Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds first public hearing on land‑development code changes; opponents warn of reduced public notice
Summary
Hillsborough County held the first of two public hearings on proposed amendments to the county’s land development code on Jan. 7, 2025; no adoption votes were taken at the hearing.
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County held the first of two public hearings on proposed amendments to the county’s land development code on Jan. 7, 2025; no adoption votes were taken at the hearing, which the county scheduled to conclude with a final public hearing on Feb. 11, 2025.
Development Services staff presented three primary text amendments. Ramon Santo said one proposal (LEC‑250708) would provide a six‑month time extension for public‑hearing applications that are active when the county declares a state of local emergency; the extension would be added to other allowable code extensions and apply to applications pending as of Sept. 23, 2024. A second proposed amendment (LEC‑0282) would allow applicants to bypass preliminary site‑development review and permit applicants to submit straight to construction review, removing the required county‑facilitated pre‑submittal meeting when that waiver is taken. The third proposal (LDC‑250283) would create a combined preliminary plat/construction plan review option and allow issuance of residential building permits prior to final‑plat recording for certain subdivision projects, with expedited permitting procedures.
Melissa Norbeck, speaking for Keystone Odessa, urged the board to reject the proposal allowing applicants to skip preliminary review. She told commissioners that making the preliminary plat and pre‑submittal meetings optional would remove an early, publicly noticed stage where the public can see lot counts, setbacks, access, retention and other design features, and would limit the ability of residents to seek administrative review before construction begins. "Straight to construction means the construction approval is the only development order that can be challenged within 30 days. It is a triggering event and point of entry that is not publicly noticed. The public will only realize something is happening when the bulldozers show up," Norbeck said.
Planning commission staff and Development Services staff responded to board questions about timing and procedures. Commissioners asked for clarification of a separate planning‑process change the board adopted earlier in the meeting that extended submission deadlines from 30 to 45 days before a planning commission hearing; staff explained the extra time helps ensure mailed notices, staff reports and agency reviews can reflect late changes and avoids continuances. Commissioner Wellstone said he would support the change for now but sought clearer language about how the schedule would be applied in practice.
No board vote was taken on the land‑development code amendments during the Jan. 7 hearing; staff said the board will hold a second and final public hearing on Feb. 11, 2025, at 9 a.m. for possible adoption. Development Services staff said the proposed amendments include specific code sections to be changed (for example, sections 100202B, 100302C, 100106 and 10,015 were cited in staff presentations) and that the changes are intended to streamline review while maintaining substantive standards.
Why it matters: The proposals would shorten or alter public‑facing stages of land‑use review in ways that proponents say expedite development review and reduce review time, while critics warn the changes could reduce transparency and public notice for neighbors and limit early administrative review opportunities.
What’s next: A second and final public hearing on the proposed land‑development code amendments is scheduled for Feb. 11, 2025, at 9 a.m.; staff will return with revised drafts and final recommended text following public input.
No board votes were taken at the Jan. 7 hearing.

