Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Costs Access Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Major modification in Riverview stalls over who pays for connector road; developers and neighbors debate access obligations
Summary
A major modification to a planned mixed‑use development in Riverview prompted a contested hearing March 24 over who must construct and pay for a 54‑foot connector roadway required by prior approvals and county transportation conditions.
A major modification to allow revised mixed‑use entitlements near the I‑75/Gibsonton Drive interchange drew focused dispute March 24 over a 54‑foot connector road and which landowner will carry construction costs.
The applicant told the Zoning Hearing Master the changes respond to evolving FDOT and county access requirements and to right‑of‑way dedications agreed during prior zoning modifications. Ryan Manasseh of Johnson, Pope, Bokor described how an adjacent developer’s project to the east required reconfiguration of an older frontage road and that multiple approvals and conditions evolved to reflect the new roadway network.
Transportation staff explained the red‑shaded 54‑foot right‑of‑way on planning maps is the connector that was added as part of earlier approvals to address safety and signal spacing at the Fern Hill/Gibsonton intersection. James Ratliff, transportation review, summarized the history: the nearby PDs revised access “to address the safety and operational concerns of the frontage road being too close to the signalized intersection,” and later conditions required dedication or construction of a new connector.
Opponents — including owners of nearby parcels and the developer who is building the adjacent hotel — objected that the proposed modification would shift construction and maintenance costs onto them. Attorney Giovanni Geritana, speaking for several adjacent owners, asked that the county or the applicant reimburse prior roadway work and protect owners from being forced to shoulder disproportionate costs.
Applicant counsel and the developer said both sides had obligations and that construction of the connector had been required by prior zoning conditions; the parties disagreed about which entity would finish remaining work if the adjacent developer paused construction. The applicant argued that the major modification otherwise met the comprehensive plan and noted county transportation staff had found the revised access plan acceptable for safety and capacity reasons.
The hearing centered on implementation mechanics rather than a land‑use prohibition: transportation staff advised that the county’s conditions were designed to ensure the connector is built — whichever developer proceeds — and noted the county may require the construction if warranted by the access plan. The Zoning Hearing Master closed testimony; a recommendation will be filed for the Board of County Commissioners to consider.
