Quinn Steele, planning commission staff, opened the discussion of TACPA 25‑14 by saying the privately initiated, small‑scale map amendment would change about 3.23 acres from Residential 10 to Residential 20 and that staff’s analysis had concluded the proposal was inconsistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan because much of the site lies in the Coastal High Hazard Area and the location is not well served by transit.

Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, said the project would produce roughly 52 attached units and argued the site is surrounded by higher‑intensity land uses. He emphasized that the property includes part of a historic landfill and that the applicant is working with environmental consultants and the county’s Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) on cleanup. “This applicant is going to address it,” Pressman said, adding the developer had engaged Envirex and a private planner who concluded the buildable area would not substantially affect evacuation times.

Residents who spoke during the public‑comment period urged caution. Stephanie Poynter described the site as “disgusting,” said the developer sued the city after purchase, and questioned whether cleanup could be trusted to protect neighbors. Charles Davis and Will Eastman said they moved to the area expecting low‑density single‑family character, raised concerns about access during storms and heavy truck traffic on Manhattan Avenue, and asked who would verify remediation work.

Commissioners pressed technical points: Envirex geologist John Bernsen said disclosure obligations for contamination rest with the property owner or responsible party, and staff’s GIS analysis showed one parcel is about 80% inside the coastal hazard area while the adjacent parcel is about 34% inside. Commissioners debated whether the plan’s “no net increase” rule should be assessed parcel‑by‑parcel or citywide and whether evacuation routes surrounding the parcel are themselves within the hazard area.

After extended discussion and two tied 3–3 votes earlier in the meeting, Commissioner Seaman moved to find the amendment consistent with policy LU 9.6.0.1; Commissioner Lauck seconded that motion. The final roll call produced a 4–2 result: Bowden and Coogler voted no; Jemison, Lauck, Steven and Joseph voted yes. Chair and staff members reminded the room the planning commission’s action is advisory: “Make sure you go to the city of Tampa meeting because that’s the one that really counts,” the chair said.

Next steps: the commission forwarded a recommendation of consistency to the City of Tampa for final action. City Council will consider the amendment and any permits or approvals required after that stage.