SO DOES THE NEXT ONE, AND IT'S A RIPPLE EFFECT. WHAT ARE WE DOING? >>MARK SHARPE: CAN I JUST JUMP AHEAD? I HAVE A QUESTION. WE HAVE AN ISSUE NOW WHICH I THINK IS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE. A PLANNING PROCESS WHERE MANY PEOPLE APPARENTLY WEREN'T AWARE OR DIDN'T PARTICIPATE AND ARE NOW SAYING BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF IT, SO WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO FIX. THEN WE HAVE A FUTURE PROBLEM WHICH IS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AS WE CONTINUE TO DO COMMUNITY PLANS -- AND I WOULD ASK THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING TO OPT OUT NOW, ARE YOU STATING THAT IN THE FUTURE YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN A COMMUNITY PLAN? THEN, CAN YOU SPEAK -- MR. MARCHETTI, CAN YOU SPEAK FOR LANDOWNERS WHO MIGHT NOW -- ARE WE NOW ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT WHEREBY IN THE FUTURE LANDOWNERS ARE GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOR ME NOT TO PARTICIPATE BECAUSE WE VERY WELL COULD BE MARKING THE ENDS OF COMMUNITY PLANS. >> VIN MARCHETTI I CAN'T ANSWER FOR ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU I THINK THE CORE ISSUE IS THE LACK OF NOTICE. I THINK IF YOU'D NOTICE PROPERTY OWNERS INDIVIDUALLY, YOU THEN HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE SENT YOU THE NOTICE, YOU RECEIVED THE NOTICE, YOU DECIDED NOT TO PARTICIPATE. THAT'S THE CORE ISSUE, I THINK. SO I CAN'T RESPOND TO WHO WOULD PARTICIPATE, BUT I'LL TELL YOU DR. HENDERSON SURE WOULD. I MEAN, HE TRIED TO PARTICIPATE. HE SAW THE PLAN AND SAID, FOR MY PROPERTIES THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK, AND HE TRIED TO GET OUT OF IT FOR A YEAR AND A QUARTER, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE LACK OF NOTICE IS REALLY THE CORE ISSUE HERE -- >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. >> -- AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>JIM NORMAN: WELL, JUST BRIEFLY FOR ME, IT'S INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO ME. THIS IS -- THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, THIS IS A RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY, THIS IS A RIGHT -- I MEAN, THERE'S CERTAIN AMERICAN RIGHTS THAT -- THAT YOU'VE GOT, AND TO HAVE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAVE A TAKING LIKE THIS, THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS A PLANNING DOCUMENT, AND WE ARE TAKING IT MUCH FURTHER THAN A PLANNING DOCUMENT TO ME. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME THAT WAS DOWN ON THE LITTLE MANATEE OR SOMETHING DOWN THERE. HE WANTED OUT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THE COMMUNITY WANTED HIM IN SO BAD, THEY WORKED WITH HIM AND THEY WERE -- THEY WERE BASICALLY BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO WORK WITH HIM BECAUSE THEY WANTED HIM IN THE PLAN, AND THAT'S -- >>MARK SHARPE: DID HE STAY IN? >>JIM NORMAN: YES. >>MARK SHARPE: SEE, THAT'S THE POINT. IT SEEMS TO ME -- >>JIM NORMAN: NOW SWING THAT PENDULUM THE OTHER WAY. THEY CAN'T OPT OUT, FLIP THEM. >>MARK SHARPE: EXACTLY. I AGREE. >>JIM NORMAN: AND YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE IT FURTHER AND FURTHER AND FURTHER TILL A PROPERTY OWNER WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS AT ALL, AND THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG ABOUT THIS PROCESS. >>MARK SHARPE: SO HOW DO WE CREATE -- >> [INAUDIBLE] >>MARK SHARPE: THE PUBLIC'S HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK. HOW DO WE HAVE THEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR -- BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED. THIS IS -- EVERYTHING WE DO IS BASED UPON NOT GOVERNMENT FORCING PEOPLE BUT THE CITIZENS WANTING TO PARTICIPATE, AND EVERY ISSUE WE'VE DEALT WITH IT SEEMS LIKE WE ALWAYS GET TO THIS POINT WHERE WE GET THESE CAMPS AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO -- YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO RAM SOMETHING THROUGH, AND I AGREE IN ONE SENSE THAT IF THE CITIZENS DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS AND WE TRY TO FORCE IT, IT WON'T WORK, BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS BREAK THE PROCESS FOR THE FUTURE. I RECOGNIZE THAT I THINK THE SYSTEM WAS FLAWED, AND THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS SYSTEM WAS FLAWED, AND IF -- AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO CHALLENGE THAT, JUST LOOK AT THE TIMELINE BECAUSE THE TIMELINE'S VERY CLEAR. I MEAN, THAT TIMELINE LAYS IT OUT, THE PROBLEMS THAT OCCURRED, AND PUSHING THEM BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING AND GROWTH, AND IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT. I'M NOT -- I'M JUST SAYING WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS -- IN GOVERNMENT TO -- THEY'RE OUR CUSTOMERS -- TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SERVE THEM AND THAT THE PROCESS SERVES THEM AND THAT THERE'S NOT AN ARROGANT DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE OF WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST KNOWN ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I AGREE WITH MR. NORMAN, BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS IN THE FUTURE, I WANT TO FIND A WAY WE CAN ENCOURAGE THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS AND NOT CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY JUST SIMPLY SAY, WELL, THE HECK WITH IT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU KNOW, MR. SHARPE, I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE GOING, AND I BY NO MEANS SUPPORT A DISMISSIVE ATTITUDE, BUT EVER SINCE I GOT HERE, THAT HAS BEEN THE BIBLE, THAT HAS BEEN THE THING WE GO BY, THE COMMUNITY PLAN. NOW, THE RULES AS THEY ARE NOW ARE WHAT THEY ARE. THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T GET NOTICED UNLESS THERE'S A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT CHANGE, LAND USE ZONING CHANGE, SO THOSE ARE THE RULES WE'RE WORKING UNDER NOW. IN SOME CASES PERHAPS I THINK IT'S NOT FAIR, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE CAN'T CHANGE MIDSTREAM. WE'VE HAD THIS SAME ISSUE WHEN WE'VE DISCUSSED OTHER DISTRICTS, OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTY, AND WE'VE -- WE'VE NOT -- WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE WERE OBLIGATED. WHETHER WE LIKED IT OR NOT, WHETHER WE PERSONALLY THOUGHT IT WAS FAIR OR NOT, WE HAD TO ABIDE BY THE RULES OR, GUESS WHAT, CHANGE THE RULES. NOW, IF WE'RE CHANGING IT NOW BECAUSE SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANT -- SOMEBODY DOES WANT TO OPT OUT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE IN OTHER AREAS WHERE PEOPLE WANTED TO OPT OUT, SO SUPPOSE THEY COME BACK AND THEY SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, YOU CHANGED MIDSTREAM AND SOMEBODY THERE DIDN'T WANT IT AND I DIDN'T WANT IT EITHER BUT I GOT STUCK WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN THAT -- THAT IS ALIVE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, SO WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE THE RULES AND THEN APPLY BY -- ABIDE BY THEM. IF WE THINK THIS IS DISMISSIVE, AND I THINK IN SOME CASES IT COULD BE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE PERCEIVING THAT WE'RE TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO. NO, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS RESPECTING THE WISHES OF THAT COMMUNITY AND MAJORITY THAT WANT COMMUNITY PLANS TO KNOW HOW TO STRUCTURE THE GROWTH IN THAT AREA. YOU GOTTA FIX THE PROBLEM AND THEN FOLLOW THE NEW RULES. YOU CAN'T MAKE NEW RULES WHEN YOU'RE STILL WORKING UNDER THE OLD RULES. IT'S A TOUGH THING, BUT IT'S THE FAIR THING. >>KEN HAGAN: WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M ALL FOR IMPROVING THE PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S WITH RESPECT TO NOTIFICATION OR TO TRY -- OR TO TRY AND GET BUY-IN FROM THE COMMUNITY, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE PLACE TONIGHT, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IT'S A PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE AND I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. NO FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. NOW CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CPA 10-12 THAT WOULD INCLUDE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE REQUESTED TO OPT OUT. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>JIM NORMAN: WITH THE OPT-OUT PROVISION. >>KEN HAGAN: YES. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. LAST ITEM. >>JOHN HEALEY: JOHN HEALEY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. I WILL HAVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN AND THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE CONTINUANCE. I WILL ALSO SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE BOARD'S DECISION NOT TO TRANSMIT THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN THAT WOULD HAVE ON THE PRESENT PLAN. I'LL TALK ABOUT THE ADOPTION PROCESS QUICKLY AND THEN THE CHANGES TO THE PLAN. AGAIN, A QUITE EXTENSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS. AS YOU KNOW, IT WAS CONTINUED, AND WE ARE HERE PRESENTLY AT ROUND 2 OF THE AMENDMENTS. THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN AREA INCLUDES BOTH THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND THE RURAL SERVICE AREA, AND IT INCLUDES AN AREA BETWEEN I-4 AND U.S. 92 THAT WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR. LAND USES, AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT, ARE FAIRLY SUBURBAN IN THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND RURAL IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. SINCE THE CONTINUANCE, STAFF HAS MET WITH THE SEFFNER-MANGO WORKING COMMITTEE, AND WE'VE ALSO HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO REQUESTED TO OPT OUT OF THE PLAN AND EXTENSIVE TALKS WITH OR E-MAILS WITH WORKING COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WE'VE ONLY PROPOSED TWO CHANGES AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND THOSE ARE THE CHANGES THAT I READ INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 8th. THE FIRST CHANGE IS TO REFLECT THE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS WOULD BE 35 FEET. THE SECOND CHANGE, WHICH NOW MAY BE MOOT, IS TO REMOVE THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO DO A STANDARD DISTRICT IN THE I-4 GREEN TECH CORRIDOR AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THAT AREA IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE RED HATCH THERE. THAT AREA WAS ALSO WITHIN THE I-4 CORRIDOR STUDY OVERLAY, AND IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PLAN TO HAVE A COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE SEFFNER-MANGO PLAN AND THE I-4 CORRIDOR PLAN. AS YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE DECISION THIS EVENING, THERE IS NO LONGER AN I-4 CORRIDOR STUDY. SO IF I MAY, I'M GOING TO TURN TO A PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION THAT WILL IDENTIFY FOR YOU GOAL 6. THERE'S A NUMBER OF STRATEGIES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH GOAL 6, AND ONE OF THEM, IF YOU SEE -- LOOK AT THE THIRD BULLET POINT PROVIDES THAT SHOULD THIS AREA NOT BE ADOPTED, THE I-4 CORRIDOR NOT BE ADOPTED, THEN THE ENTIRE GOAL WOULD NO LONGER BE APPLICABLE. AND SO WITH THE ACTION THE BOARD TOOK EARLIER THIS EVENING, THIS GOAL WILL BE BY ITS OWN WRITING REMOVED FROM THE PLAN. WE WOULD RECOMMEND, HOWEVER, THAT THE FIRST BULLET POINT WHICH REFERENCES RETAIL COMMERCIAL ALONG U.S. 92 OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AS DESIRING TO BE RESTRICTED TO COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE EXISTING PRESENTLY BE MOVED UNDER GOAL 3 WITHIN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, SO THE CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE ARE THE TWO THAT I READ INTO THE RECORD, THE CHANGE TO ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATE GOAL 6 BY ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS TO DO SO, AND THEN REMOVING THE FIRST BULLET POINT UNDER GOAL 6 TO GOAL 3. >>KEN HAGAN: IS THAT IT? >>JOHN HEALEY: THAT'S IT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. >>PEDRO PARRA: PEDRO PARRA, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. RELATED TO THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO FIND THIS AMENDMENT WITH THE CHANGES SINCE THE FIRST CYCLE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES AND RECOMMENDS ITS APPROVAL. IT ALSO DID PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RESPONSE TO THE OPT-OUT AS WELL. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD EVENING. >> LEROY GONZALEZ, 612 CHASTAIN ROAD, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. I OWN APPROXIMATELY 20 PROPERTIES IN THE SEFFNER AREA, ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS. AFTER HEARING WHAT EVERYBODY SAID JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, IT'S FINE TO HAVE A COMMUNITY DEAL LIKE THIS, BUT WE WERE NEVER -- ABSOLUTELY NEVER NOTIFIED THEY WERE EVEN PUTTING THIS THING TOGETHER, AND AS A PROPERTY OWNER, AS MUCH PROPERTY AS WE OWN AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE I KNOW OWN, THEY WEREN'T NOTIFIED EITHER. WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS HEARING. I'D LOVE TO HAVE ATTENDED SOME OF THE MEETINGS THEY HAD IF WE'D HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT. THEY NEVER NOTIFIED ANYBODY THAT I KNOW OF, AND I THINK THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG THAT THEY'RE -- WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. I MEAN, YOU GUYS WERE ELECTED TO OVERSEE OUR PROPERTIES. YOU'RE THE PROFESSIONALS. THAT'S WHO SHOULD BE DOING IT AND NOT SOMEBODY ELSE, A COMMUNITY PLAN. A COMMUNITY PLAN WOULD BE FINE IF EVERYBODY WAS NOTIFIED THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A COMMUNITY PLAN AND LET EVERYBODY PARTICIPATE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE, AND EVEN TONIGHT THEY SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO BE NOTIFIED, BUT AS MUCH TAX AS I PAY IN THIS COUNTY, I THINK WE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO OUR PROPERTY AND TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO TO IT AND WHAT WE CAN'T DO TO IT, AND I'D APPRECIATE BEING OPTED OUTS OF THE SEFFNER PLAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING. KAMI CORBETT FOR THE RECORD, 100 NORTH TAMPA STREET, SUITE 2700. OUR PROPERTY, THE MAURY CARTER PROPERTY THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE OPT-OUT MAP, WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR DESIRE TO BE OPTED OUT OF THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN. WE ATTEND -- WE DID ATTEND ALL OF THE MEETINGS FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AND TRIED TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY, AND GOAL 6 WAS THE PRODUCT OF OUR EFFORT TO COMPROMISE AND STAY IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT WERE HERE TONIGHT OPPOSING I-4, THAT THEY DON'T -- EVEN THOUGH THEY NEGOTIATED THE GOAL, THEY DON'T SUPPORT THOSE USES IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT WAS AN ALL-OR- NOTHING DEAL, GOAL 6 OR I-4. IF I-4 PASSES, WE'LL HAVE GOAL 6. IF I-4 DOESN'T PASS, YOU HAVE NO USES ON YOUR PROPERTY OTHER THAN WHAT EXISTS TODAY, SO WE'D LIKE TO OPT OUT. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING. ONCE AGAIN, KRISTEN TOLBERT, BRICKLEMYER, SMOLKER & BOLVES, 500 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD. I REPRESENT SUN TAMPA EAST, LLC. THEY OWN APPROXIMATELY 56 ACRES ALONG McINTOSH AND U.S. 92. THEY WERE SHOWN ON THE OPT-OUT MAP AS WELL. SUN TAMPA HAS ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLANS AND WAS ALSO INSTRUMENTAL IN NEGOTIATING GOAL 6; HOWEVER, OF COURSE, THE I-4 PLAN IS NOT GOING FORWARD, AND GOAL 6 WOULD BE REMOVED, SO AT THIS POINT WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. >> ELIZABETH BELCHER, SEFFNER -- SEFFNER, FLORIDA. ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO MAKE A NOTE OF RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONER NORMAN STATED THAT IF A PERSON WAS -- A LANDOWNER HAD OWNED LAND AND PAID PROPERTY TAXES, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT. WELL, ONE OF THE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED IN THE NOTCH AREA HAS NOT PAID THEIR PROPERTY TAXES, SO UNDER THAT CRITERIA, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF OPTING OUT. ANOTHER THING IS THAT I LEARNED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY PLANS THE SAME WAY EVERYBODY ELSE DID, THROUGH THE SIGNS. THAT'S THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS IS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO DO. THEN -- WHEN I PURCHASED MY HOME, I KNEW IT WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. I DIDN'T BUY MY HOME AND THEN IMMEDIATELY START SCREAMING ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEMANDING THAT MY PROPERTY BE REZONED COMMERCIAL. I LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND REALIZE THAT MY PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NOT UNLIMITED. SO WHY DOES ONE INVESTOR WHO DOES NOT EVEN LIVE IN THIS COUNTY BELIEVE THAT THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS EXCEED ALL OF US THAT ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE COUNTY AND VOTE? WHAT ABOUT MY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND EVERYONE ELSE'S? THIS ONE PROPERTY OWNER RETAINED AN ATTORNEY TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS. THE ATTORNEY ATTENDED MANY OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN MEETINGS. THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY KOWTOWED TO ONE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY HAD VOTED, THE PROPERTY RIGHTS -- OWNER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS WOULD HAVE STAYED RESIDENTIAL. HE WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED EXTRA BENEFITS OF THE POSSIBILITY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. INSTEAD, THE ENTIRE WORKING COMMITTEE NEGOTIATED WITH THIS ONE PROPERTY OWNER TO ARRIVE AT A COMPROMISE, ITEM 6. NOTHING NEGATIVE WAS SAID UNTIL THE LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT WHEN THE OWNER'S ATTORNEY DEMANDED AN OPT-OUT. THEN THE FLOODGATES OPENED, AND OTHERS WANT TO OPT OUT OR HAVE THEIR PROPERTY CARVED OUT OF THIS PLAN. THIS PLAN WAS WORKED ON FOR TWO YEARS, AND ANYONE WHO WANTED TO COME TO THE PUBLIC MEETINGS WAS ALLOWED IN AND ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR SAY. THEIR CONCERNS WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN WAS THE RESULT. DO I LIKE IT? NOT ALL OF IT. WILL I LIVE WITH IT? YES. SO I ASK YOU, THE BOARD, TO VOTE FOR THE SEFFNER-MANGO PLAN AS IT IS. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. NEXT, PLEASE. ANYONE ELSE? >> HELLO. I'M MICHELLE O'CONNOR. I LIVE AT 4606 CASTLEWOOD ROAD. I'D JUST LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT I WOULD LIKE TO STAY IN THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN. WE ARE IN THE SMALL NOTCH AREA RIGHT OFF OF McINTOSH ROAD AND I-4 AND HIGHWAY 92, SO I JUST WANT IT STATED THAT I'M STAYING IN THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN, AS IT IS MY RIGHT. I AM A TAXPAYER. [LAUGHTER] >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. WELL STATED. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS. GEORGE NIEMANN, UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK, DOVER, FLORIDA. IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER NORMAN MENTIONED IF -- YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A PERSON THAT OWNS PROPERTY AND PAYS THEIR TAXES, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO OPT OUT, AND I THINK YOU FOLKS HAVE VOTED ON THAT MOTION, SO IF -- SINCE - - IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING WHAT -- WHAT HE MOTIONED, I ASSUME THAT BEFORE WE ALLOW ANYONE TO OPT OUT TONIGHT ON ANY OF THESE PLANS, WE WILL HAVE MADE CERTAIN THAT THESE -- THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT IN ARREARS FOR THEIR TAXES, SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONFIRM THAT FOR ME, THAT BEFORE YOU ALLOW ANYONE TO OPT OUT, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ASKING FOR IT TONIGHT, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND OUT BEFORE YOU DO THAT THAT THEY'RE NOT IN ARREARS BECAUSE FOR ALL WE KNOW, ALL OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS MAY OWE THEIR TAXES, AND THEN BY -- BY THE PERSON THAT MADE THE MOTION, COMMISSIONER NORMAN, THEY WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE TO OPT OUT. SO I -- I'D APPRECIATE AN ANSWER ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. >> HI. DENISE VERRILL, 3110 CLOVEWOOD PLACE IN SEFFNER, AND I SUPPORT THE -- AND ASK THE COMMISSIONERS TO SUPPORT THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN AS IT IS WRITTEN, AND I WAS AWARE OF -- THAT -- OF THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND WAS ABLE TO FIND ALL THE INFORMATION THAT I NEEDED, AND I ASK YOU TO NOT LET THE INTEREST OF A FEW AFFECT THE -- OUR -- THE COHESIVENESS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND SUPPORT THE SEFFNER-MANGO PLAN WITHOUT OPT-OUTS. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. NEXT, PLEASE. >> MY NAME'S GRACE McCOMAS. I LIVE AT 805 OLD DARBY STREET IN SEFFNER, AND I SUPPORT THE COMMUNITY PLAN AS IT'S WRITTEN WITHOUT THE OPT-OUTS AND WITHOUT ANY CHANGES IN OUR BOUNDARIES. I KNOW PROBABLY THE NEXT THING THAT'S GOING TO COME UP IS TAKE THE WHOLE AREA UP THERE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREEN TECH CORRIDOR -- TAKE THE WHOLE THING OUT OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN, BUT WE HAVE A PETITION FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA, AND THEY'VE -- MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY OF THEM HAVE SIGNED -- AND I'VE ALREADY HANDED THIS IN AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, I'LL DO IT AGAIN -- WHO WANT THE AREA TO STAY IN THE SEFFNER-MANGO COMMUNITY PLAN, SO I'M GOING TO HAND THAT IN. ALSO ONE OF THE CRITERIAS OF THIS OPT-OUT THING IS BEING -- NOT KNOWING ABOUT THE MEETINGS. WELL, THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT WANT TO OPT OUT NORTH OF I- 4 -- NORTH OF HIGHWAY 92, SOUTH OF I-4 HAVE ALL BEEN PRESENT AT ONE MEETING OR ANOTHER AND ONE PROPERTY AT MANY, MANY MEETINGS OVER A YEAR, SO THEY WERE WELL AWARE, THEY WERE NOTIFIED. BY WHOEVER, I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE MR. MARCHETTI CALLED THEM ALL. BUT THEY KNEW ABOUT IT AND THEY ATTENDED MEETINGS, SO BY THAT CRITERIA, NOT BEING NOTIFIED, THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO MOVE OUT -- TO GO OUT. AS IT'S ALREADY BEEN STATED, THE ONE PROPERTY HASN'T PAID HIS TAXES SINCE HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN THE THREE YEARS THAT HE'S OWNED IT. WELL, COMMISSIONER SHARPE SAID -- COMMISSIONER NORMAN SAID IF THEY'VE OWNED THAT PROPERTY FOR 35 YEARS, THEY SHOULD HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. WELL, I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES OR AT LEAST THE TWO -- THE CARTER PROPERTY AND HAWTHORNE PROPERTY HAVE OWNED THEM FOR 35 YEARS. SO BY THAT CRITERIA AND THE PRESENCE THAT THEY HAD IN OUR MEETINGS, THOSE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO OPT OUT. THAT'S YOUR CRITERIA YOU MADE TONIGHT. JUST APPROVE THE COMMUNITY PLAN AS WE'VE WRITTEN IT, DENY THE OPT-OUTS, AND DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES IN OUR BOUNDARIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. >>JIM NORMAN: COMMISSIONER HAGAN, I THINK I NEED TO EXPLAIN. I SAID IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAD OWNED A PROPERTY FOR 35 YEARS, SO THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE I WAS USING, SO THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: YES, SIR. THANK YOU, GRACE. NEXT, PLEASE. >> YES. I'M HERBERT BELCHER, 617 PENN NATIONAL ROAD, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. I'D LIKE TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THE OPT-OUT. IS THE OPT-OUT NOW APPLICABLE RETROACTIVELY FOR ALL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LOCAL AREA COMMUNITIES? CAN ANYBODY OPT OUT NOW? CAN ANYBODY COME BACK AND OPT OUT OF THEIR PLANS? THE NEXT QUESTION IS THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT THEY WERE NOT NOTIFIED. THE COMMUNITY MEETING SIGNS ARE UP AT ALL MAJOR INTERSECTIONS ON ALL FOUR CORNERS FACING IN ALL GENERAL AREAS. WOULD YOU HAVE TO BE BLIND NOT TO SEE THEM. EITHER THAT OR DRIVING IN A LIMOUSINE WITH TINTED WINDSHIELDS, ONE OF THE TWO. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? >> I'M MARIELLA SMITH. I'M SPEAKING AS THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT CHAIR FOR THE SIERRA CLUB. SIERRA CLUB IS CONCERNED WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS. I MYSELF AM CONCERNED WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS, HAVING PARTICIPATED AND WORKED HARD ON MY OWN COMMUNITY PLAN. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE -- LIKE YOU TO POSSIBLY ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HOW -- HOW THIS AFFECTS OTHER COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A COMMUNITY PLAN IS IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, A CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE MAKE CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ALL MANNER OF CHANGES, TWICE A YEAR. NOW, ARE YOU SAYING THAT ANY PROPERTY OWNER CAN OPT OUT OF ANY COMP PLAN AMENDMENT IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT OR IF -- OR ARE YOU -- AND ARE YOU SAYING THAT FOR ANY COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, SAY A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT AFFECTS THE WHOLE COUNTY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEND A NOTICE TO EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER FOR A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT THAT AFFECTS THE WHOLE COUNTY EVERY TIME OR -- OR WHAT IS THE NOTICING PROCESS? IF IT'S JUST THE SIGNAGE, THEN WE FULFILLED THAT IN OUR COMMUNITY PLANS. I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU TOO -- MAYBE YOU-ALL HAVEN'T PARTICIPATED IN COMMUNITY PLANS, BUT I HAVE, AND NOT ONLY DO YOU HAVE SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF REGULAR MEETINGS, IT'S NOTICED IN THE NEWSPAPER, YOU HAVE ARTICLES ABOUT IT IN THE PAPER, AND THEN YOU HAVE SEVERAL OPEN HOUSES, TOWN HALL MEETINGS IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME AND SEE THE VARIOUS PIECES OF THE PLAN. IT'S REALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MISS A COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS GOING ON FOR TWO YEARS IN YOUR COMMUNITY, BUT I'D LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT OTHER COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS AND POSSIBLY CONSULT WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ABOUT THE PRECEDENT YOU MIGHT BE SETTING IN LETTING PEOPLE OPT OUT. IN THE RUSKIN COMMUNITY PLAN WE WORKED WITH PEOPLE DURING THE PROCESS WHO WANTED TO BE IN AND OUT. WE SET OUR PLAN BOUNDARIES DURING THE PROCESS. WHEN WE CAME HERE, IT WAS -- IT WAS DONE, BUT I DO REMEMBER THERE WAS SOMEBODY WHO WANTED TO OPT OUT OF OUR PLAN AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE, AND WE DIDN'T LET THEM, SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S ALWAYS HAPPENED. IN FACT, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN OUR PLAN THAT WAY, AND I JUST AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS, SO THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE THEY'RE COMING UP, I THINK MS. ZORNITTA HAD A REAL QUICK CLARIFICATION. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT ANY OF THE ADOPTED COMMUNITY PLANS, THEIR BOUNDARIES ARE ADOPTED, AND TO CHANGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. >> CHARLES McCOMAS, 805 OLD DARBY STREET, SEFFNER, FLORIDA. IN ALL THE SPEAKING HAS BEEN SAID AND TALKING AT THE MEETINGS AND THINGS I RECALL HAVING SOMEBODY SAID -- FROM STAFF HAD SAID THAT ANY OPT-OUT -- ANY OPT-OUT AREA WOULD NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN ANOTHER COMMUNITY PLAN. IS THIS NOT CORRECT? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT WAS PUT IN A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS. >>KEN HAGAN: SIR, PLEASE FINISH YOUR COMMENTS, AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THAT. >> THAT'S IT. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. >> PAMELA JO HATLEY, 1451 NORTH 18th STREET, TAMPA, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE OPTING OUT. I THINK YOU'RE MAKING A BIG MISTAKE THAT IS UNDERMINING THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROGRAM IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. A COMMUNITY PLAN IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LONG-RANGE PLANNING. IT IS A CONSTITUTION FOR A DEFINED COMMUNITY AREA. IT IS NOT ZONING. IT SETS -- IT SETS UP, AS I SAID, THE CONSTITUTION FOR LONG-RANGE PLANNING OF A CONTIGUOUS AREA, AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TO ADDRESS THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THAT DEFINED COMMUNITY. IF YOU ALLOW LITTLE POCKETS OF OPTING OUT, THEN YOU'RE DEFEATING THE WHOLE PURPOSE FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING. YOU THEN DON'T HAVE A PLAN -- OR A CONTINUOUS PLAN FOR A CONTINUOUS AREA. YOU DON'T HAVE NOW A FUTURE VISION FOR THIS AREA ANYMORE. WHAT YOU HAVE THEN IS BASICALLY A CHECKER PATTERN OF LITTLE AREAS THAT OPT IN, THAT OPT OUT, AND YOU DEFEAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE, SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL RECONSIDER WHAT YOU'VE DONE TONIGHT. MAYBE IT CAN BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN AND REVOTED ON BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE THAT IS GOING TO ABSOLUTELY RUIN THE WHOLE PROGRAM. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. NEXT, PLEASE. >> HAPPY THURSDAY. COULDN'T IMAGINE BEING ANYWHERE ELSE, COULD YOU? MY NAME IS LISA JARRETT. I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF. I DON'T HAVE A HIGH-PRICED ATTORNEY HERE, SO HOPEFULLY NOBODY WILL THROW ANYTHING AT ME. I AM ON RECORD OF PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTING THE I-4 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS NOT USEFUL ANYMORE. I'M ALSO ON PREVIOUS RECORD AS REQUESTING TO OPT OUT OF THE SEFFNER PLAN. I'M NOT ONE OF THOSE LARGE PIECES DOWN ON McINTOSH AND 92, BUT I'M ALSO NOT JUST SOME RANDOM PIECE IN THE MIDDLE OF DOWNTOWN SEFFNER. I'M AT 408 NORTH TAYLOR ROAD, AND I'M JUST SLIGHTLY SOUTH OF 92. I AM A SOUTHERN GIRL, SO I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT I MEAN BY JUST SLIGHTLY SOUTH OF 92. IT'S .3 MILES, .3, NOT THREE BUT .3 MILES FROM MY DRIVEWAY TO THE MIDDLE OF 92, AND IF I WANT TO WALK FROM MY DRIVEWAY STRAIGHT NORTH ON TAYLOR ROAD, IN LESS THAN A HALF A MILE I CAN SIT ON A GUARDRAIL AT I-4 AND WATCH TRAFFIC GO BY, SO I'M NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMEBODY'S SUBDIVISION, I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO LIVE, LIKE MR. WHITE SAYS, WHERE I CAN THROW A ROCK AND HIT MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. MOST OF MY NEIGHBORS DON'T KNOW WHAT MY HOUSE LOOKS LIKE AND HAVE NEVER BEEN DOWN MY QUARTER-MILE DRIVEWAY TO SEE IT. I STILL WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO ALLOW ME TO OPT OUT OF THE PLAN. THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MS. JARRETT. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARCIA CURL. I STILL LIVE IN SEFFNER, AND I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU THIS EVENING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS FOR NOT OPTING OUT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE NOTCH AREA. I'M SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE NUMBER ONE GOAL OF OUR COMMUNITY PLAN IS TO PRESERVE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR RURAL WAY OF LIFE. NUMBER ONE -- LET'S SEE IF WE'VE GOT -- NO. EAGLE. YES. THIS IS LIBERTY, A FEMALE AMERICAN BALD EAGLE. HER NEST IS APPROXIMATELY 37 YEARS OLD AND IS ESTIMATED BY WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS TO WEIGH TWO TONS, THE NEST, NOT THE EAGLE. THE NEST IS ON AUDUBON'S EAGLE WATCH AND PRODUCES TWO BABIES EACH YEAR. CHILDREN AT OUR LIBRARY NAMED THIS YEAR'S EAGLETS GEORGE WASHINGTON AND BETSY ROSS. THEY LIVE IN AN OLD-GROWTH FOREST VERY NEAR BAKER CREEK, WHICH FLOWS THROUGH THE NOTCH AREA. POINT NUMBER THREE, AGRICULTURE. ACTUALLY, THERE'S THE BABIES, GEORGE AND BETSY RIGHT THERE. COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE WITH THE COW ON IT. [LAUGHTER] >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THERE WE GO. I WANTED TO ADDRESS AGRICULTURE BECAUSE THIS AREA JUST BENEATH -- JUST SOUTH OF THE NOTCH AREA IS AN AREA OF GREAT AGRICULTURE. WE HAVE A LOT OF BERRY FARMERS IN THERE, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CORRECT WATER FLOW ALONG BAKER CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, IT WILL BE VERY BAD FOR THE WATER IN OUR AREA AND FOR THE SINKHOLE PROBLEMS AS WELL, AND THIS IS THE AREA THAT I HAVE REQUESTED THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TO GIVE US INFORMATION ON VERY SERIOUS FURTHER STUDIES. OKAY. MOVING ON TO ISSUE NUMBER FOUR, THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WETLANDS, FLOOD CONTROL, STORM BUFFERS, AND WATER SUPPLY. SUSAN WATSON AND MYSELF RECEIVED A GRANT FROM SWFWMD TO TEACH THE LOCAL RESIDENTS ABOUT THE WATER ISSUES IN OUR AREA, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE WATER ISSUES MOVE THROUGH THIS AREA. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MA'AM. APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. NEXT, PLEASE. >> DON'T DO IT. >> MARCELLA OSTEEN, BALM. BALM IS ONE OF THE TWO OR THREE PLANNING AREAS LEFT THAT HAVE YET TO GET THEIR COMMUNITY PLAN, AND WE HAVE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY, WE'VE BEEN PUSHED BACK REPEATEDLY, AND NOW OUR TIME IS HERE STARTING THIS FALL, AND LUCKY US, I'M GETTING KIND OF SCARED ABOUT IT WITH THE OPT-OUTS, BUT I WOULD POINT OUT THAT 17, 18, 19 COMMUNITIES HAVE ALREADY GOT THEIR COMMUNITY PLANS, AND UP UNTIL NOW I'VE NEVER HEARD ANY BIG OUTCRY ABOUT OPT-OUTS, NEVER HEARD ANY BIG CONCERNS ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- IS THIS A RESULT OF GLOBAL WARMING WITH BRANDON AND SEFFNER OR SOMETHING IN THE WATER? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT -- AND AS A SOLUTION TO A POTENTIAL PROBLEM IN BALM, I HEREBY OFFER MYSELF AT -- FOR A FEE OF $20 AN HOUR, I WILL GO TO EACH PROPERTY OWNER IN OUR AREA AND PERSONALLY INVITE THEM TO COME SO THERE'LL BE NO ISSUE ABOUT NOT KNOWING. IS THAT A GOOD DEAL? ANYWAY, I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING. THERE'S ONLY TWO OR THREE LEFT. LET'S NOT CHANGE HORSES MIDSTREAM, CHANGE THE WHOLE PROCEDURE. LET'S JUST -- OUR HAND IS TO THE PLOW. LET'S GO FORWARD AND KEEP THE RULES LIKE THEY ARE, NO OPT- OUTS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. LAST SPEAKER. >> I'M AS TIRED AS YOU ARE. TERRY FLOTT, SEFFNER COMMUNITY ALLIANCE AND UNITED CITIZENS ACTION NETWORK. COMMISSIONERS, WE SUPPORT THE SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLAN, AND I WAS GOING TO SAY AS SUBMITTED, BUT THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A CHANGE TONIGHT, SO WITH THAT CHANGE, I SUPPORT IT. WE DO NOT SUPPORT OPT-OUTS AND/OR CARVING OUT OF ANY AREAS OF OUR PLAN WHICH WAS AGREED TO ALL UNTIL THE SURPRISE ON APRIL 8th. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. I THINK YOU'RE TO DEAL MOSTLY NOW WITH AN OPT-OUT AND/OR A CARVE-OUT IF THAT'S ATTEMPTED AFTER WE FINISH SPEAKING. I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT WE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS HERE THAT ALSO WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN, SO CARVING OUT THE NOTCH AREA IF THAT'S WHAT ANYBODY HAS IN MIND PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE A GOOD THING TO DO. SO I HOPE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND WE JUST KIND OF PUT THIS BABY TO BED, SO TO SPEAK, AND MOVE ON. AS FOR OPT-OUTS, I THINK WE'RE TREADING ON DANGEROUS GROUND. WE'RE NOT TAKING ANYBODY'S PROPERTY RIGHTS AWAY. WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING FOR FUTURE LAND USE OR EXISTING ZONING IN ANY OF THE -- IN ANY OF THE COMMUNITY PLANS AS I CAN TELL BECAUSE WE -- IT -- WE WERE TOLD WE COULDN'T DO THAT ACTUALLY AT ONE POINT, SO I THINK -- I THINK THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE IS PROBABLY A CONCERN THAT IS BEING PUSHED FOR MAYBE NOT THE RIGHT REASONS, AND PERHAPS IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA AT SOME POINT FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A WORKSHOP. I KNOW YOU'RE ROLLING YOUR EYES, MR. NORMAN, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE SOMETHING SO WE CAN PUT SOME OF THIS TO BED. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >> WELL, I'M JUST SAYING WHAT I OBSERVED. >>JIM NORMAN: I'M SITTING HERE LISTENING TO YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: PLEASE CONTINUE, MS. FLOTT. >> SO I HOPE YOU WILL NOT GO FORWARD WITH THE OPT-OUTS AND LET US HAVE OUR PLAN. >>KEN HAGAN: THANK YOU. MELISSA, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND AN ANSWER TO MR. McCOMAS'S QUESTION? >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: THE ONE ABOUT IF THEY'RE TAKEN OUT OF ONE COMMUNITY PLAN, THEY WOULD BE MOVED IN TO ANOTHER? THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE LETTER THAT CAME FROM MR. ALUOTTO AND MR. HUNTER. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT -- BECAUSE SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE ON THE EDGE OF SOME OF THE COMMUNITY PLANS AND THAT THERE MIGHT BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE PART OF A -- THE NEXT COMMUNITY PLAN THAT COMES ADJACENT TO THEM. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ALSO ABOUT HOW SOME OF THE HISTORICALLY -- SOME OF THE ISSUES THROUGH THE WORKING COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ON BOUNDARIES WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN RIVERVIEW AND GIBSONTON THERE WERE SOME BOUNDARY CHANGES TO -- WHERE ONE COULD MOVE IN TO ANOTHER PLAN, BUT THAT -- THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS A POLICY BY ANY MEANS. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT. COMMISSIONER SHARPE. >>MARK SHARPE: WELL, I'LL BEGIN WITH WHERE MS. FLOTT CONCLUDED. I THINK THAT WE DO NEED AT SOME POINT A WORKSHOP TO GET THIS BACK ON THE PATH WITH WHERE WE HAD INTENDED. THERE'S GOT TO A PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY BUY-IN, AND I'LL GO BACK TO THE VERY FIRST ISSUE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE ISSUE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALONG I-4 AND THE DESIRE BY MANY, MANY PEOPLE TO OPT OUT FOR FEAR AND CONCERN OF WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED. I THINK THAT THE PLAN THAT WE HAD LOOKED AT ALONG I-4 WITH ALL THE ISSUES AND CONCERNS WOULD HAVE ULTIMATELY LED TOWARDS A FAR BETTER DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND WOULD HAVE CREATED IN THE FUTURE, NOT TODAY BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO DO THIS FOR TODAY -- IT WOULD CREATE IN THE FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE TYPE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOB CREATION WE WANTED, BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE CITIZENS WERE CONCERNED. THEY DIDN'T -- THEY DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. I ACCEPT THAT. SO NOW YOU HAVE CITIZENS WHO ARE SAYING THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE COMMUNITY PLAN, AND NOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS WE'RE GOING BACK TO CAMPS, OUR DIFFERENT CAMPS, AND THIS IS WHERE THIS PROCESS HAS TAKEN US, AND IT'S GONE BOTH WAYS. AND SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET IT BACK ON TRACK. I -- YOU KNOW, WE TRIED AS A BOARD TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIC VISIONING AND PLANNING WHERE WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO GROW OUR ECONOMY SO EVERYBODY WOULD KNOW THAT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT GROWTH ALONG THE I-4 CORRIDOR, IT WASN'T AN ATTEMPT TO BUST THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY OR BLOW IT UP AND GO EVERYWHERE, IT WAS A CONCERTED EFFORT ALONG A SPECIFIC AREA THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY MANY PEOPLE AS AN AREA FOR WHERE GROWTH SHOULD OCCUR, BUT IF WE ALL KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHAT OUR VISIONING WAS AND WE COULD BEGIN TO BUY IN, THEN PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO BUY INTO IT, AND WE COULDN'T EVEN AGREE ON WHO WOULD BE A PARTICIPANT IN THAT DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM HAD TALKED ABOUT HAVING THIS, AND IT JUST KIND OF WENT NOWHERE. SO I THINK AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AGAIN SO THAT WE CAN DEVELOP THE TRUST THAT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WANT TO DO IT. I ACCEPT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WE WERE HOPING WOULD WANT TO BUY IN TO AND BE PART OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALONG I-4 DIDN'T TRUST IT SO THEY'VE SAID NO, AND NOW WE'VE GOT CITIZENS WHO ARE SAYING, WE DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THESE COMMUNITY PLANS BECAUSE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, WE WEREN'T NOTIFIED, AND IT'S GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH. SO WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER, BRING THEM BACK IN TO THE PROCESS, DEVELOP THE TRUST WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A BETTER COMMUNITY. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SPOT DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NO REAL PATTERN BECAUSE NO ONE TRUSTS EACH OTHER, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE TO THIS DAY. WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS WITH OPT-OUTS, AND -- AND I DON'T SEE HOW WE UNDO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO I THINK CONTINUE. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] AND I'D LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST PLAN WE EVER DID. THERE WAS A NURSERY. IT'S ON GUNN HIGHWAY, AND IT'S -- IT CIRCLES AROUND. THERE'S SOUTH MOBLEY, AND THAT -- THERE IS A NURSERY RIGHT THERE. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: IN THE CITRUS PARK PLAN, YES. >>JIM NORMAN: AND THAT LADY STOOD RIGHT HERE AND SAID I WANT TO OPT OUT. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: YES. WE LOOKED BACK AT THE HISTORY OF ALL OF THE COMMUNITY PLANS, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY INSTANCE WE FOUND. >>JIM NORMAN: THE FIRST ONE WE EVER DID A LADY CAME IN HERE AND OPTED OUT, AND WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THE PRECEDENCE SET THAT WE'VE ALWAYS SAID IF SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT TO BE A PART OF A -- THERE WAS ANOTHER ROAD IN THAT PLAN THAT WAS NEXT TO SICKLES HIGH SCHOOL, AROUND IN THERE OR SOMETHING -- THERE WAS A WHOLE ROW OF PEOPLE THERE THAT DIDN'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THE PLAN. I MEAN, SO THIS IS NOT A PRECEDENT THING. THIS IS -- FROM THE FIRST PLAN THERE WAS AN OPT-OUT LADY. >>MELISSA ZORNITTA: WE FOUND THAT SAME ONE IN THE SENSE OF AN OPT-OUT AS WELL. >>JIM NORMAN: THANK YOU. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MY TURN ON THAT SAME ISSUE. IF THAT, IN FACT, WAS THE PRECEDENT -- THAT WAS BEFORE ME BEING HERE. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. SO THEN THE PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT PRECEDENT BECAUSE THERE WERE OFTEN, I THINK, TIMES WHEN PEOPLE CAME IN ON SOME OF THE COMMUNITY PLANS I WAS DISCUSSING THAT WERE NOT ALLOWED TO OPT OUT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO KEEP THE COMMUNITY PLAN INTACT. THAT'S MY IMPRESSION OF WHAT HAPPENED. WE DON'T NEED TO ENTER INTO A DEBATE. THAT BEING SAID, NOW THERE WERE SOME NOTCH PROPERTIES IN THIS LAST DISCUSSION THAT IF THE I-4 CORRIDOR HAD PASSED, THEN THEY WOULD BE CAUGHT BETWEEN COMPETING REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR THIS PLAN AND FOR THE I-4 CORRIDOR. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. OTHERWISE I COULD HAVE SEEN WHERE THEY HAD THE RIGHT OR THEY HAD A REASON TO OPT OUT. SO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH MY POSITION JUST LIKE ON THE LAST ONE, I THINK THAT IT FRAGMENTS THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS IF WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO OPT OUT. I THINK IN PAST DISCUSSIONS SOME PEOPLE HAVE ASKED AND WE HAVEN'T ALLOWED THEM TO. SO THAT'S A PROBLEM HERE. AND I THINK, AS MS. SMITH WAS WORRIED A WHILE AGO, SO AM I BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE, NOW MY COLLEAGUES HAVE VOTED TO DO THIS ON THE LAST ONE. I'M GOING TO BE CONSISTENT ON THE SECOND ONE HERE AND SAY NO AGAIN, BUT I'M CONCERNED AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, BUT SOME PEOPLE WHO HAD AN INTEREST IN OPTING OUT ON SOME OF THE ONES THAT I WAS SITTING IN ON MIGHT BE COMING BACK AND SAYING, WELL, YOU-ALL CHANGED MIDSTREAM, NOW I'M GOING TO COME BACK AND DO THE SAME THING. SO ANYWAY, THAT BEING SAID, SOMEONE ELSE CAN GO FORWARD WITH A MOTION TO SUPPORT, I CERTAINLY WILL NOT. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER NORMAN, THEN WE NEED A MOTION. >>JIM NORMAN: LET ME ALSO SAY -- LET ME ALSO SAY TO YOU THAT IN ALL THE PLANS I'VE SAT THROUGH THAT HISTORICALLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS SOMEONE WOULD -- IF THEY WANT -- IF THERE WAS A LARGE NUMBER THAT WANTED IT, THEY CONTINUED THE PLAN, THEY KEPT WORKING WITH THOSE PEOPLE UNTIL -- AND I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER CASE IN POINT. AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPERTY WAS. IT WAS DOWN, LIKE I SAID, BY THE LITTLE MANATEE. THEY WORKED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. THEY MASSAGED THE OVERALL PLAN BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR PROPERTY, BUT I'VE ALWAYS -- AND I BELIEVE EVEN THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE SAT HERE BEFORE, I'VE ALWAYS SAID I WILL SUPPORT ANY PROPERTY OWNER AT ANY GIVEN TIME THAT DIDN'T WANT TO GET IN THE PLAN BEFORE IT WAS PASSED, AND I'VE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT. >>ROSE FERLITA: OKAY. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, MR. NORMAN, AND -- >>JIM NORMAN: YES. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- YOU AND I CAN DISAGREE AND WE DISAGREE POLITELY -- >>JIM NORMAN: SURE. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- AND THAT'S FINE -- >>JIM NORMAN: OH, YEAH, RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: -- BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT MR. SHARPE IS SAYING HAS GOT SOME BASIS TOO. WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT WE'RE DOING SO THAT THIS BOARD OR A BOARD COMING FORWARD AFTER YOU AND I ARE GONE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. THESE ARE THE OPTIONS WE CAN APPROVE ALLOWING CITIZENS TO DO IT OR NOT, SO THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMEMBER WHAT THEY DID AT CITRUS PARK OR I DON'T HAVE TO REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED -- >>JIM NORMAN: I NEVER REMEMBER A PROPERTY EVER ANYBODY COMING HERE SAYING WE DENIED THEM FROM OPTING OUT. YOU SHOW ME ONE TIME, AND I'VE SAT -- >>ROSE FERLITA: I THINK THAT THEY DID, AND I HAVE A COUPLE IN MIND, BUT BOY, I'M SURE NOT GOING TO MENTION ANY NAMES TONIGHT. >>JIM NORMAN: I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING I REMEMBER THEM PRETTY WELL, SO -- >>ROSE FERLITA: WELL, LET'S SEE. LET'S JUST SEE. >>KEN HAGAN: COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: DID YOU MAKE A MOTION, MR. NORMAN? >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] FOR APPROVAL -- >>AL HIGGINBOTHAM: OKAY. THEN I'LL SECOND. >>JIM NORMAN: -- [INDISCERNIBLE CROSS TALK] THAT WANT TO OPT OUT HAVING THAT OPTION. >>KEN HAGAN: A COUPLE THINGS. ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE BULLET POINT THAT MR. HEALEY ALLUDED TO ABOUT SWITCHING IT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE PLAN. IS THAT ACCURATE? >>ADAM GORMLY: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT BULLET IS CONTAINED IN GOAL 3 ALREADY. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. SO THE MOTION'S FOR THE SEFFNER-MANGO PLAN, ALLOWING THOSE WHO HAVE REQUESTED TO OPT OUT TO DO SO. ONE QUESTION, DO WE NEED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE NOTCH PROPERTIES? >>ADAM GORMLY: AT THIS POINT, I THINK BY COVERING THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE REQUESTED TO BE OPT OUT WOULD COVER THAT. >>KEN HAGAN: IT COVERS THAT? >>ADAM GORMLY: WITHOUT THE I-4, IT'S NO LONGER IN THAT SAME NOTCH POSITION. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. SO THE MOTION'S BY COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER HIGGINBOTHAM. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>KEVIN WHITE: IS THAT WHY THEY CALL YOU FATHER TIME? >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO TRANSMIT. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, LET'S DO THAT SEPARATELY ON THE REST AND THEN SEPARATE OUT THE TWO THAT I DIDN'T. YOU KNOW WHICH ONES THEY ARE, ADAM. >>ADAM GORMLY: YEAH. THE FIRST ONE -- THESE ARE THE THREE AMENDMENTS THAT GOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE, 10-21, 10-23, AND 10-24, IF WE COULD HAVE A RESOLUTION TO TRANSMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. MOTION COMMISSIONER WHITE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>MARK SHARPE: SECOND. >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND COMMISSIONER SHARPE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 6-0. >>ADAM GORMLY: AND THE SECOND RESOLUTION WOULD BE FOR 10- 11 AND 10-12, AND THOSE ARE THE BRANDON AND SEFFNER COMMUNITY PLANS. >>JIM NORMAN: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN WHITE: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEN HAGAN: MOTION COMMISSIONER NORMAN, SECOND COMMISSIONER WHITE. PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE. >>RECORDING SECRETARY: MOTION CARRIED 5-1. COMMISSIONER FERLITA VOTED NO. >>KEN HAGAN: OKAY. WITH THAT, THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN THIS EVENING AND WE'RE ADJOURNED. 1