Hillsborough commissioners transmit 118‑acre Lithia plan amendment after wide public opposition
Loading...
Summary
The Board voted 7‑0 to transmit HCCPA 25‑22, a proposed change of 118.75 acres from agricultural rural to Residential‑1, to state agencies for review after more than two hours of testimony from residents who warned of traffic, school capacity, water and septic risks, and loss of farmland.
The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to transmit a proposed comprehensive plan amendment for 118.75 acres along South County Road 39 (HCCPA 25‑22) to state agencies for review, after a lengthy public hearing in which dozens of residents urged the board to find the proposal inconsistent with the county’s rural policies.
The motion to transmit the amendment — which would change a parcel designated Agricultural Rural (AR 1‑5) to Residential 1 — was made by Commissioner Hagan and seconded by Commissioner Myers. The vote to transmit for agency review was 7‑0; the board emphasized that transmittal is not final adoption and that a later public hearing will determine the amendment’s ultimate fate.
Residents who opposed the amendment focused on transportation, water and infrastructure constraints, and protection of farmland. “We sit on our front porch in the rocking chairs, and we watch the thousands of cars that go by every day,” said Tina Coggins, a resident who described long commute and traffic delays near the Lithia Pinecrest/County Road 39 intersection. Multiple speakers told the board that area roads and the nearest signalized intersection already experience heavy backups and safety problems during peak hours.
Opponents also raised concerns about school capacity and groundwater. Josh Brundage, who lives south of the proposed amendment, noted county figures showing Newsom High School already over capacity and warned that adding housing would worsen overcrowding. Several speakers cited regional water‑supply studies and said the amendment would lead to many new private wells and septic systems in an area with known groundwater and septic strain.
The Planning Commission staff had recommended the amendment be found inconsistent with a number of comprehensive plan objectives for rural areas, noting that the change would allow higher residential density than the rural designation anticipates and could alter the character of the surrounding agricultural landscape. Staff and many public commenters pointed to traffic‑analysis findings that some roadway segments lack adequate capacity to serve the added trips the amendment could generate.
The applicant’s attorney, Michael Brooks, argued the amendment restores a historic residential designation and that clustering could concentrate development on upland areas to protect wetlands. Brooks told commissioners the subject property had been designated Res 1 in earlier plan maps and that the proposed change represented limited infill rather than an expansion into new areas.
Commissioners acknowledged the competing claims. Several said the record and the upcoming agency reviews would inform the final decision. Commissioner Wessel (during discussion) said the board can consider timing or effective‑date conditions if the amendment later moves to adoption, pointing to county CIP projects and interim traffic improvements at the Lithia Pinecrest/County Road 39 intersection.
What’s next: The board’s vote transmits HCCPA 25‑22 to state and agency reviewers for comment. If the application proceeds, the county will set a later public hearing on whether to adopt the amendment; any developer‑led rezoning would be a separate process and require its own public hearings.
