Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer Hearing Summary - January 12, 2026

The Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO), presided over by Hearing Officer Steve Luce, convened on January 12, 2026 at 9:00 AM at the County Center, 2nd Floor, to hear a variety of land use petitions including variances, a special use, and a site development variance request. The hearing addressed 14 individual cases, with four continued to a future date. Decisions on all heard cases are to be filed by February 3, 2026.

Consent Calendar (Continuances and Withdrawals)

• VAR 24-1128 (Rolando Santiago): Continued to February 9, 2026 LUHO.
• SU-SCH 24-1335 (David Wright/TSP Companies, Inc.): Continued to February 9, 2026 LUHO.
• VAR 25-1340 (Laritza Lopez): Continued to February 9, 2026 LUHO.
• VAR 26-0227 (Matthew Remson): Continued to February 9, 2026 LUHO.

Public Comments & Testimony

• VAR 25-1359 (Magela Publes) – Accessory structure/fence variance: Two neighbors spoke in opposition, alleging unpermitted plumbing, concerns about the structure being used as a rental (Airbnb), and that the building resembles a tiny house rather than a shed. One opponent stated he visually observed a trench being dug and sewer pipe laid without inspection. The applicant (Magela Publes) rebutted that the plumbing was for an irrigation system, that electrical work was done by a licensed electrician, and that she needs the space as an office to care for her mother with Alzheimer's and to run her janitorial business. She denied any rental plans and noted that the structure was purchased from a reputable company, cost $11,000, and came with a wet seal meeting city codes.
• VAR 26-0188 (Gregory LaChapelle & Sharon Gionata) – Solid roof screen enclosure variance: One neighbor (Denise Himes) spoke in strong opposition, citing concerns about loss of light, mold, hurricane debris impacting her home, fire hazards, drainage, noise, and property value decrease. She alleged collusion between the HOA, board, and applicants, and that she was not given proper notice or opportunity to be heard despite HOA rules requiring it. The applicant (Sharon Gionata) rebutted that the HOA process allowed public comment at board meetings, that other homes in the community have similar setups, and that the gutters will improve drainage.
• VAR 25-1312 (Luisa I. Alonso) – Lot development standards variance: Scott Gonzalez, president of the Town and Country Parks Civic Association, spoke in opposition, alleging a long pattern of unpermitted construction on the property (including a detached ADU, filling a sinkhole, and multiple porch additions) and that the property may be subdivided into multiple apartments. He argued the variance would harm neighborhood character and requested denial.

Discussion Items

• VAR-WS 26-0149 (Eric & LaJoyce Houston) – Site development variance to encroach into a wetland setback: The applicants requested a 25-foot maximum encroachment into the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback to build a new single-family home. They argued that the house placement would actually prevent erosion into the wetland. Staff noted a wetland setback compensation plan was provided. No public comments. Hearing Officer held the record open pending determination.
• VAR 25-1312 (Luisa I. Alonso) – Variance to lot development standards: Initially held in abeyance because the applicant was absent, the applicant later appeared. The request was to allow a front porch to extend to 8.2 feet from the property line, a 6.8-foot variance from the required 15-foot setback. Staff noted an open code compliance violation related to the porch. The applicant's representative stated they were only seeking the variance for the side porch, not addressing other issues raised. The civic association president opposed, alleging a history of unpermitted construction and potential subdivision of the property. Hearing Officer noted opposition comments were partially outside the scope of the variance hearing but were recorded.
• VAR 25-1359 (Magela Publes) – Variance to fence and accessory structure requirements: The applicant requested an 11-foot variance to allow a 4-foot front yard setback for an accessory structure (shed), and a 2-foot variance to allow a 6-foot high fence in the front yard. Staff report was presented. Public testimony included both opposition and rebuttal (see Public Comments). Hearing Officer noted the record.
• VAR 26-0018 (Eleazar Garza Zapata) – Variance to lot development standards for a front porch: The applicant requested a 5.5-foot variance to allow a front porch projection of 15.5 feet into the required 50-foot front yard in the AS-1 district. The applicant's neighbor testified that removing the porch would be costly and there is no safety hazard. No public opposition. Hearing Officer heard the case.
• VAR 26-0083 (Kelly Gutierrez) – Variance to lot development standards and swimming pool requirements: The applicant requested multiple variances for a screen enclosure, covered patio, and to correct existing structures built with a pool installed before the home was purchased. Staff noted two covered areas on the north and south sides had been removed. The homeowner (Osmeel Martinez) testified that the screen enclosure was built for family safety and to protect from mosquitoes. No opposing testimony. Hearing Officer clarified that the roof overhang does not cover the entire rear yard and that the two covered walkways were removed.
• VAR 26-0099 (Tiffney Lane) – Variance to minimum lot size by available utilities: The applicant requested a variance to reduce the minimum upland requirements for septic to split an existing parcel. The property currently has city water and the applicant received health department approval for septic. The variance would allow shifting a property line to enlarge a vacant lot from 4,750 sq ft to over 8,000 sq ft to build a single-family home. No public opposition.
• VAR 26-0134 (Melva Rodriguez) – Variance to lot development standards: The applicant requested a 5.14-foot variance to the front yard setback (resulting in 19.86 feet) and a 4.68-foot variance to the side yard setback (resulting in 2.82 feet) for a laundry/storage area built prior to purchase. The applicant's representative stated the homeowner built based on an existing structure. No public comments.
• VAR 26-0148 (Peter McConaghey) – Variance to landscaping and buffering requirements: The applicant requested a variance to allow a 6-foot high fence within a 30-foot rural scenic easement along W Knights Griffin Road for safety reasons. The applicant's representative (Todd Amoden) and client (Chris Torse) agreed to set the fence back 2 feet from the easement line and plant shrubs. No public comments. Staff provided an example photo of the proposed fence.
• VAR 26-0176 (Kevin McNamara) – Variance to lot development standards: The applicant requested a 1-foot 2.25-inch variance to the front yard setback (resulting in 23 feet 7.75 inches) and an 11-foot variance to the rear yard setback (resulting in 14 feet) to rebuild a home damaged by Hurricane Helene in the same footprint, elevated 13-14 feet above street level. The house is currently uninhabitable due to mold and erosion. No public opposition.
• VAR 26-0187 (Ramineni Gowtham Kumar) – Variance to accessory dwelling and accessory structure requirements: The applicant requested an 11-foot variance to side yard setback for an existing accessory dwelling (resulting in 4 feet) and a 9-foot variance for an existing accessory structure (resulting in 6 feet). The property was purchased in July 2024 with the structures already in place. No permits were found for the main house or the structures. Staff noted the accessory dwelling appeared on aerial imagery between 2014 and 2016, and the metal shed between 2017 and 2018. The applicant's co-owner stated they reached out to neighbors and none expressed concerns. No public opposition.
• VAR 26-0188 (Gregory LaChapelle & Sharon Gionata) – Variance to lot development standards for a solid roof screen enclosure: The applicant requested a 3-foot variance to the side yard setback (resulting in 2 feet) to replace an existing screen enclosure with a solid roof lanai of the same size and footprint. The variance is associated with an active building permit. The applicant stated the HOA approved the project on October 17, 2025, and that the solid roof will improve stormwater control and storm protection. Public testimony included support from two neighbors and opposition from one neighbor (see Public Comments).
• SU-AB 26-0225 (Maria Rodriguez) – Special use for 2-COP alcoholic beverage permit with separation waivers: The applicant requested a beer and wine permit for an existing restaurant (Esquina Sabrosa) at 2730 W Waters Ave. Staff recommended approval with waivers from distance requirements: 126 feet from residential (required 250 feet), 184 feet from Oak Grove United Methodist Church (required 500 feet), and 384 feet from Faith Baptist Church (required 500 feet), citing commercial character, physical buffers, and minimal impact. No public comments.

Key Outcomes

• All 14 cases were heard, with four continuances (VAR 24-1128, SU-SCH 24-1335, VAR 25-1340, VAR 26-0227) and 10 cases heard and left pending determination by the Hearing Officer.
• Hearings for VAR 25-1312 and VAR 26-0083 were initially held in abeyance due to applicant absence; both applicants later appeared and were heard.
• Final decisions on all heard applications will be filed on or before February 3, 2026.
• The Hearing Officer accepted a conditional offer from the applicant in VAR 26-0148 to set back the fence 2 feet from the scenic easement line and plant shrubs, which will be considered in the decision.
• No formal votes were taken; all decisions will be issued by written order.