Good evening, everyone.

Uh, my name is Steve Luce on the zoning hearing master tonight, and I'll be conducting tonight's hearings on each application.

Before we get started, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance through the flag, the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands.

One nation, under God, indivisible, liberty, and justice for all.

Thank you.

You may be seated.

At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Michelle Heinrich, who will introduce the other uh staff members here at the DS and other staff members that will join us, and also go over any changes to tonight's agenda.

Sir.

Again, Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

To my left, we have Mary Dorman with the County Attorney's Office.

Uh to her left is Melissa Leinhardt with the Planning Commission.

And then to her left is Richard Perez with Transportation Review Staff.

And we do have one change to the agenda that will require hearing officer action, and that is agenda page nine, item D1, PD rezoning 25-0582.

The applicant is requesting a continuance to the February 23rd, 2026 ZHM hearing.

Okay, is that staff initiated or applicant initiated?

The applicant would need to request it.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

Good evening, Colin Rice here virtually.

Okay, go ahead.

Yes, thank you, Ms.

Heinrich.

Uh, appreciate that introduction.

Yes, so we are working through a couple of traffic components.

Uh we're feeling good about everything.

It will result in a much smaller scale project.

Uh we just need time for those changes to come into place and be thoroughly reviewed.

So we're requesting to February.

Uh happy to answer any questions you might have.

No, no questions.

There are anyone in the audience that wish to speak to the continuance only.

Um, sir, can you please um state your name and your address for the record?

Yes, my apologies.

My name is Colin Rice, attorney with the law firm of older one D, 1000 West Cass Street.

Okay.

Okay.

I see no one responding.

So therefore, this item will be continued to the February 23rd zoning hearing master hearing at 6 p.m.

in these chambers.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, I have a few instructions to read into the record.

I believe the county attorney's office has a few instructions to read into the record, and then we'll get started with tonight's agenda items.

Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by the zoning hearing master.

I will conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a recommendation within 15 working days after the conclusion of today's hearing.

Those recommendations are then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the final decisions.

Evidence may be presented in written form, and all testimony must be under oath.

Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient alone to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action.

The order of presentations are Ms.

Heinrich will first introduce the item.

Then the applicant and their witnesses will have 15 minutes to present their case.

Then development services will have five minutes to present their staff report.

Then the Planning Commission staff will present their findings of consistency with a comprehensive plan.

They have five minutes for that purpose.

Then those in support of the application will have a total of 15 minutes to speak in support.

Those who are in the audience that wish to speak in opposition to the application will have to 15 minutes total to speak in opposition.

Then development service will have an opportunity to correct anything on the record, answer any questions.

And finally, the applicant will have an opportunity for rebuttal, and that is five minutes maximum.

Regarding the time of proponents and opponents, the 15-minute time frame is a total time for each category.

If there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people, and the 15 minutes will be divided as equally as possible.

You may wish to designate a single spokesperson to more efficiently use the time.

When you come up to the podium to speak, please state start by giving your name and address for the record.

The meeting is being recorded, and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record.

When you are done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and the application name number of the agenda item you are speaking to.

At this point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Okay.

Good evening.

This is Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office.

Tonight's public hearing is the first step of a two-step rezoning process.

This hearing is the time for rezoning applicants and interested parties to present evidence and testimony.

Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application, and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of each application.

The second step of the rezoning process is a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, where the board will make a decision on each application heard tonight.

Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the board at its February 10th, 2026 land use meeting, a different unless a different date is stated by staff.

When considering applications, the board will only review the record and the recommendation made by the land use hearing officer for each application.

The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on January 8th, 2026.

The Board of County Commissioners has established a policy that directs which rezoning and major modification applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the board's land use meetings.

The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda.

Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area, applications on roadways with a failing level of service, applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval, and applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record either prior to or at tonight's public hearing.

The board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the land use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda.

Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with Section 10.03.04D of the land development code.

A party of record is an individual who fits into at least one of the following four categories.

First, someone who's present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence.

Second, someone who's been certified by the U.S.

Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing.

Third, someone who submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing, or fourth, someone who submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing.

The content of oral argument before the board shall be limited to the content of the testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the land use hearing officer.

It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that only individuals who have met these requirements are allowed to speak before the board and to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is introduced or allowed at the board's public meeting.

For these reasons, please make sure that all information you wish the board to consider at its public meeting is entered into tonight's record.

Okay, thank you.

All testimony must be provided under oath.

Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So help you God.

Okay, thank you.

You may be seated.

Okay, those are preliminary instructions.

Uh Ms.

Heinrich, we're ready for the first item.

Sure.

Our first item is item B1, PD application 25-050.

This is a remand from a previous hearing, and um the applicant is coming back through the process to uh look at a different feature land use category.

Tanya Chapella with development services review this and we'll provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, applicant, please.

Good evening, uh hearing officer and staff, Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South No.

In St.

Petersburg, uh PD 25-050, as Ms.

Heimrick has indicated.

Uh this was remanded at direction by the Board of County Commissioners for the SMU 6 category versus what have been filed for the OC20.

Uh the only difference is some buffer and screening variations.

Uh, but I would ask the prior file, which is the same file to be brought forward and is included with everything that uh is moving forward the Board of County Commissioners.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Pressman, let's help me understand the context.

If it was remanded, typically they they go through the ZHM process, go to the board and get remanted.

Did this one go to the ZHM prior to tonight?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Pamela Joe Hatley did a report and uh recommendation.

Okay.

Did I answer your question?

It does, and I just need a copy of that ZHM report, if I could.

Okay.

Sure.

Which was positive, I might add.

Okay.

So we're located in the East County.

And looking closer, it's on State Route 60 to the west of Jane's Redmond.

Looking closer still.

Development Services and Planning Commission support the ZHM previously supported the request.

There's no agency objections.

There have been no citizens' objections today.

We've had a number of hearings, obviously, including this evening.

This is a family agricultural trucking business.

The issue is seeking AS1 to PD with the comp plan change.

The uses are one residential unit with a truck dispatch office, warehouse uses, and open storage of nine commercial and domestic vehicles, which are basically the domestic vehicles are for the truck drivers that they arrive, leave their domestic vehicle, then they jump in the truck and go off in the truck.

And that is typically done once a week.

This is Navarro Produce.

They make weekly weekly trips out to Texas and back for agricultural products.

It's a family business.

Just to familiarize yourself with the uh with the use.

They bring a lot of their goods from Texas back to Plant City Farm and Flea Market, which is a very large market, as you can see here.

Now, the site plan uh, as you can see here, is very deep, not very wide.

So the uses shown on it are very specific and just small portions inside the property.

There's a residential residential home and office is located more uh closer to State Route 60 than the middle.

You have the you have the nine commercial and domestic uh parking spaces, open storage, and an internal or in interior dry storage as well uh in the middle of the up of the property.

So it's about 600 feet plus or minus from the uh truck storage to the north property line, and approximately 482 feet more or less from State Route 60.

So there's vast distances both from the front of the property to the rear of the property.

Looking at the aerial, there's uh a lot of forestation to the north and to the east, and there's actually some pretty intensive uses in the meeting area.

To the west is large intensive agriculture use.

To the east abutting is Happy Pets, which is a uh pet facility and a church compound.

Future land use map is uh in the vicinity is pretty standard, or is very uh homogeneous throughout one of the north, one on the south.

So the East abutting use is a daycare Florida Trusted Pet Services.

The church is actually very active as as I pulled from their website with a lot of activities.

The intensive agricultural budding is obviously a very open, vast area.

And we just make note, which we think is interesting that the similar use because it's agriculture is next door, which is truck and vehicle parking and use.

So it's kind of interesting because by code they can do on one side, which is the truck equipment parking, on the other side of the subject site, they can't, which is just to make a point on how the code is working, how the code is working in the area.

So it's okay to store trucks on one side of the fence, not on the other, and of course that's what we're proposing.

Um we had a decision to make under the code because the code does recognize agriculture uses as a perpendicular in AS1, but because we have a sort of a mixed use, we have the residential, we have the warehouse, which is involved with the agriculture.

We had to do the PD, but I think it's important to note that the code in some manner does reflect this kind of use, let alone agriculture use.

Traffic count stations on State Route 60 showed is 21,500 vehicle trips per day.

It is a state arterial principal roadway and part of Hillsborough County truck route plan.

The comp plan has a lot of support for agriculture uses and agricultural support uses.

Objective 5.1 is knowing the recognition of importance of agriculture as an industry and valuable economic resource, promotes the economic viability of agriculture activities.

5.2.5 agriculture, agriculture support uses are the preferred uses in rural areas, which I think is a critical comp plan policy here.

5.2.4 agriculture-related commercial uses more intensive or heavy, the neighboring semi-commercial may be considered in the rural land use categories.

5.1.8 support existing agriculture uses as an historical component of the community and their economic importance to the county.

5.1.10 agricultural uses within and around such centers.

5.1.6.

Agriculture and agriculture related uses shall be permitted in non-rural land use categories.

Development Services notes that it is compatible, keeps with the general pattern of the area.

The proposed setback for the truck domestic veal storage areas is indicating exceeds 600 feet, and what's proposed is 0.021 is under the point seven five maximum MARFAR allowable, at least in the OC20, and it's obviously much lower than SMU category desired here.

Planning Commission notes meets the intent of objective 4.4, 4.4.1 about new development being compatible, it aligns with the character of the surrounding area, compatible with the existing development pattern, and consistent with goals, objectives, and policies.

So the variations specifically, I will say actually the staff did a really really good write-up in their in their zoning staff report.

But noting residential office uses, 50-foot front rear setback, 15 on the sides, eight-foot vehicle use area or a visual area on the buffer on State Route 60.

I've noted again the warehouse uses, the uh long distance to the north.

We're seeking a type A versus SIP C, which isn't the C is just not needed or necessary.

Uh on the south, 99 foot setback.

West is 15 foot setback and 155 feet to the PD boundary.

Trucks and domestic vehicle storage area, also noting the buffer, looking for and requesting the A versus the C, which is really not needed in the site as indicated by the staff.

So again, noting seeking the A where the C's are required.

Uh and just an emphasis, one of the main reasons uh this is being pursued, is because they have had a lot of difficulty with stolen trucks and stolen goods in the in the trucks when they park them at different locations rather than their own home where they can keep an eye on them.

So I just threw this in because it's an important element.

They've had difficulty and had uh difficulty with criminal activity at other sites.

They're kind of target these trucks when they're left alone, so this is a much more safe uh situation for them.

So happy to answer any questions you might have.

Um really no questions, but maybe you can help me clarify something.

It's on page 14 of the staff report.

I don't know if you have a copy of it.

Uh I'll have to grab it.

Oh thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

The top paragraph talks about the applicant requests a variance to the urban scenic corridor, requires tree plantings along State Road 60.

Um I don't see any sort of argument as to wanting a variance from that requirement.

I don't maybe I'm not understanding what's being presented on this page.

Um along State Route 60 is considered an urban scenic corridor plantings.

And LDC requires one street tree for every 40 feet and one canopy tree for over 50 feet, being 325 feet in width.

And I'm looking for that variance.

If you don't mind, let me ask staff as well.

Michelle Heinrich, if if you know.

Are they requesting a waiver to the like planting the trees along stairwood 60?

They are.

And um Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

I've also noticed previously when they were going to OC20, that would put them in an urban scenic corridor.

Um Mr.

Pressman has changed it to SMU 6, so that would be a suburban scenic corridor.

Either way, I believe he does not want to adhere to those requirements, and I believe mainly it was because some of the screening and vegetation that was going to be further back on the property would um screen any anything that should be necessary.

That's my recollection, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

I wasn't aware of the change under the SMU, so I appreciate it, Michelle.

Thank you.

All right, that's the only question I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right.

Uh development services wants to present their staff findings.

Good afternoon, Tania Chapella Development Services.

Um this application is to rezone from AS1 uh to PD to allow one single family truck dispatch, warehouse, open storage for nine commercial vehicles and now nine uh domestic vehicles.

The proposed 0.93 FAR is under the uh maximum FAR allowable in the SMU six comprehensive plan category.

A 30-foot wide buffer with a type A screening will be provided to residential area along the north and to agricultural uses along the west.

Um to the south, uh an eight-foot wide buffer will be provided.

Um buffer screening is required uh to the east, while the proposed setbacks to the east exceed the requirements, reducing the impact of the warehouse building height and bulk.

The proposed building height meets the two to one height restriction along the north, uh west and east.

The proposed setbacks from the warehouse use to residential provide over 500 feet distance to the closest residential lot to the north.

Meanwhile, um the proposed setback for the truck and domestic vehicle storage area to the residential lot to the north exceeds exceeds uh 600 feet.

Um I think Mr.

Pressman already covered uh all the variations in buffer and screening, so I'm gonna jump to the next part.

Uh the project is proposed to contain a residential use office use warehouse use and open storage use, and given this, the open storage component of the overall project is going to see their accessory structure requiring screening from any street view and any residential zone property using a six-foot height wall, uh wood fence, PVC fence, or shrubbery.

Um the parcel is not adjacent to any residential zone parcels.

The applicant has agreed to provide a six-foot high fence along the southern border of the open store uh storage area.

So given the above and subject to approval approval of the CPA 2501.

Staff finds the proposal to be compatible with the surrounding properties and in keeping with the general development pattern of the area.

So staff recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to approval of CPA 2501 and the conditions.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

For the record, Melissa Lyonhardt Planning Commission staff.

The subject property is located in the residential one future land use category.

There is a pending plan amendment request, HCCPA 25-01 to the suburban mixed use six future land use category running concurrently with this rezoning application.

The site is in the rural area and it is not located within the limits of a community plan.

This case was remanded due to the direction of the Board of County Commissioners on August 18th.

The Board of County Commissioners directed a change on the associated comprehensive plan amendment 25-01 from office commercial 20 to suburban mixed use six.

The suburban mixed use six or SMU 6 future land use designation allows for consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office, research corporate park, light industrial, multi-purpose, and clustered residential and or mixed use development.

With 9.67 acres, the subject site could accommodate up to 58 dwelling units or up to 21,266 square feet of light industrial uses.

The proposed request is consistent with the range of uses and intensity that may be considered under this future land use category.

The proposal meets the intent of future land use section objective 4.4 and future land use section policy 4.4.1 that require new development to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood.

In this case, the surrounding land use pattern is comprised of a mix of uses.

Like commercial, single family, and agricultural uses are in the immediate area.

The range of uses proposed aligns with the character of the surrounding area, which is consistent with objective 4.4, and it's modifying policies relating to neighborhood protection.

Future land use section policy 4.4.1 states that any density or intensity increases shall be compatible with existing proposed or planned surrounding development.

There should be a gradual transition of intensities between different land uses given the residential uses surrounding the subject site.

The applicant has ensured this gradual transition by locating the action of activity to the northern portion of the site, which is approximately 1,000 feet away from the nearest residential home, while also being buffered by alarm a large stormwater pond.

To the west of the site, there are no residential uses and strictly agricultural uses.

The proposal meets the intent of this policy direction.

And based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions set by development services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff, anything further?

Uh yes.

I did need to add as mentioned by uh Miss Linehard.

This is traveling with a comprehensive plan amendment.

So these will be heard at the board's CPA public hearing rather than the land use hearing.

And that hearing date is February 12th, 2026.

Okay.

All right.

At this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Applicants good.

Um with that that concludes this application.

We're ready for the next item.

Our next item is item C1, standard rezoning 25-1281.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from CG to CI.

Um Logan McCain with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

And this case is also traveling with a comprehensive plan amendment.

So this will be heard um at the February 12th, 2026 public hearing CPA before the board.

All right, at this point in time, the applicant.

Good evening, Mr.

Hearing Officer.

Uh Todd Pressman, 22nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

This is RZ25-1281.

It's located uh in the General Sefner area.

Located on Martin Luther King, just off of Macintosh Road between Vel Rico and Macintosh.

As the property appraiser has it, it's these it's two parcels.

Uh again, located on Martin Luther King.

And showing the two parcels.

So the re the issue is rezoning from ASC 1 to CI, and as Michelle has indicated, there's a companion future land use amendment as well with this.

Planning commission finds a consistent development services supports.

So looking at the zoning map, the site indicated in uh the white lettering.

There is a use next to it which is similar or characterized as a CI zoning use, which I'll talk about in a minute.

Uh then you have CGCN, you have an old PDC, and then manufacturing further to the east.

The actual uses is a radio tower complex and uh open storage trucking trucks, rental trucks, uh, and things of that intensive nature.

So the PDC was approved in 1988 to a PDC, which allowed for uh more intensive uses and commercial uses at the time.

This is a long list of the PD or the C1, which was the PDC approval back in 1998.

So a budding on the West is a uh radio antenna farm as shown here, which was special use 07-0326.

Uh and according to the planning commission, public communication public communication towers are typically found next to or within higher intensity commercial or industrial areas because of the infrastructure needs.

Uh and planning commission development services and ZHM at the time approved it.

This is a butting east of the property and existing CG on the next eastward site under the zoning that moved eastward, and existing on the CG eastward again.

Another important characteristic of intensity of the site is that the CSX railroad track runs along the other side of MLK is shown here in the aerial, the site uh bordered in red.

Planning commission notes a railroad runs along Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard reflecting the area's role as a transportation service corridor.

Looking at traffic counts on one side of MLK is 14,300, on the other side is 11,200, and is part of the truck rail plan of the county.

Planning Commission's recommendation notes uh the new development uh that it does meet the objectives for new development to relate to the predominant character of the surroundings is a reasonable compatible fit, already surrounded by a mix of higher intensive uses.

Notes under goal three of the community plan directs commercial development toward the US 19 and Dr.

MLK Boulevard corridors.

Uh and that is uh goal three.

Also uh under that goal notes to encourage revitalization redevelopment of older exist or existing commercial areas and uses.

Uh we do have a letter from one property owner who owes a number of parcels, uh actually two, and noting the area in red at the bottom, these would be the parcels of properties that those two property owners own, and letters are a part of this PowerPoint indicating their support of the request.

So with that, we appreciate your attention and happy to answer any questions you might have.

Uh no questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh this point in time, development services staff.

Good evening, Logan McKay Development Services, application 251281.

The applicant is requesting to rezone two parcels from CG to CI.

This application is in companion with comprehensive plan amendment CPA 25-31.

The surrounding area is the part sorry, the site is located along east Dr.

Martin Luther King Boulevard, approximately thousand feet east of the intersection of North Del Rico Road and Dr.

Martin Luther King Boulevard.

Surrounding areas developed with agricultural, residential, commercial, and manufacturing uh uses and zoning.

The site will be developed with uh associated CI development standards.

Such standards would include buffering and screening requirements per section 60606 of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code, as well as an increase on setbacks by two fee for every one foot over 20 foot in height per section 60101, footnote eight of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code.

M manufacturing and CI commercial intensive zonings are found approximately 0.44 miles east of the site on Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard.

The staff finds proposed rezoning to be approvable subject to the approval of CPA 25-31.

Available for any questions.

No questions, thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Thank you, Melissa Lionhardt Planning Commission staff.

The subject property is located in the residential one future land use category.

There is a pending plan amendment request, HCCPA 25-31 to the light industrial future land use category running concurrently with this rezoning application.

The site is in the rural area and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sefner Mango Community Plan.

The light industrial future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural and light industrial uses and can be considered for a maximum of 0.75 floor area ratio with 4.45 acres.

The site can be can be excuse me, may be considered for a maximum of 145 381,000 square feet of non residential uses.

The proposal aligns with the intent of future land use section objective four and its modifying policies which call for new development to relate to the predominant character of their surroundings.

The area around the site already contains a wide mix of uses.

While there are single family homes and mobile homes nearby, the corridor also includes several longstanding industrial, commercial, and utility uses.

To the east, the light industrial future land use category supports container trucking storage and a U-Haul rental facility.

And there are additional vehicle storage areas along with RV storage and repair operations.

Directly west of the site are public communication towers that are typically found next to or within higher intensity commercial or industrial areas because of their infrastructure needs.

Given this this mix of existing uses, the request to rezone the property to commercial intensive or CI zoning is a reasonable and compatible fit and consistent with the policy direction relating to compatibility.

The site is located within the Sephner Mango Community Plan, which provides additional guidance on the appropriate placement of commercial uses.

While goal two of the plan seeks to prevent commercial encroachment into primarily residential areas between US 92 and Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard, the subject site is already surrounded by a mix of higher intensity uses, including industrial activities, vehicle and RV storage, public communication towers, and the adjacent railroad corridor.

Because of this existing context, the proposal does not represent new commercial intrusion intrusion into a stable residential neighborhood.

Instead, it aligns with goal three of the community plan, which directs commercial development toward both the US 92 and the Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard corridors.

Given the site's position between these corridors and the established pattern of non-residential uses around it, the proposed commercial intensive zoning is consistent with the community plan's vision.

Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

This point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

No one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

We do have one person virtually signed up, Grace McComas in opposition.

Okay.

Grace, go ahead with the comment.

Thank you.

Grace McComas, 805 Old Darby Street, Stephner, Florida.

First, Mr.

Preston will tell you that I do not live in the impacted area.

However, this has no bearing on my concerns for Sephner or the Sefner Community Plan.

And I know he already knows this, so it will save him some minutes of his referral time.

The important facts are I am opposed to this rezoning because I am opposed to I am opposed to, and our Sepner Mango Community Plan opposes new commercial in the rural area or areas on Martin Luther King and Highway 92 for that fact that are west or east of State Road 579, which is Mango Road.

So I I have two I'm opposed to this industrial or intensive uh commercial intensive zoning.

Mr.

Pressman states the Sefner Community Goals 2 and 3.

And so apparently did the uh the uh plan commission I just heard, but only part of the statements stating we encourage commercial on these two corridors, which we do, but he chooses not to complete the statement as they are described in the community plan.

In goal two, we discourage commercial encroachment into the residential areas between U.S.

Highway 92 and Martin Luther King Boulevard and south of Martin Luther King Boulevard.

Also, we support infill and redevelopment within the urban service areas of those corridors.

But that's the important point within the urban service areas and west and anything west of 570 four 579.

We have permitted it yet in the urban service area, but east of 579.

We discouraged this pretty clearly in our community plans.

All three commercial is encouraged on Highway 92, Martin Luther King Boulevard, which is Highway 574.

West of State Road 75, Mango Road, in the urban service area as well.

So I don't find this to be appropriate in this area at all.

These are important decisions the county and citizens provided when forming our Stephen Amango community plan.

And it has been unpleasant for the citizens that enjoyed the suburban and rural nature of our tiny town to hear that these goals are being ignored at every rezoning.

Please recommend denial for this request for CI in this area east of State Road 579.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Okay.

Is there anyone else in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

I see no one responding.

This point time staff, either development services or planning commission.

Have any comments?

Nothing further, thank you.

Okay.

Very good.

At this point time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Yes, for the record, again, Todd Pressman.

Uh Ms.

McComas is um uh is a citizen who's very involved with the Sephner area, and I give her great respect that she pays attention to items coming through and has concern about items coming through.

Uh, I'd have great respect for her.

Uh but the Planning Commission report does state a reading from it that was proposed aligns with goal three of the community plan, which directs commercial development toward US 19 and Dr.

MLK Boulevard corridors, given the site's position between these corridors and established pattern of non-residential uses run it, which I think is the crux and critical direction of the report.

The proposed commercial intensive zoning is consistent with the community plan's intent, which which we do believe.

We believe that there are uh a lot of existing circumstances or uses and zoning intensities in this immediate area, which is why it's been supported.

Um glad that we've been able to show you that the immediate property owners are in support.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right, with that that concludes this application.

And Ms.

Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item C2, standard rezoning 25-1320.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RSC6 to CGR.

Sierra James with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, thank you.

The applicant, please.

Good afternoon.

Rue Londono 1502 West Bush Boulevard, suite D, Tampa, Florida 33612.

How can I go to the first one?

Yeah, okay.

We are rezoning uh residential single family conventional six to allow the uses on commercial general restricted to community to furniture, refinish, repair and up posterior, accessory structure and six-foot fence, like screening.

The general location for this property is located north of Downing Road, the intersection with Old Simon Road, the south uh of Martin Luther King Boulevard, and west of Nordover Road.

Initially, this uh the owner got this property on February 2025 when they bought the property according with the survey.

The property was 0.48 acres.

Uh the survey was signed on May 2025.

And on the service, you can look the half uh right away that was included into the site.

After the transportation half the report, they found the property must be reduced for the area that was in close to the railway.

After that, the surveyor revised the property and take out the area that was around 6,449 square foot that was a 0.14 acres.

Finally, the property is now 0.34 acres.

All the properties are commercial general, going to the between this property, the site, the property subject to the corner on North Dover.

All the properties located are north of Downing Street at Commercial General.

And the properties located south of Downing Street are residential property.

The uses on that neighborhood north of Downing Street are basically warehouse type B with aluminum screening services, and all in the corner between Downing Street and North Dover Road are commercial general zoning with packing plants.

All the properties located at south, the uses is a residential.

On the south of the road, are residential for the future land use.

Um the proposal for commercial general required does not violate the intention for the future land use objective, as the use is intended for the restoration and repair of furniture, and this is no full repair or cost true or construction of the boat.

We are not repairing the boat.

We are not painting the boat.

We are just re furnishing the for the upstory furniture.

Um you have any other question that maybe I can.

No, no questions at this time.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Sierra James with development services.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the parcel from RSC 6 to CG with the following applicant proposed restrictions.

Uses will be limited to furniture refinishing, repair, upholstery, including but not limited to boat furniture, and a six-foot-high fence shall be installed at the time of development along the southern boundary.

The site is located directly south of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad and takes access from Downing Street.

Properties to the north, south, and west of the site are zone RSC 6.

However, only the property to the south is developed with a single family residence.

Parcels to the east are zone CG.

The subject site and adjacent parcels on the north side of Downing Downing Road are fall within the OC20 future land use category, while part properties on the south side of Downing Road are zone RSC six developed with single-family homes and designated within the Res 4 plan category.

Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed use approvable.

Okay, thank you.

A planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject property is located in the Office Commercial 20 future land use category.

The site is in the rural area, and the subject property is not located within the limits of a community plan.

The site is in the rural area where, according to objective 1.2 of the future land use section, this area is intended for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas.

Per policy 1.2.1 densities in the rural area shall be no higher than one dwelling unit per five gross acres unless located within an area identified with a higher density land use category on the future land use map as a suburban enclave, a planned village, a planned development pursuant to the planned environmental community category, or a rural community which will carry higher densities.

Policy 1.2.2 defines suburban enclaves as existing areas shown on the future land use map as higher than one dwelling unit per gross acre outside of the urban service area.

The current future land use category of the site is designated as Office Commercial 20, which would fall under the category of an urban enclave, a suburban enclave as the OC20 category has a higher density than one dwelling unit per gross acre, and the site is in the rural area.

The OC20 future land use category is intended for existing commercial and office centers and provide for future development opportunities.

New commercial developments should be part of a mixed-use development or be clustered at intersections of major roadways.

Commercial uses should be discouraged outside of these nodes.

However, the site is not clustered at a major intersection or a major roadway.

There is a CSX railway to the north of the site with Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard to the north of the railroad.

North of Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard, there are heavy commercial uses with the heavy industrial use to the west.

There are single family residential uses directly south of the site across Downing Street.

To the west, there is a public quasi-public parcel owned by the county as well as single family residential to the east and light commercial that exists further eastward.

The proposal for commercial general restricted does not meet the intent of future land use section objective 3.1 as the use of the furniture refinishing and repair use and commercial boat upholstery would be too intensive of a use in such close proximity to the single family residential located directly south of the site.

Policy 3.1.1 states to restrict incompatible land uses to protect established and planned neighborhoods and communities.

Do that by utilizing planning principles that limit commercial development and residential future land use categories.

While the site is not technically within a residential future land use category, it is directly north of the residential four and residential one future land use categories.

As there is no access to the property from Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard, the only access to the site is from a local road that travels through those adjacent residential future land use categories.

Policy 3.1.2 emphasizes the importance of gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses.

These transitions shall be provided as new development is proposed and approved through the use of professional site planning, buffering, and screening techniques and controlling the specific land use.

Screening and buffering used to separate new development from existing lower density communities should be designed in a style compatible with the community and allow pedestrian penetration.

In rural areas, perimeter walls are discouraged and buffering with berms and landscaping are strongly encouraged.

With this request being a standard rezoning and not a planned development, there's not an opportunity to build in mitigation measures to the site plan to help alleviate compatibility concerns.

One of the restrictions included in this request is for there to be a six-foot-high solid PVC or wooden fence to be installed at the time of development along the southern border to add additional screening between the use and the residential properties located to the south.

While planning commission staff recognizes this mitigation effort, it does not fully address the broader intent of policy 3.1.2, which emphasizes gradual transitions and context-sensitive buffering.

Without the ability to incorporate additional mitigation techniques and site plan specific measures through a plan development, the proposed rezoning still poses long-term compatibility concerns with the surrounding lower density residential community.

And based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Okay.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Um applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

You're good.

Very good.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um that concludes this application.

Ready for the next item.

Our next item is item C3, standard rezoning 25-1418.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from ASC 1 CG to CG.

Logan McCake with Development Services provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Applicant, please.

Good evening, Robert Martin, representing the Farmer Enterprises at 206 with Highway 92.

This is just a standard dual rezoning.

The property is zoned CG.

It's actually 1.03 acres.

And one acre is CG and the back portion 0.03 is ASC one.

This came to our attention due to a code enforcement violation.

So we're requesting that we recombine the lot into CG so that we can move forward with a commercial building in order for him to be able to continue with the property.

It's off of Highway 92, Kingsways east of it.

Kingswood Elementary School is across the street.

There's an auto parts CG property to the E West, sorry.

And there's a mobile home park to the east.

There's a six-foot screening all the way around with a PVC fence.

And he's to prepare to do whatever we need to do in order to just get the CG zoning for the whole parcel.

Okay.

Um have they been in business at that location for a while?

Um actually the property has an office on there right now, and he's been using it for storage.

He's had three commercial uh semi-trucks parked there.

His goal is to build a commercial building to continue with his painting business.

Okay so where he just did distribution.

Again, it was only brought to his attention because of the code enforcement issue because they cited him for in-op vehicles and outside open storage.

Okay, thank you.

All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Logan McCaik Development Services.

Application 251418.

The applicant is requesting to rezone this property from C is property 2 CG from split zone zoning of ASC 1 and CG.

The property exists along the south side of East US 92, approximately 400 feet west of the intersection with North Kingsway Road, south of Burnett Middle School.

The area is also developed with suburban residential and less than two miles away from I-4.

Property in question is primarily zone CG.

By rezoning the portion of the property zoned AS1 to CG, it would allow the full use of the property in a commercial capacity.

Development of the site will require compliance with all CG zoning district standards, which includes minimum setbacks, provisions, buffering, screening, and height maximums.

A review of historical zoning maps uh does not indicate the split zoning, uh recognize different part uh recognizing differing parcels and uses rather the zoning line to appears to reflect the angle of US 92.

Staff recommends approval and available for any questions.

Yeah, just just real quick.

Did you check like old vested rights cases?

Do you know if they during zoning conformance they ever applied?

There was nothing uh recorded in optics that we could find.

Um so unfortunately, no, not uh not that we could locate.

Okay, thank you.

All right, and planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject property is located in the residential for future land use category.

It is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Suffner Mango community plan.

Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires all new development be compatible with the surrounding area.

Vacant lands occupy the subject site and the area immediately east across North Kingsway Road.

Light commercial uses are present to in both the east and west directions, while heavy commercial uses are located directly to the east.

Light industrial uses are found to the west.

The range of uses in the surrounding development patterns support the conclusion that the proposal is consistent with policy direction relating to compatibility.

The subject site meets commercial locational criteria, which is established under future land use section objective 4.7.

Specifically, a property must be located within 1,000 feet of an intersection where both roadways are classified as collectors or arterials on the Hillsborough County functional classification map.

Additionally, a minimum of 75% of the subject property must lie within the one required 1,000 foot radius of the qualifying intersection.

The nearest qualifying intersection to the subject site is East US 92, a state principal arterial roadway, and North Kingsway Road, which is a county collector roadway.

As the site is located 490 feet away from this intersection, it is within the required distance and therefore meets commercial locational criteria.

The subject site lies within the boundaries of the Sephner Mango Community Plan, which goal three of the plan directs commercial development toward the US 92 and Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard corridors, recognizing their established commercial character within the urban service area.

The plan further encourages the revitalization and redevelopment of older commercial areas and existing commercial uses.

In this context, the proposed rezoning from CG and ASC1 to CG is consistent with the intent and strategies of the Sephenor Mango community plan as articulated in the livable communities element.

Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The agenda says the acreage is 1.03 acres.

And the staff report says the acreage is 1.14 acres.

Do you know which one's right?

We can check the information provided by the applicant.

Okay.

And um either just, I guess, can you send me that information?

I guess after the hearing.

Sure.

Okay.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

Um, I did have one question for the applicant, um, which he could certainly address on rebuttal.

He had mentioned painting, and I didn't know if he meant auto painting bodywork type of um use that would be occurring on the property.

All right.

The applicant, if you could come forward, please.

Sorry, you heard the question.

What kind of painting is it?

And the acreage is uh based off of the property appraisers website.

Which is uh 1.03.

And that's where the issue came into play because it was a property appraisers that had to actually classify the CG1.

And to answer Michelle's question is no, he won't be doing any body work or painting, it's actually just distribution and warehouse.

Thank you.

Okay, anything else?

Nope, that should do it.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

That with that that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heimrick are ready for the next item.

Our next item is item C foresting rezoning 26-0037.

The applicant is requesting rezone property from AI to M.

Logan McKay with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, the applicant, please.

Good evening.

My name is Malva Rodriguez, 7710 and Ballard Road, Tampa, Florida, 33634.

Um, so um we are currently at uh zoning AI agriculture.

So we are in the process of getting that property to M as manufactured for just parking purposes, like trucks, right, trailers, and all that stuff.

Mainly some areas there are manufacture.

Okay.

Zoning.

But that's basically it.

That's fine.

Thank you.

Okay.

And development services staff.

Evening, Logan McKay Development Services.

Application 260037.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from AI to M for the purpose of open storage for vehicles.

Um, however, all M zoning districts are uh uses are proposed and um to be permitted.

The property exists along uh the west side of Benjamin Road, approximately a half mile southeast from the intersection uh of Waters and Veterans Express Waters Avenue and Veterans Expressway, excuse me.

Um the property is also just under two miles from the Tampa International Airport.

Properties located in an area developed with um with slash zoned for other high intensity uses such uh um high intensity uses excuse me, such as rezoning uh as such, rezoning this property to M brings it more in line with the surrounding zoning district.

Staff finds the proposed rezoning approvable and is available for any questions.

No questions.

Thank you.

Up land commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject property is located in the light industrial future land use category.

It is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the town and country community plan.

The subject site is largely surrounded by the light industrial future land use category and the agricultural and manufacturing zoning districts.

The area is currently developed with higher intensity commercial and industrial uses with minimal residential uses.

The commercial uses include a gas station, tire shop, car rental and repair, and open storage of commercial vehicles.

The majority of residential uses are located west across the Veterans Expressway.

The site is within and surrounded by the light industrial future land use category with office commercial 20, research corporate park, and urban mixed use 20 to the north of the site.

Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires all new development be compatible with the surrounding area.

Additionally, the neighborhood protection policies under Objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Given the current development pattern that consists mainly of higher intensity commercial and industrial uses, the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood character.

The light industrial future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural processing, manufacturing, and assembly of materials, offices, and neighborhood serving commercial.

This category allows for a maximum of a 0.0, I'm sorry, 0.75 floor area ratio.

With 0.68 acres, the subject site can be considered for up to 22,215 square feet.

The vision statement of the town and country community plan states that we encourage redevelopment of our older commercial centers and desire a strong business sector that contributes to the community and provides meaningful employment opportunities.

The rezoning to allow for additional business and a compatible area will provide for additional opportunities to grow the industrial business sector and provide job opportunities within the community and therefore aligns with the community plan vision.

Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So anyone in the audience wishes to speak in support of the application.

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

So no one responding.

Staff anything further?

Nothing further, sir.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Applicants.

Good.

With that, that concludes this application.

And Sheinrich are ready for the next item.

Our next item is item C5 standard rezoning 26-0124.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AM and PD 82-0223 to the AM zoning district.

Michelle Montebano will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson, representing TICO, who's the applicant here.

This is known as the Mosaic Hopewell site.

It's owned by the Mosaic.

It is way out east in the rural parts of the county.

Its future land use is agricultural mining.

The subject property is actually in an old PD from 1982, and this is kind of what the 1982 certified site plan looks like.

And then this was later amended in 01, you know, sort of part of the operating permit for the mine, the explained the mining area.

And you can see that this area, the subject property is largely in the mining area.

Unfortunately, in the PD, they allowed interim agricultural uses but didn't allow new prospective agricultural uses.

So we needed to amend the zoning to allow TICO to be able to use about 500 acres of upland for solar or other energy related uses.

And rather than trying to amend this old PD, we just decided to go for the standard zoning district of agricultural mining.

It's pretty straightforward.

It's surrounded by agricultural mining.

We do have a companion PRS to pull this out of the PD.

That will be heard at the same time.

Staffs in support, and we would respectfully request your approval.

Do you have any questions?

Um if I was dealing with a PRS and looking at how you review obligations under the OPD.

Maybe I had some questions, but I think that's gonna be handled in a parallel process.

Yes.

And it'll go to the board at the same time.

Yes, it's filed and it will go to the board at the same time as a companion item.

All right.

I think the zoning itself is straightforward.

Planning commission staff.

I'm sorry, development services staff.

Good evening, Ms.

Hall Smart Development Services.

The AppKancy Crescent zone approximately 1,620 acres from a PD district to the AM standard district.

The processal is currently zoned within PD 820223, most recently modified by PRS 260299.

The area proposed for removal from the PD is approved for mining activities.

Rezoning to AM will allow different uses in the property, still including mining activities, but also agricultural, single family, and solar power production facilities.

The site is surrounded by properties on AM, AR or within PD 830223.

Due to these considerations, staff is in res support of the request and finds a resonance rezoning to AM consistent with the existing zoning and development pattern.

That concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

The subject property is located in the agricultural mining 1 to 20 future land use category.

The site is in the rural area and it is not located within the limits of a community plan.

According to Objective 1.2 of the future land use section, the rural area is intended for long-term agricultural uses, large lot rural residential uses, and undeveloped natural areas.

The agricultural mining 1 to 20 future land use category is a rural land use category and is intended for long-term agricultural character.

I'm sorry, agricultural development and mining productivity as well as other rural uses.

The site is surrounded on all sides by the agricultural mining 1 to 20 future land use category, further supporting the compatibility of the agricultural mining zoning being requested.

Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires all new developments be compatible with the surrounding area.

Surrounding the site to the northwest and east is agricultural land with vacant land to the north and west.

Additionally, to the west, there is a mining use that is owned by Mosaic, and to the east, there is also mining.

Within the environmental and sustainability section of the comprehensive plan, there are policies that relate to the subject site regarding the significant wildlife habitat, surface water resource protection areas, as well as well head resource protection areas that are present on the site.

For instance, environmental and sustainability policy 3.5.2 states to collaborate with the environmental protection commission through land planning and development review processes to prohibit unmitigated encroachment into wetlands and or other surface area, other surface waters and maintain equivalent functions.

Policy 3.8.1 states to protect and conserve the significant wildlife habitat and ensure a no-net loss of essential wildlife habitat.

All of these environmental policies in the comprehensive plan collectively emphasize that any proposed development on the site must demonstrate full compliance with these policies relating to wetlands, surface water protection, well and well head resource protection areas, as well as significant wildlife habitats.

A full compliance review will occur at site development and will be monitored by Hillsborough County Development Services.

Based upon those considerations, the Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Um staff, anything further?

No, sir.

You confirm that this applicant would moving forward, we have to go through a permitting process.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, there and the companion PRS has been filed.

Okay.

All right, and the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Cami Corbett again, just to clarify on the wetlands issue, uh TICA specific lease is going to lease uplands, so we're in due diligence now trying to identify which of the 1600 acres are going to be the 500 acres that they're going to lease.

So we will be carefully watching out for wetland and wildlife habitat.

So just wanted to add that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, with that that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Our next um application is item D2, Major Mod 25-0586.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 92-0099.

Um James Baker has reviewed this for development services, and I'll be presenting his findings tonight on his behalf.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Thank you.

Hi, I am Elizabeth Rodriguez, 18156 Sandy Point Drive, Tampa, Florida.

Um, with me today.

Wally didn't show up, right?

Yeah.

Uh Ray Petris, uh, the developer.

And this is major modification 250586, um, and it's major modification to PD 920099.

Um, can you show the first location map?

Um, the subject property is located to the south at the southeast corner of Van Dyke Road and Lakeshore Road, and it's bounded on the south by the Veterans Expressway.

There's an existing shell gas station on the site.

So the main things that we're requesting are uh first of all an increase in the square footage.

We want to expand the building envelope so that we can build on the entire site, the eastern portion of the site, and then reduced front yard setbacks, uh reduced to 15 feet along Van Dyke, 10 on Lake Shore, and then just a five-foot setback from the veterans.

Um, can you switch to the other location map?

This is a little bit more of a zoomed-in location map, um, just to show you what is in uh the surrounding area.

So to the south, again, if you want to indicate Lizzie, is um the Veterans Expressway, which is obviously a huge you know, buffer in terms of any other land use.

To the north, we have the Lakeshore Preserve Apartments.

Umte that they are designed with their backs to um Van Dyke and oriented the other way with a lot of landscaping and uh fence along Van Dyke, and that's between the apartments and then what we have, which is again an existing gas station.

Um to the west of them is the Salvation Army regional headquarters.

But then to the west of our gas station are the uh Via Point apartments and late like the Lakeshore Preserve Apartments, they are designed in such a way that they're not oriented toward our existing gas station.

Um you want to show them the site plan, please?

Okay, here is our proposed site plan.

And um the one thing that I want to point out on the existing site plan and call your attention to is this right of way line, which you see is cutting through our gas station.

Um I'll show you what that's all about on the next exhibit.

Can you pop up the roundabout for me, please?

All right.

So these are the county's plans.

I'll show you the project number in a second, and all of this is in the staff report.

I'm just trying to hone in on this because it's kind of a key thing.

Um see the right-of-way line and see how that goes through the building.

So what they're doing is they're doing a uh improvements on Van Dyke, and one component of the improvements is they're doing a roundabout right there at that corner of Van Dyke and Lakeshore, and they need right away from our site.

Um through the building.

Okay, next and last exhibit.

Okay, so here's the information about the county project, and this exhibit is in your you know staff report.

Um and it includes a roundabout that I just showed you.

Um and the reason I'm bringing this to your attention to show you that if you can point to where it says to be determined in terms of some of the timing of the later phases of the county project.

Um there's uncertainty about the timing of the project.

We're not sure um when we are going to build on our site relative to when they would want to knock the building down.

Um so we're trying to just build some flexibility in.

Um, and that's why we're drawing kind of a big uh building envelope over our whole site.

Uh, if it's going to be a while before they want to take the gas station, we might build a little retail development to the east.

But if it's going to be pretty soon, we obviously have to move the gas building, and we want as much flexibility as possible to kind of uh pivot and um possibly there might be some impact on the location of the access points.

Um and that's the reason that we're asking also for the a PD variation for the scenic corridor preservation that would normally be a five foot or I'm sorry, a 15-foot buffer requirement along Van Dyke.

We need as much room to react to what's happening as possible.

So, anyway, that's kind of the big picture of what we're asking for in um the staff reports next.

But if you have any questions, please.

Yeah, just leave that graphic up for just a second.

Uh about the um the schedule.

Yeah.

So it says design land land acquisition completion mid 2025.

So yeah, uh, maybe that schedule kind of slipped or something because the the developers here, they haven't acquired land from this is an old information.

Oh, sir, you have to be on the record.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Do you want to come up?

He's the applicant.

Is can he come up right now?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, here.

Good evening.

My name is my name is Ray Patros.

I'm one of the owners of the gas station.

And your address, please for the record.

I'm sorry, 554, Van Dyke Road.

Okay.

So basically what I well, we've been in business for 25 years.

And uh, I mean, I've I've been the manager and owner for the location.

It's a it's a neighborhood store.

So uh the current the way we have it, we have restricted score footage.

Okay.

So the zoning originally of the on this property was like three, I think 4500 square feet.

And of course, we would like to expand the store to meet the future needs of our customers, but at the same time, uh we're trying to be ahead of the game because eventually we don't know it yet, to be honest with you.

We don't know when they're going to widen the road.

So the idea is to basically uh submit for the approval to get more score footage.

So hopefully we'll have more flexibility in the future to build hopefully the store on the opposite side of the building because we have it.

We have a big pond that will accommodate the size in the future.

And I think he was asking, he was saying that Ms.

Rodriguez could be.

Could you please?

I'm sorry, could you please speak into the microphone so it can be captured?

Yeah, and I think um Mr.

Luce was saying that the schedule says that the land acquisition would be complete in May in mid-20.

So they have not acquired your land.

No, no, no.

This is this is this is not even on the agenda right now because the county does not have the funding of the project.

This this project might take maybe like five, six years from now, we don't know.

This is old information.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, that's a question I had.

Want to know where the county is in the process.

Where the county is in the process?

Uh actually right now, I think they're just approved uh the plans.

But like I said, it's only uh the plans are being approved, but there's no funding for the project.

Okay.

All right.

I got it.

Thank you.

Do you want to enter your thing?

Oh, and of course, I have I have here a petition signed by my customers.

I would like to add it to the records if possible.

Yes?

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Um, I I just I did look in optics and look at there's you've taken a long time to get to this point.

Maybe you can give me some context as to why it took so long to get to this point.

You you mean why it's but the day you filed the zoning application to today.

It's been quite a long time.

Um, we were supposed to get heard if you don't know, that's fine.

Yeah, he's just saying why did it take us five, six, six months to get through the process.

Um, because we have going honestly, we're going back and forth with the uh with the zoning committee, but we're asking some information on the property.

And we went through because we're still not sure how we're gonna lay out the business the building, to be honest with you.

So this is this is all all we asking right now.

We're asking an increase of the of the zone.

A bubble plan.

Yeah, so we submitted a bubble plan to give us flexibility.

So actually put the future design.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, development services staff.

Uh Michelle Heinrich, development services.

Uh staff reviewed a major modification request to PD 92-0099, located at the southeast corner of Van Dyke and Lakeshore Roads.

The applicant seeks to um increase the intensity permitted from a 0.04 FAR to a 0.25 FAR, expand the permitted uses to include a car wash and limited retail uses in the C and zoning district, increase the maximum building height from 25 to 50 feet, enlarge the building envelope, reduce the front yard setbacks from 30 feet to 15 along Van Dyke Road and 10 along Lakeshore Road, and also to reduce the southern setback from 20 to 5 feet and to remove the requirement for a reverse frontage site layout.

Uh as you heard, one PD variation was requested, which is to remove the 15-foot suburban scenic corridor on Lutz Lake Fern Road, and staff does not object to that request.

The site is in the res four future land use category, urban service area, and the Lutz Community Plan.

However, the site is not subject to the Lutz Rule Development Standards.

Staff's review found that the surrounding area has become more developed since the original rezoning in 1992 with multifamily now to the north and west and the construction of the Veterans Expressway to the south.

Staff found their request compatible with the area and no objections from reviewing agencies were received.

Therefore, staff requests um staff finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

I guess the same question for the applicant that I see an optics that they filed like six months ago, and there was a more detailed site plan submitted in the beginning, and now we're at a stage where it's a a bubble plan.

If you could provide any context as to how you arrived at uh where you are today, whether staff recommendation or approval of the bubble plan.

Uh mainly for flexibility purposes.

I believe that was the applicant's first proposal, and it was explained to them that uh when they have something that specific, that is what they're going to be held to.

And I also believe that the time they were still working out if they might need other flexibility like setbacks, and I know that they were also working with transportation with the uh right-of-way information that you heard from the applicant.

So there were quite a few factors being worked on between the staff and the applicant.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject property is located in the residential for future land use category.

It is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Lutz community plan.

The proposal is consistent with the intent of future land use section objective 4.4 and its modifying policies, which require that new development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The surrounding land use pattern consists primarily of single family residential and public quasi public uses.

Notably the existing residential areas are located at a substantial distance from the subject site and are separated by major roadways, both Lakeshore Road and Van Dyke Road, which serve as effective physical and visual buffers.

In addition, the subject site meets commercial locational criteria due to its location at the intersection of Van Dyke Road, which is a county arterial roadway, and Lakeshore Road, which is a county collector roadway, confirming that its proposed commercial use is appropriately situated in accordance with commercial locational criteria policies in the comprehensive plan.

The proposed development is expected to complement the existing land use pattern and provide compatible neighborhood serving commercial opportunities, enhancing the overall functionality of the surrounding area.

By adhering to the locational intensity and compatibility standards of the comprehensive plan, the request demonstrates consistency with the aforementioned policies.

The subject site is located within the boundaries of the Lutz Community Plan.

The desired commercial character within the community emphasizes developments that are compatible in both scale and character with the rural aesthetic of the area and its surrounding environment.

While the site is not located within the designated commercial nodes of the community plan, it meets the commercial locational criteria outlined in the comprehensive plan, providing appropriate accessibility and adjacency to existing development patterns.

The proposed development aligns with the intent of the community plan as the proposed floor area ratio remains consistent with the scale permitted under the residential for future land use category.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Good evening.

I I think to answer your question, the public meeting was held in May of this year about the um the road widening.

I don't know if that's when Ray decided if it prompted him for this application.

Um but there was a uh public meeting and um on-site um, I guess feedback from the community on the road widening and the roundabout.

Uh there's going to be two roundabouts proposed on Van Dyke Road.

And the first one is right at the shell station at Van Dyke and Lakeshore.

Okay.

So my name is Beth White.

My business address is 5338 Van Dyke Road in Lutz, and I ask that you approve this modification.

Okay.

With the proposed expansion of Van Dyke Road, Ray stands to lose his business as the proposed roundabout on Van Dyke and Lakeshore would take a portion of his property, including his store.

He's being proactive with this application before the expansion occurs.

I frequented his business for over 20 years daily when he has the post office.

We use the convenience store, the we pump our gas, frequent the car wash, and the introduction of the food trucks have been a very welcome addition to our neighborhood.

Those of us who work or live by the shell station depend on it.

Uh during our storms, when the power is out, Ray immediately fires up a generator, makes sure the community has access for food and ice.

He's a wonderful man who cares about the community, and as a small business owner, is doing what is required to keep his company.

So I ask you to please approve the zoning application.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

No one responding.

Anyone in the audience wants to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

Uh yes, transportation staff has some comments that they would like to make.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr.

Zoning Hearing Officer.

I'd just like to clarify the status of the capital improvement plan for Van Dyke Road to widen it to a future four-lane.

Um it is currently in the 60% design phase and proceeding for final approval uh kind of on a concurrent track with the zoning moving forward in my report.

In my report, I speak to that.

And within the conditions of approval, it acknowledges the need to uh memorialize the corridor preservation and link that to that future improvement, which includes uh not only the four lanes but a roundabout at the intersection of Van Dyke Road and uh Lakeshore.

Okay.

And I did see in the files either the applicant provided or the staff did the actual cross section for the roundabout and the forward landing of Van Dyke.

That is correct.

That is from the 60 percent planning forward for final approval.

Okay.

Uh and additionally, um uh no acquisition in this immediate area that I'm aware of has has taken place.

Um there is partial funding, is my understanding in coordination with public works, but but there is the beginning of construction is to be determined.

Okay, and then in a redevelopment scenario, they'd have to go through permitting and deal with um site access locations, um turn lanes if necessary, etc.

I assume.

Uh that's correct.

Uh the transportation comments within the body of the staff report encapsulates our review of the site access.

The applicant's um site access analysis, proposed uh trip caps in relation to uh a overall build-out of the site with the uses that are proposed.

Right.

And um restrictions to accessing any site access improvements that would be required.

Okay.

Ms.

Heinrich, just for the record, this applicant, if it's a bubble plan, they would have to go forward with whatever plans they came up with.

They'd have to go see you about construction plan review.

Correct.

Um would be require site development review, which goes through zoning and various other um agencies for review.

Right.

And at that point in time, you'd look at stormwater needs, parking needs, on-site circulation needs, landscaping needs, you know, site access locations, um setbacks.

Setbacks parking yes, yes, sir.

So really it's not known at this time uh what that would look like, right?

Because it's still another step to go.

Correct.

Okay.

Got it.

Um at this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Are you good?

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh with that, that concludes this application or ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D3, uh PD rezoning 25-1245.

The applicant is requesting to zone property from ARNA to plan development.

This does have a companion uh comprehensive plan amendment.

So both the comprehensive plan amendment and this rezoning will be heard at the February 12th 2026 CPA hearing before the board.

And Tanya Chapella with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

Applicant, please.

Mr.

Hearing Officer uh Chris McNeil of McNail Engineering 15957 North Florida Avenue and Luther, Florida, on behalf of the applicant.

Um case here is Ms.

Heinrich described uh as a uh case with a companion uh land use change.

Uh we're currently seeking uh the rezoning of the site uh this evening agriculture and agricultural resident residential to open storage and uh passive agriculture.

Uh the open storage would exclude the storage of junk vehicle for the companion zoning 2524 is is just for the eastern portion of the site uh to LI uh the 4.79 acres in the total project side of 9.59.

Uh agency support findings.

The the uh planning commission board hearing on October 13th found uh that the uh plan or request was consistent, and staff recommended planning commission staff now is also rec recommending a consistent finding.

Um staff recommending approval, and there's no objection from any department or agency.

Uh the development pattern from a land use perspective, it shows uh in this image here that of the industrial uh use in the area, uh similar LI request to the north that was approved back in September of 16 uh with the with the uh at 60.

We're just south of that following that same pattern uh behind Joanne's family restaurant, and that is the uh limits of the request in that lower LI of the land use uh change.

Uh the PD is slightly larger, it's it's almost double the size, and this is uh represented in this image, which shows that back uh approximately five acres in stormwater or pass or agricultural.

There's no no change in the use back there, and it's actually got that restriction on it.

So really the open storage is just in that front half, and again, uh this PD or the companion PD that we're uh is similar to the north of us back in 17 was approved by the board 60 uh as well as that.

State road 39 uh directly in front of us is uh identified by the Tampa Bay Regional Transport Network has this rail network that I'm pointing right to the site where you can see that's main spur directly right across from us for mosaic uh property as well as um state road 39 is identified as an SIS corridor as well.

Um the area again is predominantly industrial in this area for land use wise uh on up in the Pasco County and of course going down further south in the plant city where that growth is at.

Uh the railroad uh goes along uh 39 speaks to that intensity of this area, and again the uh regional freight plan designates uh this is a major SIS transport uh in the industrial corridor, and it does uh stop directly in front of the site.

Um planning commission also uh made a note uh during the um uh in the the land use request not to have a wall, but they wanted uh buffering and screening, and that's exactly what we're proposing with our uh increased um type C buffer to 40 feet uh with uh and I don't reference it there, but later on there uh there is a eight foot high um screening request for that.

This is uh represented the site plan, so it kind of shows you that differentiation in the open storage area in the front relative to that uh stormwater pass vag in the back.

Yeah, could you just for a moment just explain the design decision with the open space stormwater pond, yes, sir, western half of the site?

Yes, sir.

So if you can see um probably better to go back here.

If you see that where I have the PD 25-1245, that's that dash is right in the middle of the site.

So the gray portion uh to the east, that east half would be the um where the open storage would be, and the area in the back that's not shaded would be the stormwater passive ag and having that image in your head makes this one a little better to see.

Yeah, but explain why.

Well, why the site plan looks like this?

Why does it look like this?

Really just uh we're again following trying to mimic the the uh the land use in the area.

So if we'll go back to this, you can see the open storage is that's approved to the north of us.

We just held the limits of that western limits and didn't get aggressive and try to push further back in.

Understood.

This is just uh an example layout of what the site could look like.

Um again, we're uh on State Road 39.

There's a PDE for this uh State Road 39, which is 96 feet of preservation, so pretty significant there.

In addition to that, we have a scenic corridor preservation requirement, so that's another 30 feet, 126 feet undisturbed along the frontage would remain that way.

This is a another image, kind of give you an idea of of what's included, what's not included as far as the the open storage area.

So again, around the open storage area, we're proposing a 40-foot, uh not a 30-foot, but increase to 40 foot type C buffer, uh, that including an eight-foot high opaque PDC or wood fence.

Uh, in addition to that, and of course, maintaining the existing uh vegetation that's there and supplementing.

So the uh additionally, there's support around adjacent to this site, and also uh it's well supported in the local community.

There's uh these are the letters of support that are in here.

Um regarding the uh comprehensive plan request.

I won't read all these, but you can see it later if you want.

But goal seven is well supported in this.

It's uh it almost meets every criteria and and goal seven, achieving that based on uh the work work residential requirement corridor, uh several things we can point to.

Um it is an economical development solution.

It would be minority woman-owned small business here.

It's a safe and off-street open storage for uh RV boat equipment trucks, uh, and also increase the efficiency of the growing uh regional freight mobility corridor that we noted earlier.

Quiet, low trips, no infrastructure.

Um it's in the rural service area, so that's helpful.

Uh supporting of concepts uh again, there's a shortage of trucks if if in this uh the uh DOT Tampa Bay Regional Freight findings of 2025.

It talks about the shortage of truck parking, literally uh 45 minutes outside of Tampa.

That's exactly 45 minutes outside of Tampa is well located.

Um talked again about the shortage of RV boat and equipment storage in the nearby community.

Um the uh located on an arterial roadway uh official the official uh Hilbert County truck route right in front of the site uh of 10,380.

Uh and again the PD and E to increase.

I won't hit all of these, but you can you can see it's um it's well well stocked.

Uh just in summary, um properties well situated situated based on that regional freight plan mobility corridor uh identified on the main line, the SIX CSX uh corridors there uh supportive warehouse light industrial.

So the site is compatible with the adjacent rail and the through fairs.

Um the application received finding the consistency recommendation approval from staff and no objection from any agency supporting the low local development patterns uh while being uh near the same residential development that it can support.

Uh so the uh subject property is strategically located uh with the ability to support the economic future of Hillbrook County and targeting industrial jobs and promoting local area growth opportunities when the balance of nearby housing so people can live where they work, all pointing back to goal seven as well.

And with that, we just available for any questions.

Uh yeah, just two very specific questions.

One is um if you know, will the site be paved, the parking lot area?

So the site be paved, the parking lot area.

Uh we have a we have a request in there for it not to be paved, but my understanding is to to get to that point to be gravel that we would have to have a an additional hearing, additional variance.

Yeah, because I I saw you asked for it, but I don't see it addressed in the zoning conditions.

Right.

So you'll deal with it during site development.

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

All right, there's another specific question I have is there's a condition uh number 13 that says the developer shall facilitate a temporary cross-access stub out.

Well, the adjacent parcel to the north.

Yes, sir.

What's that all about?

That's to the uh to the restaurant, and we have that identified on the site plan here, uh, going to the north.

Okay.

It's in that same area that's uh that's the uh right-of-way preservation area, but it's it'd be adjacent to the restaurant until that time.

All right, so if it's temporary, usually it's it ends at a certain date or it ends at a certain event.

It's what uh it would be the it I say temporary because the it's in that area of of the uh DOT PDE.

Okay.

So when and if that ever happens, that would be the date.

Okay, so uh so until then until such time that right away is acquired.

Yes, sir.

There'll be an access point.

Yes, sir.

And then after that it goes away.

That's correct.

All right, understood.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

All right, development services.

Good evening, Tania Chapella Development Services.

Um, I need to present revised reports.

Um there is a typo on page number eight as the agency's um comments.

In our there are two typos.

One is in natural resources.

Um, so where it says that there is an objection, is there's no objection, and the same thing with the utilities uh water and wastewater um row is the same thing.

The staff report shows um uh incorrectly at that there are objections, but there are not.

So I'm gonna present you the uh revised report.

Okay.

Thank you.

The property is currently zone agricultural and agricultural agricultural rural.

The applicant is requesting approval of a PVE to allow open storage, uh, stormwater and passive agricultural uses.

Um we already repeated, or we said we we know that uh this request is a companion uh to a CPA 2524.

Um the proposed uses are limited in intensity and do not include manufacturing or other high impact uh industrial activities.

The proposed FAR is well below what is allowed under the light industrial future land use designation.

Um in terms of compatibility, the site is located across manufacturing zoning and an active railroad, and the surrounding area already includes commercial and truck related uses.

A nearby plan development to the north allows truck dispatch and open storage.

And the applicant is requesting a PD variation to allow a eight foot height solid fence in place of the required six-foot masonry wall as part of the type C screening.

Buffer widths are not reduced, reduced and are actual increased from 30 feet to 40 feet, and existing vegetation will remain where it meets or exceeds uh code requirements.

Open storage is limited to a specific portion of the site, and enhanced buffering is provided to protect protect nearby residential areas.

Based on the surrounding context, enhanced buffering and limited scope of use is uh staff finds the proposed plan development compatible with the surrounding properties and consistent with the development pattern of the area and recommends approval subject to approval CPA 2524 and the staff conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject property is currently located in the agricultural mining 1 to 10 and the agricultural rural 1 to 5 future land use categories.

There is a pending plan amendment request, HCCPA 25-24 to the light industrial future land use category that is running concurrently with this rezoning application.

The site is in the rural area, and the subject property is not located within the limits of a community plan.

Heavy industrial uses are present to the north of the subject site and east across county line road, while agricultural uses dominate the land to the south and west.

Public, quasi public, and institutional uses are also situated to the south.

Given the presence of heavy industrial uses and intensive future land use categories in the immediate vicinity, the request is consistent with the intent of future land use section objective 1.1 and future land use section policy 3.1.3 that relate to compatibility.

Objective 4.4 seeks to enhance and preserve existing neighborhoods and communities by encouraging development patterns that reflect the predominant character of their surroundings.

In this case, the surrounding land use pattern consists primarily of agricultural, heavy industrial, and single family residential uses.

On the east side of Paul Buckman Highway is a long-standing phosphate plant owned and operated by the Mosaic Company, which has been in continuous operation for several decades.

The facility is designated under the heavy industrial future land use category.

Policy 4.4.1 further provides that any increases in density or intensity must be compatible with existing proposed or planned development in the area.

It also states that development and redevelopment should be integrated with adjacent land uses through the creation of similar or complementary uses, mitigation of adverse impacts, improved transportation and pedestrian connections, and a gradual transition of intensity.

The applicant has proposed an eight-foot tall opaque vinyl or wood fence rather than the required six-foot height with 100% opacity along all property lines.

Considering the increased fence height and the adjacent industrial uses to the north and south, the request is consistent with the intent of future land use section objective 4.4 and its modifying policies.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application.

No one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

No one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Mr.

Hearing Officer, I neglected to uh I wanted to let the the owner uh speak for just a second if I could do that right now.

Yes, I'd be fine.

Okay.

Good evening.

I'm Ragwalm Omuneni, address 15 Lemon Ring More Corridor, Florida 33527.

Okay.

I'm Slidevipar Rutanini, owner of the proposed property.

Thank you for your time and support.

Okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, all the staff for recommending the approval.

And we're executed to open the small business.

Thank you, everyone.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

With that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, next item.

Our next application is item D4, PD rezoning 25-1250.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AR and RSC2 to plan development.

I've reviewed this for development services and will present staff findings on behalf of James Baker.

Okay.

Applicant, please.

Good evening, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

Subject property is in Riverview in the Balm area.

It's directly east of Carlton Fields, existing uh development, and then south of South Fork East.

The residential land use category is Res 4, and the subject site is uh AR and RSC2 mobile home at this point, and we're going to a PD.

We're proposing 60 family single family lots.

There are 80 lots allowed under the zoning or the future land use, but we're only asking for 60.

We are have minimum lot width of 40 feet, 4,000 square feet lots, um, standard setbacks.

Primary access point is on to uh 672 on Balm Road, and then we're also providing cross connections to the adjacent developments.

There are several policies and support stated in the planning commission's uh staff report as well as development services is supporting this request subject to conditions, and I'm here to answer any questions should you have any.

No questions, thank you.

Development services staff.

Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

Staff reviewed a request to rezone property from AR in RSC2 MH to plane development to allow for the development of a 60 lot single family detached subdivision.

The site is located in the res four future land use category in the urban service area.

The surrounding areas developed with single family residential, and this project will be part of a larger over the larger overall development.

Proposed development standards are comparable to existing development and will allow for the site to develop at four units per acre.

No objections were received, and therefore staff does find uh this request approvable subject to proposed conditions.

Okay.

Planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject property is located in the residential four future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Balm and Riverview community plans as well as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

The neighborhood protection policies in the future land use section under Objective 4.4 require new development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The surrounding area and current development pattern mainly consists of single family residential development as well as agricultural uses with some public, quasi-public and heavy industrial uses in the area.

The proposed uh the proposal for additional single family homes is compatible with the existing development pattern and consistent with this policy direction.

With approximately 20 acres and the residential floor future land use category, the subject site can be considered for up to 80 dwelling units with 60 dwelling units proposed.

The proposed density is within the maximum permitted density allowed on the site and therefore consistent with development expected in the residential four future land use category.

The vision of the Balm community plan seeks to maintain the laid-back atmosphere and relaxed lifestyle, allow large and small property owners to work together to achieve their mutual desire to maintain a rustic atmosphere and ensure Balm's natural assets, including its scrublands, water bodies, and wildlife, continue to be preserved.

The proposed density of approximately three dwelling units per acre strives to maintain the current surrounding community characteristic of the adjacent residential area with a lower density than allowed under the existing future land use.

I'm sorry, under the maximum that can be considered under the existing future land use category.

Additionally, the approximately 2.09 acres of wetland preservation on the site seeks to maintain and preserve important environmental features.

The proposal meets the intent of the vision of the Balm Community Plan in addition to furthering goal three and objective 3.5 of the environmental and sustainability section of the comprehensive plan, which support the preservation and conservation of natural resources, specifically wetlands.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

No one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

Nothing further.

Okay.

Applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

No need for rebuttal.

All right, with that, that concludes this application.

Heinrich, we're ready for the next item.

Mr.

Luce, we do typically take a short break at 8 o'clock if that is acceptable to you.

Sure.

That's fine.

Just let us know when we're long do we take?

Uh typically five, six minutes.

All right.

How about this?

It's eight o'clock.

We'll come back at eight ten.

Thank you.

All right.

We are temporarily on pause.

Okay, welcome back, everybody.

Um we just said a 10-minute break.

And we'll continue with tonight's agenda.

And the next item on the agenda, Miss Heinrich.

Our next item is item D five, PD rezoning twenty-five-one three three eight.

The applicant is requesting to rezone uh property from RSC six to planned development.

James Baker has reviewed this on behalf of development services, and I will uh provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, thank you.

The applicant, please.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Sayed.

Last name is Ali.

The my address is six zero two Oconee Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

Um the brief introduction of the project and the subject properties look at it at seventy-eight fourteen East Elm Street, Tampa, Florida.

It lies in urban service area of the Hillsborough County as part of the East Lake Orient Park Community Planning Area.

The property is currently zone RSC six, as we said, and carries a future land use CMU twelve, which allows to have it tall units per acre.

The property is point nine one.

As a result, I think you would have only ten units.

And also lately, I think there were a couple of uh major PDs were approved a bit into the property, proposed property site on the north and also on the east of it.

Um I I I do have a slide.

Okay.

I'll just go.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

This is uh I've been through all that, and uh I could give a neighborhood uh overview.

Um this is the area from the property appraisals office, as you can see in the north.

We have a PD approved uh last year, I believe, for in and also on the east is the PD being approved, and further down on the south house after that also is a PD approved.

Um, this is these are the uh two PDs I know in the uh uh very much to the proposed side.

Um this is the the street view at present from the intersection of Elm Street and 78 looking towards east, and these are the neighborhood, and this is right on the left side.

You see the the properties in question.

And no, the proposed development would be sees here the site plan drawn and shows the five uh duplices are proposed.

And um it says ten lots, but I think each duplex is sitting on two lots, one and two, three and four, five and six, seven, eight, and nine and ten.

And um, this is uh this is what we proposing to have a uh this is a similar rendering of what we are proposing.

Okay.

And of course, it uh and I think as recommended by the staff uh the condition of having to extend the sidewalk from the property all the way to the intersection of 78 and Elm Street is gonna be implemented as far as the utilities are.

I'm hoping or the the applicant is hoping that those three PDs, especially the PD for the south, uh, is on condition of getting the utilities from SLI along the 78th Street to them.

I think this applicant probably hoping to have their utilities tap at the intersection of 78 and SLI.

Uh the other option I think we have to explore uh from the staff uh is there any possibility to tap into the PD, which is approved on the east of this side with that PD is of course 14 duplex and 57 town homes is a big you know I'm sure they have a uh lift station to tap into, but that's need to be explored with the staff.

No, uh this project was initially um help by my assistant David Edmonds.

Unfortunately, he had some problem and he couldn't speak and talk.

So I'm taking over from what he left off.

Um note I think he gave me is that the uh these five duplices were individually owned.

So he was making a point on me to explore that.

That in that situation, I think he was saying there is no stormwater needed unless it's all owned by one entity.

So that isn't a big question right now.

Uh yeah, I'll let staff answer that question in time, but why don't you conclude your comments?

Sure.

We'll get to that issue.

Oh, I well, that's the conclusion right now.

This is a uh uh present streetscape versus a feature of what we are trying to see, and this is the aerial view of the existing, and this is how those five duplexes are laid there.

And that concludes my presentation.

If anything, then I will be happy to answer.

All right, thank you, sir.

At this point, uh development services, and if you could address two items.

In general, after zoning, there's another process, right?

Yes, sir.

Okay, and there's a construction plan review process with a look at where the points of connection are for public water and sewer.

Yes, sir.

And is this development required to connect to public water and sewer?

Are you asking if it's required to if it is in the urban service area, it is required.

Okay.

And then from the issue about stormwater.

Um unfortunately, I don't know the thresholds as to when the pond would be required or not.

We can certainly speak with the applicant after the hearing and put him in touch with the staff members that would be able to help him.

Okay, right.

Okay.

All right.

That side, um, yeah, and now the presentation of your staff report.

Sure.

Uh Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

The applicant requests to rezone property from RSC 6 MH to plain development to allow for 10 units in five duplex buildings.

The site permits a maximum of 12 units per acre and is located in the urban service area.

The surrounding areas developed with or approved for various housing types, such as single family detached, single family attached, and two family attached.

The site is located um at currently the end of Elm Street, which is developed with single family detached with zonings of RC six and RSC6 MH.

The proposed development standards will be comparable to the RSC zoning uh district in terms of setbacks and height.

No objections from reviewing agencies were received.

Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to proposed conditions.

Okay, thank you.

And planning commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject property is located in the community mixed use 12 future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan.

The community mixed use 12 future land use category is intended for urban and density and intensity of uses.

With 0.91 acres, the site can be considered for up to 10 dwelling units.

The request is therefore consistent with development expected in this future land use category.

The proposal meets the intent of future land use section objective 4 and policy 4.4.1, which require new development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

In this case, the surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of single family residential uses, all located within the community mixed use 12 future land use category.

The proposed request aligns with this established pattern by introducing a residential development that mirrors the predominant character of the area.

Residential to residential development is inherently compatible, particularly when the proposed density and scale are consistent with the surrounding homes.

To further enhance compatibility with adjacent single family residences, the proposal includes installation of a six-foot vinyl fence around the perimeter.

This buffer will help maintain privacy, reduce potential visual impacts, and reinforce the residential continuity of the area.

Based upon these considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application.

Signal one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application.

Nothing further.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Thank you for the offer.

I don't see any there.

Thanks very much.

All right.

And we would be in text for debt regime pond.

I guess.

Certainly.

I can provide that information to you tomorrow morning.

Okay.

Thank you.

That would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

That concludes this application.

Heinrich, you're ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D6, major mod 24-1362.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 98-1269.

Sam Ball with Development Services has reviewed this application, and he will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive.

Um, I'll make this pretty brief.

Um this site is located um just the corner of the I-4 and I-75 interchange.

Um currently there's a small commercial office there.

It's about 2,000 square feet.

Um as you can see from this aerial, it's surrounded by other outdoor storage uses, um, a couple different auto sales and repair uses as well.

This is part of an antiquated two-parcel PD.

The parcel subject to this major modification is what is classified as parcel one, that is outlined in that green dashed line there.

So we are not proposing any changes to parcel two.

It's not included with this application.

Um as far as parcel one goes, this table summarizes what um it's currently approved for and what we're proposing.

So the approved use is very specific.

It's recreational RV slash vehicle storage and repair, and it's that same square footage as the existing office that I mentioned was on site today for that use.

Uh what we are proposing is a little bit, we want to unlock some flexibility here with some uses that we feel are consistent with the surrounding area.

Don't want to be locked into just that one specific use.

Um so we're proposing open storage, warehousing, manufacturing, mini-ware housing, and BPO uses with the proposed square footage around 55,000 square feet.

That's a 0.5 FAR.

It is further limited by trip cap, which I'll mention in just a second.

Um we believe that this is a compatible request given again what's in the proximity both of those two major interstates there.

Um we're proposing type C 30-foot buffers where necessary and applicable.

Um as mentioned, we are limiting this to an 80 trips per day, that trip cap.

So though we have the ability to build 54,000 or so square feet, um, that won't be with some of the higher intense traffic generating uses like BPO.

Um, that was based on many warehousing in the traffic study.

Um so we also believe that this is aligned as mentioned with some of those surrounding uses in the area there.

Um staff found this application consistent.

Um there were no objections from the reviewing departments, and that concludes my presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

No questions.

Thank you.

Development services.

Good evening, uh, Sam Ball with uh development services.

I uh just want to make sure I did submit a revised report.

Uh it's an optics and also here.

Uh the applicant is uh requesting a major modification to parcel one of PD 981269.

The properties located approximately 200 feet southwest of I 75 and I-4 intersection, and the development is approved for up to 2300 square feet of gross floor area to be used for recreational behavioral uh non-engine repair uh servicing and storage.

Uh the applicant's request to increase the gross floor area to 54,888 square feet and change the allowable uses to warehousing open storage as a principal accessory use, many warehousing, manufacturing, or business professional office issues, uh office uses subject to a trip cap of 80 gross trips per day.

The modification would increase the FAR ratio of parcel one from 0.2 to 0.5, and it would increase the FAR, the overall PD from 0.10 to 0.44.

Uh development in the area includes a mix of residential, industrial, commercial uses that includes uh properties with open storage, a towing business with an impound area, auto sales, uh used appliance sales, and a business that specializes in roadway barriers uh also butts the property.

Uh the property to the north is zoned and developed for office and warehouse use, the properties to the south are zoned for commercial and commercial intensive uses and existing uses to the south, include that towing business, uh, auto sales, open storage, uh, single family and um two-family development.

The abiding property to the west is zoned AR and is undeveloped.

The ASC1 property um to the east of Carmack Road is developed for single family use.

If this modification is approved, the access point along Carmac Drive would be shifted south.

A 30-foot buffer with type C screening would be required along the western and southwestern boundaries, and the uses would be restricted to the 80 trips per day with limits of five uh gross AM peak hour trips and eight gross uh PMP hour trips based on the general nature of the uses in the area, the the buffering and screening and the number limited number uh vehicle or trips and the proximity of two interstates and uh U.S.

highway uh staff finds that the proposed modification would be compatible with the zoning development pattern in the area and recommends approval subject to conditions.

That concludes my report if you have any questions.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, finally commission staff.

Thank you.

The subject site is located within the community mixed use 12 future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan.

Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires that all new development be compatible with the surroundings.

Recognizing that compatibility does not mean uniformity, but rather the thoughtful design of proposals that respect and maintain the character of existing development.

The subject site currently contains light commercial uses and additional light and heavy commercial uses are located to the south along East Hillsboro Avenue to the east and along Carmack Road.

Surrounding the site to the south, east, and west are single family residential uses.

Light industrial uses are situated directly to the north and west, while public and quasi-public uses are also present to the west.

Given the presence of similar light industrial and more intensive uses in the surrounding area, the request aligns with the aforementioned policy direction.

The CMU 12 future land use designation surrounds the site on all sides.

The urban mixed use 20 future land use category is located south across East Hillsboro.

This designation allows consideration of agricultural, residential, commercial, office, research, corporate park, light industrial, and multi-purpose uses.

The proposed uses align with the development that are expected in the commute community mixed use 12 category.

The economic development goal of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan is to expand opportunities for business growth and job creation within the East Lake Orient Park community.

Goal seven of the future land use section further supports land use and development patterns that promote employment and economic expansion.

The proposed modification of parcel one to allow manufacturing warehousing, many warehousing, open storage, and business professional office uses is consistent with goal seven and with the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan Vision.

Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application.

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive, I'll waive the rebuttal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes this application.

Heinrich, ready for the next item.

Our last application for the evening is item D7, Major Mod 25 1375.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 15 0694.

Sam Ball Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening, Cammy Corbett again.

Subject properties located on Boyette Road in Riverview.

On the left is the original PD, it was a mixed use residential development.

It was developed by Matamine Holmes, and the front parcel was pod A, was the commercial uh parcel, and it was allowed for 50,000, a total of 50,000 square feet to the on the just below the close up.

What you see with the gray pet suite site plan is actually a major modification that was done last year on the west side of the main driveway, but they didn't modify anything related to our part of Pod A.

So what we're doing is establishing a pod A1 with this zoning that applies to our side, the east side of this new valley loop.

And we're keeping all the same uses.

What we are actually doing is just removing there was a restriction on drive-throughs for eating establishments, so we're asking to remove that restriction, and we are subjecting ourselves to a condition that the call box for the eating establishment has to be 200 feet from the closest platted residential lot rather than a standard, which would be no more than two or that you couldn't have the use at all within 200 feet of residential uh zoning.

And so with the stormwater ponds, both on our site and on their site, um, and given that there's not very many single family residents within the 200 foot area.

Staff seem to be able to find uh a way to support this request.

We are consistent with the commercial uh locational criteria, the development is compatible with the surrounding area, or consistent with the community plans, and we have all recommendations for approval, and I'm here to answer any questions should you have any.

No questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Development services good evening.

That's Sam Ball with uh Hillsworth County Development Services.

Uh the applicant is requesting modifications to PD 150694 to remove the restriction of eating establishments with drive-through.

Uh the applicant is also requesting that the ordering boxes for the drive-throughs be allowed within 200 feet of residentially zoned property.

Uh the modification area covers 3.07 acres and is located at the southeast corner Boyette Road and Newell Valley Loop.

Uh, it is in the urban service area and the uh Riverview Community Planning Area.

The properties to the east and west are zoned for commercial use.

The property to the south is within the same PD and is developed as a gated community with 424 lots, developed as duplexes, townhomes, and conventional single family.

Uh the property across Boyette Road to the north contains a 12-acre man-made lake.

Uh, other uses in the area include Riverview High School, uh, freestanding strip retail, conventional single family, a religious institution, and vacant commercial.

Uh if this application is approved, a portion of the commercial uh designated development pod, pod A, would be designated as Pod A1, which would be limited to 18,000 uh square feet.

Uh eating establishments with drive-thru would be allowed within pod uh one, but the drive-through order boxes would be required to be at least 200 feet from uh any plotted residential lot.

Um the development requirements would also include a 20-foot wide buffer with enhanced type B screening along the southern boundary that would include uh six-foot-tall evergreen plantings with at least 75% opacity, a six-foot tall PVC fence, and a row of evergreen shade trees at least 10 feet tall at the time of planning and space to 20 feet apart.

Uh the development standards also include a 25-foot step pack from the north and west property boundaries.

Uh based on the surrounding zoning and development pattern and the proposed uses, the development standards for the modification area.

Uh staff finds request approvable subject to conditions.

Uh that concludes my report if you have any questions.

Yeah, just one specific question.

Maybe the transportation staff can help with is maybe the applicant and their consultant can help.

I think there's a condition that says there's a an entrance road on the west side of the commercial site.

Um that has a restriction for southbound to left bound movements into the site.

And I'd like to know I guess from staff and then the applicant's rep.

Is that in your experience?

Um will that work?

I don't know if I'm framing the question right, but it usually could control like left is in by a median, but I think what they're proposing is to stripe it out and somehow say no no left.

Uh yes.

Uh the um staff reviewer uh had identified uh a concern about I believe uh a restriction that was established in the previous PD that appeared to be left out in one of the uh maybe the initial versions of this PD site plan and made that a comment as a prior to certification to restore it.

I think the applicant had uh revised the plan and and uh included it in the revised plan, which shows uh a I believe a sign restricting that left turn movement as well as perhaps some modifications to the curb uh extension, and I think the uh applicant's traffic engineer maybe will speak to that further.

Yeah.

If you don't mind, so you answer my question.

If I can get the uh applicants traffic consultants, just address that one question.

Good evening, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic.

Uh yeah, as Mr.

Perez had indicated uh that will be restricted.

Uh so no left in, no southbound left in.

That was done originally.

Uh it's the issue is the proximity from the intersection, and so there wasn't sufficient distance to give stacking in there.

There was no southbound left turn lane provided.

So given that it's already been developed, there's not enough room for stacking, but we did add a right in right out to the application for the parcel, so they'll be able to make that right in right out directly without coming into the residential driveway to try and make that southbound left out.

So if you live in that community to the south.

You could you could come in to the retail by coming if you're coming out, you would make a northbound right into the site.

If you want to go home right afterwards, you I you actually can make a left out.

Okay.

And if you're coming home from work or parts beyond.

Yeah, if you're coming, if you're coming home and you live in the residential development, you can make a right into the development from the right in right out.

Out on the main road.

Yeah.

The east-west road.

Yeah, boy, yeah.

Okay.

So it was a carryover condition that somehow got dropped out and put back in.

Yes.

Okay, got thank you.

All right.

Um mission's yeah.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the residential four future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Riverview Community Plan, as well as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

The surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of light commercial uses to the north and east and residential uses to the south and west.

Future land use section policy 4.4.1 states that development shall be integrated with the adjacent land uses through the creation of like uses, mitigation of adverse impacts, transportation and pedestrian connections, as well as gradual transitions of intensity.

With the mitigation measures in place, including the 20-foot buffer and the type B screening on the southern boundary of the site, as well as the condition that any call boxes associated with the drive-through eating establishment will be at least 200 feet away from a residential property.

The request is consistent with the policies related to neighborhood and community development.

Objective 4.7 outlines the policies associated with commercial locational criteria.

Policy 4.7.3 outlines that non-residential uses and residential future land use categories can be considered if they meet certain criteria.

One of these criteria applies to the neighborhood serving commercial uses that are integrated and connected as part of a larger mixed-use development of at least 10 acres in size.

As the proposed major modification area is within a larger mixed-use plan development that is greater than 10 acres, this policy applies to the site.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

No one's responding.

Staff, anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant and opportunity for rebuttal.

No need for rebuttal.

With that, that concludes this application.

And that concludes this evening's zoning hearing master hearing.

We are adjourned.