Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Boyette topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Boyette Road plan change and rezoning for single‑family development after applicant narrows plan
Summary
The board found a privately initiated comprehensive plan map amendment consistent and approved a companion rezoning to a planned development to allow a new single‑family neighborhood off Boyette Road; county and applicant said the proposal was reduced to improve transition to adjacent rural areas.
Hillsborough County commissioners approved a privately initiated map amendment and a companion planned‑development rezoning for about 24.93 acres off Boyette Road, transmitting and adopting the comprehensive-plan change and rezoning after the applicant agreed to shrink the area to improve compatibility with surrounding rural land.
The commission voted 7–0 to transmit and approve HCCPA 24‑28, changing the property’s future land‑use category from Residential 2 to Residential 4 for a 22.66‑acre portion (the applicant removed 2.33 acres at the southeastern end). The board later approved the rezoning (RZ 2047707) from AR/PD to a planned development for single‑family homes; the zoning hearing master had recommended approval for up to 62 single‑family dwellings and the applicant indicated the planned development would provide about 60 homes with 6,600‑square‑foot minimum lot sizes. The rezoning vote was 7–0.
Why the board approved it Planning Commission staff found the reduced map amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the South Shore area‑wide systems community plan and recommended approval. Staff and the applicant said the change addressed compatibility concerns by leaving a southeastern 2.33‑acre strip at the existing Residential‑2 designation to provide a more gradual transition to AR‑15 and residential‑1 areas to the east.
Public comments and applicant response Nearby residents and commenters raised concerns about increased traffic, school capacity and preserving agricultural character. One caller said the road is “failing” and that schools were already over capacity; neighbors asked that density remain as originally designated.
Applicant representatives said the site is inside the urban service area, utilities are available, and that the planned‑development stage (PD rezoning) is the appropriate point to finalize traffic and infrastructure commitments. Michael Brooks, land‑use counsel for the applicant, told commissioners the applicant agreed to remove the southeastern portion and was not seeking the maximum density in the companion PD.
Next steps and conditions The plan amendment and rezoning both carried unanimous votes (7–0). Any subdivision approvals and construction will require the standard development‑review steps: preliminary plat or site plan, school concurrency review, and county permitting including traffic and utility requirements. The zoning hearing master and staff recommended conditions; final PD permitting will require detailed engineering, roadway and utility commitments.
Ending The applicant and staff said the reduced plan was intended to improve buffering and compatibility with neighboring rural properties; commissioners noted those design adjustments when they recorded unanimous approval.
