Well, I can’t say I’m surprised we lost, but I hate the way we lost. My letter to the editor makes for a pretty good summary:
Misdirection in Civic Discussions: A Threat to Our Democratic Foundations
To the Editor,
At the Hillsborough County Commissioners’ meeting on 5/7/2024, a proposal was discussed to increase the building height limit in our Planned Development from 35 to 49 feet. As a resident deeply invested in the integrity of our community’s plans, I voiced concerns directly related to this fundamental change. My arguments centered on the existing 35-foot limit, around which our community was deliberately designed and built.
While most of my neighbors echoed my sentiment, some veered off course. Instead of addressing the pivotal issue of altering the planned structure of our community, the discussion sprawled into tangential topics such as housing density, traffic, and schooling. These matters, while important, were not pertinent to the decision at hand about building height. Consequently, the commissioners latched on to those issues unrelated to the proposal and spent almost no time addressing the core objections, ultimately approving the variance without a thorough examination of its primary impact.
This experience underscores a troubling trend in civic engagement: misdirection. When discussions are derailed, the democratic process is compromised. Decisions are made without properly addressing the specific changes proposed, clouding the transparency and accountability expected in these settings. The result is a governance style that ignores meaningful opposition in favor of an easy way for politicians to vote the way they want.
As members of a democratic society, it is crucial that we remain focused and vigilant in public meetings and civic debates. Misdirection not only undermines the decision-making process but also weakens the public’s ability to effectively advocate for their interests and preserve the character of their communities.
Let us call for greater clarity and relevance in civic discussions to ensure that all voices are heard and that decisions are made based on thorough and focused deliberation. Our democracy depends not only on the participation of its citizens but also on the quality and direction of that participation.
Sincerely,
John Studebaker
/
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but of the hundreds of letters the commissioners have received regarding this issue, fewer than a dozen have any chance of swaying the commissioner’s minds. I have no idea if Dune Land aka Metro thought of the idea of misdirecting everyone’s attention, or if it was an innocent error, but I beseech you to re-email the commissioners a new letter. Remember, it must be done BEFORE Friday 5/3.
My name is [Your Name], I live at [Your Address], and am a resident of Southshore Bay. I encourage you to vote “no” on PRS 24-0385 for the following reasons:
RZ 05-0210, which first turned this farmland into a community, specified a maximum building height of 35′. Every regulation and document related to our neighborhood ever since has also enforced a maximum building height of 35 feet. The property in question is zoned as residential 4, which has a maximum building height of 35 feet. This consistency in planning has helped maintain a balanced and visually cohesive environment.
However, the new proposal suggests a structure that exceeds existing limits by 41%, disrupting our skyline and overshadowing surrounding homes. Such a deviation not only undermines our community’s architectural harmony but is also a disregard for previously agreed-upon standards.
Additionally, section 06.01.01 footnote 8 of the land development code clearly lists applicable exemptions, and notably, wetlands are not included. This oversight cannot be interpreted as an unforeseen mistake but as a clear boundary intended by our planners.
I urge you to vote against PRS 24-0385, upholding our community standards and maintaining the integrity of our planned development. Allowing this unjustified modification would not only breach the trust of the residents but also set a concerning precedent about the influence of private interests over community welfare.
Thank you.
Please copy the text above, and click this link to email the commissioners: BOCC Contact Form – NEW – Formstack
And make sure to sign up for notifications at Sign-up to receive email notifications when new Land Use applications are added to the Zoning Application Map.
This is the area currently at stake, known as “Parcel D”
This is what they’re actually trying to do.
As you can see, they’re really not trying to do much. At least as far as the legal jargon is concerned. But read the summary:
Maximum building height: 49.5′
They are currently restricted to 35′, and if you’ve driven around much, you’ll notice there’s not a whole lot of two-story structures around outside ours and the nearby neighborhoods. They claim in their request “reflects current market conditions”. However, it does not reflect the community or surrounding structures.
Section 6.01.01 Footnote 8
Says that for every foot over 20′, they need to increase the “setback” by two feet. That’s not set back from the road, it’s set back from the rear or sides of the properties. That’s an extra 28′ of building area they’re going to lose if they increase the height, plus, if they’re exempted, they’re actually going to GAIN 30 feet of area.
Feel free to copy/paste and edit as desired, just remember my name in November (it’s Studebaker, like the car).