Symmes Rd / East Bay - CPA 22-18 / RZ 22-0671
Gibsonton - So…I’m all set up for the HUGE presentation on proposed Land Use changes in Unincorporated Hillsborough (HC/CPA 23-21 thru 23-28) which include the expansion of the Urban Service Area, formation of “Fixed Guideway Transit System and Station Areas” (light rail?) , and “incentive based” long range agricultural policy to help retain productive farmland and discourage is conversion to non-agricultural use (i.e. paying farmers to keep farming)…
But before this - HC/CPA 22-18 / RZ 22-0671 - NW corner Symmes Road and East Bay Road - came before the Board…Proposed change on ±8.40 acres from Residential-6 (RES6) and Residential-9 (RES-9) to Residential-20 (RES-20)
Now - back in 2019, we reported here that this land was approved for 2 proposed uses on the parcel - one for a Medical / Office / Commercial Park and the other for 64 Townhomes...
Approved for 64 units, Developers were proposing up to 199 units by applying for a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and asking for increased density by using the Live Local Act as an example of what max density could look like if pursued
Unfortunately for the Owners & developers, the CPA was found inconsistent by The Planning Commission with the associated Rezoning 22-0671 denied 5-2 by the Board later during in the meeting…
OR
Fortunately for the residents who thought they were getting 64 new neighbors but then heard 199 were being proposed, the CPA was found inconsistent by The Planning Commission with the associated Rezoning 22-0671 denied 5-2 by the Board later during in the meeting…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2-Q17XkqAY
So this land was recently approved for 64 townhomes (20-0287), but that wasn’t enough density, so the Owners decided to apply for a privately initiated CPA to go after more…
What I found concerning was the developers use of The Live Local Act (Senate Bill 102) to justify the increase in density. Senate Bill 102 overrides any and all resident input, Planning Commission recommendations, and BOCC approvals if land has appropriate zoning.
What I also found concerning was a comment from one of the 2 descending Board members, saying they "...can't support the motion (to deny - as they) feel the Live Local threat on this puts the neighborhood in much greater danger"
Developers have got to the point where just the threat of the Live Local Act sways votes? It did on the apartment complex on SR 60 and Miller, and apparently still does today…
https://www.facebook.com/bokorscorner/posts/pfbid071orfzHDA4saT3xK6mtN5WjZKQXdQvRciAkVDVRT7FLCvqWYEncNb7nCJ7f6B8zLl
I think we are all in trouble when threats cause our County Leaders to vote one way or the other against the residents best interests…It makes some wonder who exactly is running this show?