Good evening, everyone.

If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Please have a seat.

Good evening, everyone.

She'll introduce other staff members that will participate in tonight's hearing as well as go over any off the agenda changes.

Up at the diaspora with the County Attorney's Office, we have Mary Dorman and Jared Dolphino with the Planning Commission.

Um next to Jared is Alexis Myers.

And with transportation staff on the other side, we have James Ratliff.

And I do just have one revision to the agenda to announce, and that's for agenda page nine, item D four, PD twenty-five-0934.

The agenda is being corrected to correct the applicant name in the service area.

I'll ask questions related to direct testimony.

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.

Our order of presentation tonight is as follows.

Ms.

Heinrich of the Development Services Department will make a brief introduction for each agenda item.

We'll then go to the applicant.

The applicant and their team has a total of 15 minutes to make their presentation.

Next up, we'll go back to the development services staff planner who was assigned the case, and they will have five minutes to present the county's findings.

We'll then turn to the planning commission.

The planning commission also has five minutes to present their findings of consistency with the county's comprehensive plan.

Then we'll go to proponents, anyone who would like to speak in favor of an application.

Everyone together, 15 minutes for that testimony.

The same is true next when we turn to opponents, anyone who would like to speak against an application.

Everyone combined, 15 minutes.

We'll circle back then to development services to see if they have any changes or comments based on tonight's testimony.

And then the applicant has the last word with five minutes for rebuttal.

Regarding that time for proponents and uh opponents, the 15-minute time frame.

How that will work is when we get to that section.

Uh for those of you that are in the room that would like to speak, I will have you raise your hand.

We also have people that are participating virtually.

We will get that total count and we will divide the number of people that want to speak by the 15 minutes to have everyone get a fair chance, knowing that we can't, if there's a large number of people, you might want to designate a speaker to use your time more effectively, but that's how it is.

We have a full agenda and we're going to try to keep to those time frames best we can.

If you are going to speak either in the room or online, when you start, if you could give us your name and address for the record.

We are recording this hearing, and we want to make sure we have your information correct.

When you're done speaking, if you're in the room, if you could see Alison and Germain, raise your hand, guys.

They're at the end of the dais.

They have a uh log on the top of the dais, and if you could sign in with your name, address, and the application number to which you spoke.

Let me now turn to Ms.

Dorman of the County Attorney's Office, and she will provide you the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Ms.

Dorman.

Hi.

Mary Dorman from the Hillsborough 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 March 10th, 2026 land use meeting, 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 February 16th, 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 meeting.

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 act an 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.

Thank you, Ms.

Dorman.

I appreciate it.

As I mentioned, all testimony is under must be under oath.

So if you plan to speak tonight, would you please stand, raise your right hand, and I'll swear you in.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you so much.

Please have a seat.

All right.

With that done, I will add that uh we will take a break, two breaks tonight if we get to that point, somewhere around eight o'clock and somewhere around 10 o'clock.

If you want to plan your time accordingly, so with that, Miss Heinrich, we are ready to call the first case.

Our first application is item C One standard rezoning 25-1026.

The applicant is requesting a rezon property from RSC 6 to CG.

Logan McCaik with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Robert Martin, representing Leonardo Cologne.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

Everything doesn't want to open up.

Mr.

Martin, do you need some assistance with the presentation?

No, it just didn't want to open up for some reason.

I had it open now, but we're ready to go.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you though.

Proceed.

Thank you.

So the location property is 4512 66th Street, Tampa.

The zoning is currently RC6.

They're requesting to change it over to CG.

This was brought to our attention.

The um the property has been run in some type of pallet business where they store the pallets.

People come pick them up, take them other places so they sell them.

Code enforcement got involved.

This turned into an outside open storage issue.

So the uh property owners request into CG zoning to continue this the pallet business.

Now the comprehensive plan allows for certain things when it comes to that type of uh property and that type of business.

So the request is the CG zoning, which requires some type of buffering, transition and design measurements to protect residential neighborhoods.

The subject property is located within the Hillsborough County of Service Urban Area.

Commercial development is encouraged.

Public facilities and services are available and adequate to serve the proposed commercial general zoning.

The property fronts are collector roadway suitable for commercial access.

The proposed zoning allows neighborhood service, low intensity commercial uses consistent with surrounding uh developments.

The properties currently around the property uh within a few uh 500 feet.

There's Kearney development, which is directly across the street, and then there's another one that is north of the property on the west side of 66th Street, which currently allows 40 to 50 semi-truck trailers coming in and out off of 66th Street.

So currently the county water and sewer for Tampa is available.

Um there is enough evidence to prove that the mixed of the residential and commercial including but not limited to CG identification approximately amount of wetlands or no wetlands available.

The current property is 1.54 acres.

So the request today is we had uh initial approval from development services that there were no issues, but then it was brought to our attention by the planning commission that they wanted us to apply for a CLC commercial location criteria waiver.

I submitted a document to uh the lady involved, and then it was brought to my attention that the outside open storage wasn't allowed, and the request was to do the CG zoning in order for us to build a commercial building that would allow us to eliminate the CG or the outside open storage.

Okay.

So does that complete your presentation?

Pretty much it sums it up in a nutshell.

Okay, all right.

I had a couple of questions.

You um I saw in my review of the file that you originally applied for CI and changed it to CG.

What's the reason for that?

Yeah, that was a mistake.

Um, you know, pallets is not a commercial intensive business.

Okay.

So the the property.

The property owner had thought that somebody told him along the way because there was properties in there that have PD zoning.

So he thought that his ideal zoning would be CI.

After a few months of going back and forth with them and discussing the CG zoning would be the better alternative.

That's when we changed it.

I see.

And I think you just answered my question on my second uh issue, and that was uh why the request for CG if they don't allow open storage and it's a it's a pallet business.

So your plan is to completely enclose all of the pallets?

Right.

To eliminate outside open storage, you need three walls and a roof.

So in order for him to build something that large, it has to be a commercial building or commercial zoning because ROC6 won't allow us to do that.

Yeah, I did review the aerial um photo, and it's quite a substantial amount.

Right.

What we're trying to do is eliminate half of that amount in order to build a building, and he's gonna start doing manufacturing of pallets on another location somewhere else to help eliminate type of traffic and anything else that would come to that property.

All right, because we do have an understanding that somebody's disputing it.

Unfortunately, this is an ongoing battle between him and the neighbor, and that's how code enforcement got involved to begin with.

I see.

And you are aware that on the west side of 66, it's industrial and manufacture zone, unlike the east side.

Correct.

And if I'm not mistaken, uh everything on the west side of him doesn't front 66th Street, it's actually a little cul-de-sac in the back side that was PD'd to be some type of a subdivision.

Okay.

Those are my only questions.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

If you could please sign in with the clerk's office.

All right, thank you.

Development services.

Yeah.

Good evening.

Good evening, Logan McKay Development Services.

Applicants requesting to rezone to CG from RSC six mobile home overlay.

Uh site is under code enforcement violation for improper zoning and open storage.

Uh the proposed zoning, if approved, would not allow open storage.

Uh the site is located within an area developed with residential and non-residential uses.

Single family is present to the immediate east of the site, which uh poses compatibility concerns any lack of transition between the more intense uses found to the west under the proposal.

Uh the full range of CG commercial general uses would be permitted with no additional compatibility measures or uh with no additional compatibility measures uh such as increased setbacks, buffering screening.

Uh in addition to the above, the site uh fails to meet requirements for the commercial location criteria as outlined by the Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Uh the applicant did not provide a CLC waiver.

Um therefore, based on the above uh considerations, staff finds the request non-supportable.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is in the residential six future land use category.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan.

The proposed rezoning from residential single family conventional six to commercial general um to allow the sales of pallets would introduce a use that is operationally intensive and visually impactful in close proximity to uh residential properties.

Despite the presence of more intense uses in the broader area, the proposed rezoning does not align with the intent of the future land use section objective 1.1, which emphasizes land use compatibility, appropriate transitions between differing um intensities and a protection of established residential areas from encroachment uh by incompatible um commercial or industrial uses.

I mean, I'm sorry, activities as well as uh future land use objective 4.4 regarding neighborhood uh protection.

Open storage represents a level of intensity and functional character that exceeds what is envisioned for the res six designation and is inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining a low density residential oriented development pattern.

The subject site also does not meet the uh commercial and locational criteria required by objective 4.7 of the comprehensive plan.

The nearest qualifying intersection, Hartford Street and 66 Street South, is approximately 1900 feet from the subject site, which exceeds the maximum density.

I'm sorry, distance allowed.

It is also inconsistent with the progress um Palm River Progress Village Community Plans uh intent to guide growth in a manner that is context sensitive and compatible with existing neighborhoods based upon the above considerations of the and I'm sorry, and the following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission status, find the proposed rezoning inconsistent with the unincorporated Hiswell County comprehensive plan.

Ms.

Myers, just one quick question.

Um the the property you stated doesn't meet commercial locational criteria.

Yes, they did submit a waiver, the applicant.

Uh I believe they did um pull that up.

Um sorry, no, it uh waiver was not submitted, not submitted.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

That was all.

All right, we'll turn to anyone who would like to speak in support.

Anyone in favor that would like to speak.

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition.

All right, well, Mr.

Shift comes forward.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

All right, seeing no one, good evening.

Good evening, thank you, madam hearing master.

Um, my name is Gordon Schiff, Gordon J.

Schiff PA 4155 West Cypress Street, Tampa, Florida.

I represent A.

Scott and Rebecca S.

Hendry, who owned the property immediately to the south of the applicant's property.

Um, we submitted detailed written comments and objections that are in the record, and I'll I'll I have an extra copy to go into the record tonight, but they're already, they were submitted on January 12th, and it included uh two um existing uh orders of code enforcement that uh were referenced also, I think in the staff report.

So there's code issues as well as uh the question of not having zoning.

Um the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

You um and and I went into detail in my letter, but the uh staff has also found that at the planning commission.

Uh the the uh zoning is also uh not appropriate uh in this area.

That is that is what uh the county staff has found, and it's incompatible with surrounding uses.

Um our letter, and I'm summarizing what's in our letter, but there's a substandard roadway that is set forth in the transportation division's comment sheets.

So it's a substandard roadway.

Uh it doesn't have water, wastewater, and there is no connection at the property line.

It's quite a ways away.

That's in the water resources report.

Uh it's clear that CG is too intensive for this site.

Uh the uh it's too small to do this type of use to begin with.

Uh it has issues on commercial access, parking, loading, circulation, stormwater, buffering, and screening, and um, as I said, the staff report finds it's not supportable.

So uh finally, just one other point.

There is no basis to claim any vested or equitable stop or vested legal rights.

Uh this is just a use that was not permitted that somebody started doing that.

Doesn't you you do not get any vested rights for that?

So that's not a valid argument.

So with that, uh, we respectfully request that you recommend denial of this application, and I think Mr.

Hendry wants to say a few words.

All right, thank you so much.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Scott Hendry.

Uh I my wife and I own the property uh directly south of the property that's up for rezoning.

Um it really just does not fit the neighborhood.

Uh it it's a pretty quiet place.

Um, and uh we've been watching what's evolved over the last couple of years on the property.

It just gets there's more and more uh all the time.

It's uh very unsightly.

Um there's been numerous code violations reported.

Uh I don't think any of them have really they may have solved a few of them, but most of them remain open, and uh we strongly oppose what's going on.

All right, zoning.

Thank you for coming down.

If you could please sign in as well.

All right, anyone else who would like to speak in opposition before we move on?

Seeing no one, development services, Ms.

Heinrich, anything else?

Nothing further.

All right.

Then uh the applicant has the last word, Mr.

Martin.

You can come forward if you'd like, or you don't have to take it.

Hi, Barbara Martin.

So go back to the waiver.

Um, as soon as I received the email from the planning commission, she asked for a CLC, the community the commercial uh location criteria, and I sent her that document.

I never received anything else after that, other than an email from them telling me that outside open storage was not allowed.

So where was this waiver supposed to come from?

Uh it's with the planning commission, Ms.

Myers.

If you could check real quick.

Yes, I apologize.

I actually do see the waiver um it was submitted back in October on October 30th.

Um however we do ask that is denied um with the board.

All right, thank you.

So that that they did receive your application or your request.

Thank you.

And the the code enforcement issues are generated by the neighbor of the South.

Uh Leonardo Cologne is just not elected to report them for their multiple violations.

And to kind of sum it up, I was the original code enforcement officer decided, Mr.

Cologne for the outside open storage originally.

So I'm no longer with code enforcement.

That's why I'm in the process of helping him to get this rezoned in order to have the CG so he can continue to what he's doing, which he's been doing for about five years.

So this rezoning is not necessarily it's a hardship for him due to the fact that it's an ongoing neighborhood dispute.

How long has he been in operation?

Over five years.

Now, from what I understand, he had another business that he was running there as well.

The multiple violations keep coming in.

Uh before they would be they would be able to do anonymous, but now they have to be notified of who's calling in violation.

So he's doing what he can to clean up the property, try to maintain a decent um business, support his family.

All right.

Now originally I did get a uh email from development services saying they had no objectives to the CG.

Um last week is when I received the email from the planning commission for the first time about the waiver.

All right.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

And with that, we'll close rezoning 25-1026 and go to the next case.

I'm sorry, Miss Finch.

I just had one question because I was uh speaking with somebody.

There was a waiver request to the locational criteria.

Okay, yes, it was.

I'll submit it back in October on October 30th.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

And then we're ready.

That's okay.

We'll call the next case.

Let's see.

The next application is item C2, standard rezoning 25-1350.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from ASC 1 to BPOR restricted.

Uh Michelle Montebano with development services will preside staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Uh good evening here, Officer Todd Pressman, 2002nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

I do have a PowerPoint if that's up for you.

Okay.

Uh this is RZ standard 25-1350.

We're located in the Brandon area.

Issue is indicated as ASC1 to BPO for 2.5 acres.

Development services support, and we have neighbor support.

We have a number of conditions that are uh indicated in the staff report, which is including a 30-foot B buffer along the North Property line, which is enhanced from a 20-foot B.

Also restricting the maximum structure square footage to 15,000 square feet.

Maximum height is one story or 23 feet with our architectural embellishments, and a set of uh parents conditions.

Uh that's a long list of them.

Uh which go from A, B, C, which include just a wide range of materials and standards uh that really take a lot of control over how the structure will look.

Development services notes that these restrictions also provide for scale and design that would be comparable to the other non-single family institutional uses in the vicinity of the parcel that are also front onto Lithia Pinecrest Road.

As I indicated, we would do the 30-foot B along the north.

And uh the staff report also notes that Lithia Pinecrust is designated for four-lane enhancement per the Hillsborough County Corridor Preservation Plan.

This is a wider locational uh showing you where the location is on Lithia Pinecrest south of East Lumson.

This is as the property appraiser has at on Lithia Pinecrust.

Zoning is ASC1.

You can see that there's been a lot of activity to the north with BPOs and PDs looking closer that include a car wash, uh office residential, uh, and other similar uses, as you can see.

This would be a.20 FAR, which is very low in the comp plan, which we restricted amount of development.

Rather than looking at zoning maps and future land use map, I think what's important here as well, what development services found were the actual uses in the area and how the area has changed already, which includes a vacant home to the north.

And we tried repeatedly to touch base with them.

There's no one was apparently home, it appears that the home is a vacant church across the street, a temple, and a very large children's center, kids' place.

Also to the south is a cabin accompany.

And the planning commission report, they do recognize some of this noting to the east of the site.

There are public quasi public uses, including the church, multifamily use operating as a children's cell shelter.

Further north across the Lithium Pinecrest, there's additional public quasi service, including uh use of another church.

So this is a budding south, which apparently is a cabinet company to some degree or some regard.

And then across the street, you can see the lineup of the institutional uses as here and here.

And the KISS Places is a big, they're doing great work.

It's named after Dottie Burger McKinnon, a former commissioner who worked a lot in this area.

Um it's quite a facility, they do great work, and it's quite a large facility.

They uh maintain a lot of activity and are really doing great work with a lot of uh children, providing a safe loving and nurturing home for foster children, which is their mission statement.

You can see the campus located or indicated here.

Lithi Pinecrest itself carries 20 over 20,000 vehicles a day.

And regard to support and reaching out, the neighbors that we could get to indicate here to the south and to the west, and those letters of support and signatures are part of the record.

I would like to address the planning commission recommendation.

Um they note the recommendation the site is located in the Garden of State's character district, which consists predominantly of a single family homes.

So you can see all that green area is the Garden Estates district.

Um and you can see Lumsden, it gives you an idea where the site is located, which is at the very north of this district, and I've charted it there for you.

Um so our contention is that the Planning Commission, we with respect to the Planning Commission, we're looking at things a little differently.

They're looking at the entire gateway community plan, specifically the garden district indicated here, which is a very predominant all to the south, primarily probably 95% to the south, whereas I've shown you there's been a lot of changes to the media north of the site.

So I think our our positions are a little bit different in terms of how they're looking at it.

We're looking at it.

We do have a location waiver, and we're supportive by I've already discussed it and showing you the changing already changed the morphing area, that the abutting adjacent properties are compatible by use or by documented support.

Um, and we don't feel that the planning commission's uh presentation into the garden area applies well to that section.

So we think we see things a little bit differently again with respect to the planning commission.

Their recommendation is that the request to rezone the property would introduce a use that is inconsistent with the existing single family residential pattern of the Garden Estates district.

However, staff finds that the majority of the surrounding area remains predominantly residential in nature, which I think we've shown you.

We don't believe is the case.

We believe that we look at that differently as I've shown you the pictures and the uses and the Garden of State District.

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

I do a couple.

Um first of all, what kind of office are you proposing?

I saw it's a maximum of 15,000 square feet.

Under the zoning, I think the best answer is the uses under business professional.

There is no specific business chosen, it would fall under allowability of the BPO category.

Okay.

And what would be the proposed signage for the property?

It it would meet code, whatever code would be permissible.

All right.

It wouldn't, I I see you um proposed a significant number of restrictions that limit it to a residential appearance.

Correct.

So would that not then follow that you would want some sort of smaller scale residential signage to go along with that?

I I think that would be appropriate.

Um I think that would be conducive.

And the reason you see those conditions because we tried to work with the zoning department who first had some resistance to it.

So the applicant, thankfully, was very happy to work with the staff, and we'd be happy to restrict signers to uh I think there's an OR standard that might be appropriate.

Uh, but we would be happy to move forward with the zoning hearing master or the zoning staff in that direction.

All right, and last question.

Um the surrounding uses, I understand the institutional uses that you showed, and agree with that.

But the cabinet company on a property zoned ASC 1.

Do you have any documentation that that's a legal use?

I I do not.

Um that was an observation that clearly there's quite an organization running there, so I could see from exterior because it's the budding use, and I think it's an important, I think it's a consideration that we would ask you to entertain that demonstrates how that area is morphing, whether it's a permissible use or not, but it is not to my knowledge a permissible use on that zoning.

All right, thank you.

That is the end of my question.

Thank you.

Don't forget to sign in.

Development services.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mr.

Montamorella Development Services.

Uh, the applicant is a question to resone the subject property from AAC1 to BPO with restrictions.

Their properties located in Brandon with residential and institutional uses in the vicinity.

Uh, in response to the staff's compatibility concerns with the request, given the residential uses surrounding the property, the applicant has offered multiple restrictions on the rezoning.

The proposed restrictions include increased buffering and screen requirements, limiting the total building area to 15,000 square feet, maximum height restrictions, and a set of design requirements to ensure residential appearance.

These restrictions provide for final development with the scale and design that would be comparable to the other non-single family institutional uses in the vicinity of the parcel that also front on to Lithia Pinecrest Road.

Therefore, we find the request supportable subject to the proposed restrictions.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Planning Commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

Regarding 251350, the subject site is in the residential four future land use category.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the brand and community plan.

Given the site surrounded, I'm sorry, given the site is surrounded by um single family residential development.

Additionally, as this is a standard rezoning request, a site plan demonstrating potential buffers and screening to aid in the transition of uses is not uh provided or required at this stage.

In the absence of such uh mitigation features uh between the existing residential and the proposed office use.

This requests uh conflicts with the intent of future land use section objective 1.1 and objective 4.4 to ensure that new development is compatible with and maintains the character of existing development.

The subject site also does not meet commercial locational criteria as established um by objective 4.7 and its associated policies.

Um the closest qualifying intersection is approximately 2400 feet um away from the subject site at Lithia Pinecrest Road and Bell Shoals Road.

The applicant submitted a waivers of um request detailing that the site proposed for BPO is compatible because um there have uh there has been a drastic uh change of uses along the segment of lithium pinecrest road away from residential uses.

However, staff finds that the majority of the surrounding neighborhood, I'm sorry, the uh surrounding area remains primarily uh residential in nature.

The applicant's request to rezone the uh property to BPO will introduce the use that is inconsistent with the existing single family residential pattern of the Garden Estates character district based upon those uh above considerations and the following objective policies.

Um staffs find the proposed standard rezoning inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsburg County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, all right.

Ms.

Heinrich, anything else to add?

Um the only thing I would add is that if you did want to look at doing a um or proposing a restriction on signage, it looks like in those um OR zoning districts that it's limited that it has to be unlighted, and it the size is limited to six square feet in size, and then I think the setbacks and the heights just follow the regular sign code.

And because um you mentioned that is there uh any do you or uh staff have any uh opinion about that about restricting the signage?

I know it wasn't proposed as a part of this to this.

No concerns with that.

All right, thank you, sir.

And I don't know if Mr.

Pressman's gonna address it, but just so you know for your um recommendation what we'd be looking at if we looked at the signage for that district.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you so much.

All right, Mr.

Pressman, we'll go back to you for a rebuttal.

You have five minutes.

I do thank you, Camera Officer.

I do want to note that uh we had noticed 29 persons twice and three oh three HOAs.

Uh, when I checked the record on Friday, there were no uh letter emails and opposition, so no one is here this evening.

Uh the OR standards are pretty um restrictive, and I don't think that we can be acceptable to those.

Um I I would just suggest that across as you can see from one photo on Lithia Pinecrest, there's typical signers lined up for the institutionals.

Um, and um I I think that type of signage would be acceptable, whatever is permissible for an institutional use.

I think would be acceptable here.

All right.

Does that conclude your rebuttal testimony?

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

With that, we'll close rezoning 25-1350 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item C3 standard rezoning 26-0128.

The applicant is requesting a rezoned property from RC six to RSC6 um MH mobile home overlay.

This has been reviewed by Sierra James, and in her absence tonight, I'll be providing her staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right, thank you so much.

Good evening.

Um, sir.

Um, my name is Juan Pizano Sanchez.

And my proposal is to rezone from our as C seeks to RCM.

The rezoning is because I want to lay um to mobile homes in there.

Right now it's only for houses.

And I would like to give one piece to my daughter and one to my um, so they can leave there.

Because right now, you know, life is expensive to build a house, so it will be cheaper for them to get a mobile home and place it there.

And I think with this um action, I won't be affecting the neighborhood because it's um mobile homes around the place.

So that's all I got to say.

All right, and I don't have any questions, so thank you so much for that.

Don't forget to sign in with the clerk.

Appreciate it.

Development services.

Michelle Heinrich, development services.

Staff reviewed a rezoning application requesting a change from RSC six to RSC six MH, which would expand the permitted housing types to include mobile homes.

The site is located in the Wimama community and within the Res 6 future land use category.

The area features both RSC six and RSC six MH zoning already, and staff does not have any compatibility concerns.

No objections from reviewing agencies were received, and staff has no objections to the request.

I'm available if you have any questions.

Uh none at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is in the residential six future land use category.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Y Systems Plan and the Waimama Village Community Plan.

Goal one of the cultural historic objective of the South Shore Area Y Systems Plan seeks to promote sustainable growth and development that is clustered and well planned to preserve the area's environment, cultural identity, identity, and uh viability.

Goal five of the Waimama Village Community Plan seeks to encourage housing to accommodate a diverse population and range of income levels.

The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with future land use object.

I'm sorry, yes, uh future lands uh section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3 a single family residential development exists on all sides of the site with uh 0.84 acres.

The uh subject site can be considered for a maximum of five dwelling units.

The proposed rezoning to include a mobile home overlays consistent with the uses allowed under the existing residential six future land use category, and the request is therefore consistent with uh goal one.

I'm sorry, goal two and objective two point one.

The proposal um also satisfies the intent of objective 4.1 uh 4.4 and policy 4.4.1, which require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Additionally, housing policy 1.2.9 states that manufactured housing and mobile homes shall be acknowledged as a viable means to provide uh affordable housing within the county.

Based upon those above considerations, and the following goals objectives and policies, planning commission staff, find the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsburg County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

No, ma'am.

All right.

Sir, you have the last word, but you don't have to take it.

No.

Okay, thank you so much.

With that, we'll close rezoning 26-0128 and go to the next case.

Our next item is item C4, standard rezoning 26-0163.

The applicant is requesting a rezone property from RSC six to RSC6MH.

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

All right.

I understand the applicant is online.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Kelly Conte.

My address is PO Box 34, Waimama, Florida, 33598.

Um, we are requesting to rezone the property.

It is currently RSC 6, and we would like to rezone it to RSC six with an MH overlay.

There are several mobile homes currently installed, um, both on Railroad Street and as well as other streets in the nearby neighborhood.

Um this will provide uh necessary and affordable housing for the family.

All right, does that complete your presentation?

Yes, ma'am.

All right, thank you so much.

Development services.

Evening.

Development, Logan Cake Development Services, application 26-0163.

AfCAN is requesting the rezon the property from RSC six to an RSC six with mobile home overlay.

Well, not directly adjacent.

There are several of the properties within the neighborhood, also consisting of an RSC six mobile home zoning designation, uh, including some zonings that have been applied for and granted within the last few years.

As such, it is compatible with the neighborhood.

And as the rezoning does not seek to change the density, but only add to the permitted building type.

There's no adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood from a zoning perspective.

Staff recommends approval.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is located in the residential six future land use designation.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the My Wama Village Community Plan.

The current development pattern in this area consists of mainly residential uses with single family uses being in the predominant use to the north, east, and west of the site.

There are multiple areas surrounding the site that have a mobile home overlay.

And there is an existing mobile home park approximately 400 feet south of the subject site.

A mobile home overlay within the predominantly residential area with existing mobile home park is compatible with the existing area and therefore meet the um content of I'm sorry, an intent of objective 1.1 and 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 as well as objective 1.4 regarding uh neighborhood protection with uh 0.52 acres.

The subject side can consider a maximum of three dwelling units.

Go five of the community plan seeks to encourage housing to accommodate a diverse population and range of income levels.

Additionally, housing policy 1.2.9 states that manufactured housing and mobile homes uh shall be acknowledged as viable means to provide affordable housing within the county based upon those considerations and following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staffs find the proposed we zoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsburg County um comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition?

No, Miss Heinrich.

Nothing further.

All right.

Ms.

Conte, you have the last word if you'd like it.

No, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Then we'll close rezoning 26-0163 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D1, PD rezoning 25-0809.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from AS 0.4 and PD to play in development.

Chris Greenliner with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Is the applicant here?

Oh, thank you.

Good evening, hearing officer.

Uh Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, number 451, St.

Petersburg.

I'm here with Michael Sanders, who's the engineer on the project.

And I have a P I have a PowerPoint for you, if that's up for you.

Yes, absolutely.

This is PD 25-0809, located in the East Lake Orient Park area.

You can see it's located between the nexus of I-4 and I-75.

Specifically by the property appraiser is 10.15 acres, a budding or adjacent to the bypass canal.

Planning commission is consistent, development services is approvable.

Transportation, no objection with some conditions.4 to you know to a unified PD for a fixed unit park mobile park trailer, which is an official designation or use in the um LDC listed business uses, uh, which is a transportable unit, which is sometimes seasonal, which is seasonal and temporary living quarters, uh, not exceeding 400 square feet, also a restriction to the period of time, but basically it's a fixed non-movable RV for short-term resort park.

There are two options.

Option one is 93 units, option two is 80 units.

Development services notes that the area consists of single-family residential, neighborhood commercial, and the Tampa Bypass Canal.

Comp plan is CMU 12 throughout the whole area.

This is the 93 unit plan, PD plan that is uh before you.

And there are a number of mitigations for the site, which includes the 30-foot wetland buffer that runs through central green space, which is green for you, and type A buffers is indicated to the north and south, and there's another green spacement in the area at the Cluis Avenue.

Under the 83 unit plan, same mitigations.

However, at this option, just FYI, the mobile homes at the bottom, 20 to 25 percent remain the same.

Planning commission notes it would complement the residential uh in the area, that it would effectively integrate in the existing neighborhood surrounding development density of the site is well below maximum permitted.

They note that it provides more housing options with an affordable housing option.

Development services notes the compatible with enhanced buffering and screening, preserves natural resources through the wetland buffer installation of the A screening and incorporation of the central green space store on a pond to enhance this aesthetics for the site.

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

Just two quick questions.

One is um it appears there's no limit to the mix between the uh park units and the mobile homes with under either development option.

It's a maximum of 93 for one and eighty for the the other, and so there's no limit prepared for or proposed for each of those development types.

Is that correct?

Michael, do you want to answer?

One answer.

I'm not sure.

Michael Sanders, uh, Oxbow Engineering 4206 uh National Guard Drive in Plant City, Florida.

Um that's correct, there's no blending required.

Okay, thank you.

And then the second question pertains to the uh park unit, the 120-day per calendar year.

Tell me how that works.

Is that applied to one park unit and then that one leaves at 120 days and then a second one could come on that same space?

The the park units do not move, that is occupancy.

So 100 diet 120 days max leasing.

I see, as uh they're occupied 120 days.

Understood.

Okay, those are my only two questions.

Thank you so much.

Development services.

Sir, can you come sign in with us?

Mr.

Pressman.

Mr.

Pressman.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Chris Grellinar, Development Services.

Uh this is a request to rezone approximately 10.15 acres in the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan Area from PD and AS 0.4 to plan development.

The proposed use includes a fixed unit mobile home and park model resort.

Uh the park model units will remain in place, uh, but may only be rented for up to 120 consecutive days as required by the land development code.

Uh the mobile homes are not subject to this time limit.

Uh the site is currently designated community mixed use 12 on the future land use map.

Uh two site plan options are being proposed.

Option one, up to 93 units or 9.16 dwelling units an acre, and option two, up to 80 80 units, uh 7.88 dwelling units an acre.

The area consists of single family residential, neighborhood commercial, and the Tampa Bypass Canal to the west.

Adjacent to the north and south are single family residential.

To the east across Cluis Avenue is a convenience store and a mobile home park.

To the west is uh type of bypass canal.

To address compatibility with adjacent uses, the applicant is providing enhanced buffering and screening, including a 30-foot wetland buffer along the canal and a type A screening within all required buffers, a central green space, stormwater pond, and a multi-use trail uh to create a park-like setting.

Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

I'm available for any questions you might have.

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

Um, the subject site is located in the community mixed use 12 featured use category.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan.

With the required buffers and screenings meeting the standards uh for the site, and with the being adjacent to other residential properties, the proposal meets the intent of policy 3.1.2 and is associated policies.

The proposed uh use of a fixed unit uh mobile home park would effectively integrate in the existing neighborhood and surrounding development in the area and therefore meet the intent of objective 3.1 and its associated policies as well.

Uh, with the site being 10.15 acres, the maximum units allowed in the site um are 121 units.

The parks recreation uh recreation and uh natural resources section of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan seeks to protect and enhance uh East Lake Orient Park's natural environment.

One of the strategies of this goal um is to seek new park and recreation facilities in conjunction with the approval of new residential development.

Another goal within the section is to protect wetlands, uh, which is also being met with the site plan proposal, um, and it's also been approved by the environmental protection commission.

Uh, based upon those considerations and the following up goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staff find the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition.

All right, go ahead and come forward while you're coming forward.

Is there anyone else either in the room or online that would like to speak in opposition?

All right, see no one.

All right, ma'am.

If you give us your name and address, please.

Uh, Rebecca York, 5002 Cluis Avenue.

Um, I own the property to the this property is south of mine, sorry.

Anyway, um this company owns several mobile home parks already in the area.

And every sorry, every one of them is, and I believe it's listed in the paperwork that I read from this hearing that it is below average mobile home park.

And I don't feel that we need any more below average mobile home parks.

They're trying to be the Paradise Village, which is a park that has been there forever, and it is not travel trailers, which this one is calling for as well, travel trailers, because if you park a travel trailer, it's kind of a mobile home, they take the wheels off.

A travel trailer, they don't take the wheels off, which means they're coming and going.

So, what are we going to end up with at the end of that?

Is nothing more than what is there now.

They've made absolutely no improvements to any of the mobile home parks that they already own in the area, and the one that they're trying to add to this, it's one of those that you would have to see in order to believe it.

And I've lived on my property my entire life, which is a little more than 25 years, but I mean, my entire life I've lived there, and I have watched everything.

I was there before the bypass canal was there.

And this is just adding more to what are we gonna get.

When I ask what we're doing with a water system and a sewer system, I was told that they're going to hook to city water.

Well, we're in the county, so I don't know how they're gonna hook to city water, and as far as the sewer system, I don't know where that's gonna believe, you know, where that's gonna end up.

And I sat through Hurricane Milton when it just came through, and I can't imagine what a travel trailer would look like with the winds that we got, because it picked up a lot of things in my proper on my property that ended up somewhere else.

And a travel and they were just like car ports.

A travel trailer is gonna be something totally different, and it's going to land into one of the mobile homes that's their stationary.

And I don't know, and as I say, the people that come in there to do that, they don't live in this county.

And once they're there, they're just there for how much rent are we gonna get every month.

But they don't see it, they don't maintain it, and I'm not sure that they're gonna maintain this if they can't maintain what's already there.

And the other thing, I'm sure that it's not been brought up, and somebody told me today that I should have brought it up with FWC, that there are eagles' nests in the trees on that property that is just next to mine, and the trailers that they already have is a little further down, so it's the ones right next to me that have the trees with the eagle's nest and the owls and everything in it.

So I don't know, they've already come in on the weekends and knocked over a lot of the trees that were in there, so I guess now they don't have to pay or get approval to do that once they you know start with their thing.

And fencing, I don't know.

Are they listing what kind of fences that they're going to put up that separates them from the rest of the area?

Because as I say, the trailer parks that are there that are established, not the ones that were bought up in 2008 when everything hit and they came in and bought all the properties.

They they're maintained.

I mean, if they need security, they offer security, and a lot of them are family, and I don't think we need another one.

As I say, I mean, being there my whole life, I've watched it all.

And I don't know.

I mean, we've got two apartment complexes on the end now.

They're maintained, and they're building another one not far away.

Uh condominiums, I believe they're gonna build, and that's what just from I mean, just to the south of this property is a big open space, and I believe that's where they're going to put also uh apartment complexes because it's now all overlooking the bypass canal.

So I think that they're using that for you know, their ruse and their drawings and what have you do not articulate what's actually there, and it's one of those that I wish people could go and look before they say approved, because it's not as it appears to be.

And I just think that our neighborhood is better than that.

All right, so well, thank you for coming down.

I really appreciate it.

If you could please sign in with the clerk's office.

Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

Yes, sir.

You can start by giving us your name and address, please.

Hi, my name is Michael Blake.

My address 5102 Cluis Avenue.

Tampa, Florida 33610.

Thank you.

I live a little north of the trailer park that he's trying to put in.

And he already owns this company already owns three, four, five other different properties, mobile homes, um, parks on Cluis Avenue.

They're not well up kept.

We have problem with sewage.

We do not need another trailer park on Cluis Avenue.

The roads cannot bear another 93 or 150 trailers on um Cluis Avenue.

We have enough traffic going in and out.

Um the trailer parks that he owns already is not even full.

Half of them are empty, and you and they cannot live in those mobile homes that they that they already have.

Now he owns a house, no one can live in it.

You can't.

Code said you can't live in it.

So to add to what he already has does not make sense.

First, take care of what you already have.

Take care of the community, your your trailer parks that you already have.

If you've done that, then you could be awarded something else.

But if you look, like my neighbor said, if you look at what's there now, you will say, no freaking way.

Do we need do we need trailer parks?

Do we need an RV park?

No.

Go somewhere where that could be used and enjoy, not a community.

Do we need RVs to go in and out and stay 120 days or no?

We got enough of that in Hillsborough County.

Do we need tents?

Do we need where you can have people just I would say under deserving, not really deserving, I don't want to say that, but less fortunate to come in the rip raft and it the come in and go out, they're in one week, out the next.

We don't need that no more on Cluis Avenue.

Paradise Village is loaded.

They put more than enough trailers there.

They've over, they're overpopulated.

That they added a thousand trailers in the last two years.

They can't even handle the sewage in that area.

And we don't we do not have any city, we do not have any sewage water in the area for this mobile home park to hook into the Tampa Bike Pass Canal to be a reserve and natural place for them to enjoy, they would have to redo that whole canal to be put sidewalks, you have to put lights.

The word resort sounds good, but when you go out there and look what's there, you'll say, oh no, I would not want to be in this area or in this trailer park.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

If you could please sign in.

All right, seeing no one else that wants to speak in opposition, we'll go back to development services.

Ms.

Heinrich, any other comments?

Um the only thing I would add, which the applicant may be addressing in his rebuttal is that the uniqueness of this project is these won't be RVs per se.

They'll be a different classification called the park model.

And per the conditions of approval, they have to stay fixed on the ground.

People can come and go, but the RVs, unlike other parks will not be entering and exiting the park.

And the 120 days re applies to the occupancy of those park model units.

All right.

And can you just uh go over the requirements if this were to be approved that uh the applicant would be subject to in terms of uh the next step, the site plan review gentleman and the uh Mr.

York also mentioned the eagle's nest, the fencing, the connection to city water.

Can you just address what steps are uh applicable to that?

Uh sure.

If the rezoning is approved, then the next step would be for the applicant to go through um a site development, which is more of like a horizontal plan looking at like a bird's eye view where things are located, what site improvements would be necessary.

Um I believe in this proposal they are proposing um buffering and screening around the perimeter of the site for compatibility reasons.

It is in the city of Tampa water um service area, so it would be serviced by them.

Also, this is in the urban service area, so they would be required to connect to county utilities.

And at that time, all the different reviewing agencies would look at it's just stormwater, natural resources.

Um, in terms of your question about the Eagles Nest, I don't see that on our GIS.

Not, of course, that they could come and go, but natural resources is a reviewer for each and every um site, and would check for things like that and wildlife habitat and encroachments and things of that nature.

Uh transportation also would review it, and they would be subject to any improvements on that's gonna be required, any access points and zoning would also be a reviewer to look at things like the setbacks, buffering and screening, things like that being provided on the plan.

All right, perfect.

All right, thank you so much.

Then Mr.

Pressman will go back to you.

You have five minutes for rebuttal.

Uh thank you, hearing officer and um Michelle.

Um everything Michelle said was absolutely correct that these would be stationary units, they would not be leaving, they remain where they are.

Uh, the good news um in respect to the residents who spoke is that this park is going to be substantially improved.

So the park mobile units will be all new.

They'll be brought in new uh for placement at the site.

Uh water and sewer are going to be hooked up, and roadway is going to be improved.

So these are major improvements for the property, which I think the residents who have some concerns will be very happy with.

Um I'll just remind you that Planning Commission and Development Services have supported uh this uh request uh very strongly in terms of compatibility, uh affordable housing option, and um noting the preservation of natural resources and the mitigations that are proposed.

Um I'll also indicate to you that we noticed 21 persons, and um we're here from two residents this evening, but there were no other comments or emails that I was aware of.

All right, does that conclude your rebuttal?

Yes, Michael, did you want anything?

No, thank you very much.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

With that, we'll close RZPD 25-0809 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D2, major mod 25-0810.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 10-0692.

Tim Limkin with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Miss Finch.

Jake Kramer with Barbara Screamer, 2002 West Cleveland Street, number 2003.

We've got a lot of technical details we'll talk about tonight, so I want you to let you know we're not going to bring all of our experts up right away, but they're all here if you have any questions, and we'll we'll get into some of those uh areas of expertise tonight.

Um but I wanted to simplify because there's there's a lot of conditions uh dealing with this application.

There's a unique land use category we're dealing with called the Energy Innovation Park.

And uh basically we're here because the board approved about a year ago an update to this or a modernization, if you will, to this EIP land use category.

So one of the things we're doing tonight you'll see is streamlining and and uh uh taking that modernization into the conditions.

The biggest one being that the board approved us to be able to move forward with the consideration of uh of the Dover Farms residential area on the south side of uh of this uh of this project.

Uh we believe that overall a residential land use area that we're requesting to add as an option is a better transition than the industrial type uses that are approved in that area today.

So that'll be the main thrust of our application.

Overall, this property is roughly 3,000 acres.

Now there's two land use, uh excuse me, there's two landowners.

Uh the residential is a part of the university energy park owner on the western side of the property.

Uh to our knowledge, this is the largest redevelopable property uh within the urban service boundary.

So the existing land use is EIP.

The changes the board made uh last year means that this will be the only EIP we see in Hillsborough County, so it's quite unique.

And then the land use category requires a PD, which is why we're here for the modification today.

Now, to set the scene, uh, this is in a planned growth corridor again, which's a large redevelopable property within the USA.

Uh we're also basically on the doorstep of plant cities future growth plans for for the city.

And just to touch on the modernization of uh of what the board approved last year, it was a streamlining uh because ultimately the the vision uh for a very large user to come in, purchase the entire property, and then build out around the energy generating use to build a very large industrial park.

That never materialized, and so the board worked with us to figure out how can we get this large property in into a place where we can start to see some development.

And what the board directed us to do is is consider making this a mixed-use project where people can live and work on the property.

And again, kind of keeping with the theme, the board was looking at this along uh at the same time that they were requesting the planning commission to move forward with their I-4 corridor study.

So again, you can start to see the growth trajectory the board is projecting out here when you consider the growth of Plant City, the I-4 USA expansion study, and then our property, the uh energy and innovation park in the yellow.

Uh so with that, I'm gonna have our land use planner David Smith walk you through uh the site plan and what the different pods that we're talking about tonight are are for.

Good evening.

Good evening, uh, David Smith for all on each Jackson Street, Director of Development and Zoning for Stern Tweeber Miller.

Uh Jake laid the groundwork uh pretty uh solidly.

Uh the currently approved uh PD plan.

This is a major modification to it.

Um the eastern portion came through a major mod uh just recently, and we are piggybacking on that uh to add the residential option and do some house cleaning on the industrial part.

Uh the proposed plan again updates the zoning conditions related to contemporary energy practices and allows for up to 1200 residential homes on an as an option on parcel E.

There's a maximum of 6,116,319 square feet of industrial warehouse distribution uses M zoning district.

Um, and there are also requirements for energy production uh before these uses can be moving forward.

Uh this is supports the uh the threshold that uh only uh 30 percent of the land should be used for industrial land area.

Um Pocket A is the commercial core uh along State Road 60.

Um the proposal is way below the maximum allowed for in the comprehensive plan.

Uh Pockety non-residential, which is really the the key focus and what most of the conditions that you've seen, all think 38 plus conditions uh in this zoning uh really address.

Uh the residential option in Pocket E is outlined in green.

Um currently it allows an array of energy uses.

Um we believe the introduction of residential here provides for a transition between the Res 1 to the south, which is in the rural area, um, to the Res4 and Res 6 along Dover Road, and also provides for this transition to the industrial uses on the other side of CSX.

Uh here's the Pocket E residential option plan that is in the application provides for access offered Dover Road, provides for two access uh stub outs for future development should it occur on the southern boundary, and also an emergency access, pedestrian access on Henson Road.

So looking at the maximum residential option, 1,200 residential units of varying types.

And when you look at this, it it does provide you know for a transition.

So we got four units per acre, there's four and six on across Dover.

There are Res One uses to our South.

A variety of housing types, you'll see in the zoning conditions, we provide for a full range of attached, detached, you know, T and D style townhomes.

No multifamily development in the traditional sense for this plan.

We have an eight-acre community gathering space.

Big uh issue and big concern were the berms that are currently existing out there.

They have 200 foot buffer, uh, and this 200 foot buffer was put in place for the industrial uses that were anticipated to come to protect the residential.

In a residential use, uh, these large buffers are in fact not required at all.

We would not be required to place any buffers to the south-south along this property, nor would we to Dover.

Um we have though proposed uh 100 foot wide buffer along the southern property boundary.

Um this is also going to commit to the landscaping requirements uh that are in the code already, uh, but also allow for variety of other uses to be introduced, solar wind elements, trails, uh, other many, maybe some stormwater areas.

And then along Dover Road, we have a 50-foot wide buffer.

And this buffer also uh will include the landscaping uh typically expected in the the code, but also provide for architectural features, signage, lighting, fencing, stormwater, and other environmental features.

Um so when we look at the other changes, just real quick, Pocket I.

Pocket I was the buffer parcel uh that was around pretty much the east and the southern part of uh the energy park.

Um in the industrial option, it's it remains 200 foot in uh wide and uh the berms in place.

In the residential option, though, those berms would come out and be replaced in order to provide for the access that will be spoken to uh uh in a few minutes, uh, and also uh provide for uh the development of the site.

Pocket J is another change.

Um it really was put in as uh a buffer, but there's really no buffer to be made there.

There's not a it doesn't immediately abut any other EIP use, uh so we're designating that as an open space parcel.

Um consistently with comprehensive plan, we're in the urban service area, compatible with surrounding neighborhood based upon our buffering and screening.

Residential against residential has traditionally been recognized as compatible, especially at the density and intensity that uh we're proposing on this site.

Provides for a gradual transitional intensity, compatible with uh the proposed the planned and surrounding neighborhood.

We preserve it uh enhance and preferve the neighborhood and communities by the the layout of this, which is basically pulls the uh residential uses away from the perimeter of the property and internally uh locates them.

Consistent with the uh EIP future land use, um 2.58 units per acre, well under the density uh that is allowed in the comp plan.

It's in a site plan control distance, and it's consistent with buffering and permitting uh enhanced buffering was required in the comp plan.

Uh we've achieved that with the extraordinary buffers in the residential option.

This is just a summary of the uses around us.

Uh contextually, lower density uses to the south, traditional suburban neighborhoods to the west, and EIP to our north.

Um with that I'm here to answer any questions, and I'll turn it over to Michael Yates to talk about transportation.

I do have just a couple questions.

I have some transportation questions that I'll save for Mr.

Yates.

Um, to confirm that the square footage for the hotel and motel in Pocket A is coming from Pocket B's entitlements.

Is that correct?

Correct.

That was another change I meant to emphasize.

The only change to the commercial conditions was to allow hotel motel, and those that square footage is coming out of the commercial 350.

Okay.

And the 1200 dwelling units, any type or mix of the dwelling units, I know there's no multifamily, but of other than um that could be a mix of any combination.

Right.

Any combination of those anywhere that residentials allowed on site, which is essentially pretty much the entire uh parcel, other than the buffers.

Understood.

All right.

Um and then the last question, if you can, the uh EPC comments regarding the superfund site, just want to ensure, of course, that this residential is nowhere near no, it's it's about 4,000 feet north of the residential.

And uh Jake will be speaking to the environmental conditions that the commissioners asked to be included in any um action moving forward uh later in the presentation.

All right, that was it.

Thank you so much.

Good evening.

Good evening, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic uh 4006 South Uh McDell Avenue.

Um just uh go over a little bit of the transportation and answer any of the questions you have.

Um there are trip caps associated with this.

Uh I think it's condition 26 uh transportation did issue, I believe, a update to that today.

Um but essentially what we were doing is we were taking the 2010 traffic study that was done for this project, and we kept those trip numbers consistent for the energy park, either University Energy Park and uh the Turkey Creek Preserve.

Now there was for the Turkey Creek Preserve a Scribner's error in the zoning for that, and so that is being corrected with this change in the conditions, and so but the 2010 trip cap is remaining total in place, and that is how the trip caps were based.

The only difference is that if the pocket E is developed for residential, that has its own trip cap, and that is reflected in the conditions as well.

And so the traffic study was evaluating the impacts of pocket E if it was a developed as residential.

That would that was uh one of my questions, just to make sure that that's clear.

So everything else has its own TRIP cap, and the residential is not a part of that.

That has its own separate, and it's 26-2 is the condition.

So correct it's two different things, those trip cap numbers.

Yeah, so the residential is only applicable if pocket E is developed as residential, otherwise the whole energy park and the Turkey Creek Preserve will be one trip cap.

Okay, I understand.

And then they're divided up separately, so you can see those trips amongst each of those parcels since they're under different ownership.

Okay.

Did you have anything else?

I have another question.

I I was just gonna go through the access points.

Uh we did work uh with transportation staff and developing the access points.

Uh, you can see on the graphic, uh, there are three access points along Dover Road for the residential.

Uh they are three roundabouts.

Uh they will help serve as the access, but also as traffic calming on Dover Road because it's a pretty straight road all the way from 60 to Durant.

And so these will act as some traffic calming.

There's also a CIP project at Durant and Dover, uh, where they're the county is doing a CIP installation of a roundabout there, which is currently in design.

Uh so this will tie into the those CIP projects as a continuous section.

Uh, we do meet access spacing, and we have offset the northern two roundabouts and driveway locations to be offset of the residential existing residential driveways on the west side of Dover at the request of our neighborhood meetings with those adjacent residents.

Uh that is all I really have on transportation, unless you had any other additional specific questions.

I do have one specific question, and that pertains to um DOT's comments in the file for this.

There's one comment from July that objects to um the access proposed, and it says uh, and it wants to know if you have approval from CSX to cross those tracks.

Uh we do not have approval from CSX.

I know we've had some preliminary meetings and trying to gain access to cross the railroad tracks, uh, but during those initial meetings that that the CSX was not willing to grant uh the residential to cross the CSX railroad tracks unless the county was willing to give up multiple existing locations.

And so where does that stand?

So as of now, the potential to cross the CSX is probably not going to happen.

Uh, but we did put forth an effort and try to coordinate those and have those discussions.

All right, and so um where would the access be if you can't cross the tracks?

I it would the access to Dover Road would be solely to Dover Road.

That would be it for the residential.

Correct.

And that is what was evaluated in the traffic study and shown on the plan.

All right.

So the the piece about you uh about the county having to relinquish other access points and so forth, it doesn't need to be done if your access is granted solely to Dover Road.

Correct.

I understand.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Don't forget to sign in.

Thank you, Jake.

Jake Kramer again.

Uh as you know, the the two main environmental issues that the board directed us to work on on this property are the the super fund site.

Now, the superfund, as you know, is where EPA essentially takes jurisdiction and the federal government oversees the cleanup of a site.

Now, this is a Hillsborough County site, so the county has actually been cleaning that up.

And the work is essentially done, but the board directed us to make sure that we continued working with them and the EPA.

The other issue that the board directed us to deal with is uh that the property is a uh former phosphate mine, and so this was from before the time uh when we had modern regulations.

And so this property is actually under the jurisdiction of uh of DEP under a program that's specifically for those older uh mining sites, and we've been working with them uh for a number of years on this property.

And so there were three uh main conditions that the board asked us to look at, or three main directions the board asked us, and and to boil them down if it was make sure we're doing the appropriate type of testing.

Uh we're to make sure we continue and provide commitments to continue coordinating with all of the agencies.

And number three, that uh work through uh how uh how and when residential could be allowed.

And and so we worked through a number of conditions.

There's three or four pages of conditions that again are experts are here if we need more explanation.

Um but we we described how those assessments and when they have when they will occur and what we need to provide the county with.

And there's also a number of conditions that deal with gamma emissions as well as radon, and so there's sort of a three-legged stool of testing mitigation and physical barriers that we'll be using.

Um and then finally, we we establish the protections from the dioxane plume, and we cannot move forward to be clear until the county gets to an appropriate part in the county's testing and cleanup.

Um so with that, I do have more on environmental, but uh I can save that for rebuttal or if you have any specific questions.

No, I asked my uh just for confirmation that this residential is nowhere near that area.

That's correct.

We're almost a mile away, and uh the super fund site itself is is rather small.

What happens is the EPA puts a uh requires everyone to place a uh declaration of covenants on a larger area.

The reason they do that is to make sure that uh certain things like stormwater restrictions, for example, uh are more protective of that smaller uh site overall.

Understood.

All right, does that complete your presentation?

It does, thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

Then we will turn to development services.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh Tim Lampkin Development Services.

Uh first I'd like to start with we did uh submit a revised report.

Uh most of them were uh minor revisions.

Uh there were uh date that was incorrect.

Um conditions sub uh condition 26.1 just wasn't underlined uh condition 27.

Um there were some modifications.

And additionally, after I uh finish my presentation, I believe uh James Ratliff uh wanted to speak to the uh transportation uh report revisions.

Okay.

And uh with that, the subject property is located on approximately 3,000 acres, as we've heard.

It's uh located southeast of the intersection of East State Road 60 and South Dover Road, uh west of Turkey Creek Drive.

Um as you're aware, there's been a recent computer plan amendment last year, which was HCCPA 23-15, and it amended uh the text of the EIP uh policy.

Uh this uh major modification 25810 basically uh the main component is it's proposing a second option to pocket E to allow up to 1200 residential homes as a residential option in the pocket E as approved in the comp plan amendment to the energy innovation park.

Additional revisions include modifying the acreage of pocket I, which the applicant discussed, which is currently a buffer pocket to account for the reduced buffer area if pocket E is developed with the residential option, modifying pocket J to redesignate as open space and not a buffer and modify conditions of approval to reflect the new development options.

The applicant also proposes to allow hotels and motels in pocket A.

Pocket A is directly south of State Road 60 in the northern portion of the EIP.

Currently, hotels and motels are prohibited uses.

And the applicant does propose amending to include hotel and motel uses in the permitted use list for pocket A only.

Given the surrounding residential development of single family residential within Pocket E staff finds would be a compatible use.

Thank you so much.

No questions.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ratliff.

Yes, good evening, Madam Mary Officer.

James Ratliff Development Services Transportation.

You'll notice several changes within the condition section that have been highlighted in red and green.

Red indicates something that was struck and green something added, and that's as compared to the most recent version that was filed before tonight, just to kind of help make it a little easier on you.

The first changes within condition one and really clarifies the intent of the gating language.

It doesn't change the intent.

It's just language we worked with on the applicant that we believe is more clear.

There's also a change to other language just to comport with the version that was most recently prepared by zoning staff and make sure that those conditions are in sync.

Next, there was a change to condition 26.1.

I had erroneously thought that uh only UEP was in for modification and not the whole PD.

So I went ahead and was able to make a scrivener's error that had previously only been alluded to previously.

But since the whole zoning is in for modification, we're able to go ahead and fix that error tonight.

Um and lastly, there were a couple of minor changes to the prior certification conditions.

Uh further down in the report, it wasn't highlighted, but I also added excerpts from 240675 and the 10-0692 staff reports to help explain the scrivener's error better and visually support the trip cap calculations.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Uh nothing at this time unless you are have anything to add to my question about DOT and the CXX crossing.

Um, and looking at their comments, I think uh it's a little bit confusing.

DOT is again, I think it's important for the record to note that under the existing option, the existing approved option, which is being retained.

Um, in in the event the applicant is not able to get CSX, you know, crossing permits.

They simply wouldn't be able to access pocket E.

So you know, my understanding is under that option, there won't be any of the non-residential entitlements that are accessing Dover under the project as currently uh approved or as proposed.

The only access to Dover is under that residential option.

So that's just something that's a little bit uh kind of not clear in in that comment to me.

Um, again, DOT sort of is representing themselves here.

I we've not had any further discussion with them, and I checked online that do not believe they're here tonight to um to speak to this issue.

So thank you so much.

So we will go to the Planning Commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff, the subject site is located in the energy innovation park featuring use designation.

It is in the urban service area and um not within the limits of any community plan.

The proposed modifications to the EIP area address sites uh specific uses while maintaining consistency with the feature land use section of policies and floor area ratio limitations.

Environmental safeguards are further reinforced through conditions requiring appropriate testing, mitigation measures, and coordination with oversight agencies as outlined in policy 4.16.2.

Planning commission staff uh consistency finding is also dependent on condition three, bullet 14, which require that if uh pocket E is developed to include residential uses, a new six-foot berm shall be constructed along the southern property line within a hundred uh foot buffer.

Policy uh 4.16.5 number three states that buffering um and screening adjacent to existing residential uses along South Dover Road and along um the southern property route boundary shall include preservation and existing vegetation and features um per the proposed conditions of approval, the berm along uh Dover Road would remain intact north of the railroad tracks um in both development scenarios.

However, the berm south of the CXX uh railroad tracks adjacent to the Poggy E would be eliminated to accommodate site access and storm water in the residential development option, which is consistent with policy direction related to perm modification based upon uh reviewing agency comments based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, planting commission staff and the proposed uh major modifications consistent with the unincorporated um Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan subject to the uh conditions proposed by the development services department.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, is there anyone online or in the room that would like to speak in opposition?

All right.

How many hands?

Keep your hands up so we can count.

So I see two, three, four, five.

All right, and we have one online, so that's six.

Um do the complexity of this case, we'll give you a little extra time, and we'll do three minutes apiece.

If the people that are in the room could go ahead and get out of your seat and come line up, it moves this a little bit quicker.

Um assuming you don't have any particular order, so if it's okay with everyone, we'll take the person online first.

I believe that's Miss Martin.

Hi, Penny Martin, 2030 Martin Road, Dover.

This land is right behind my house, and I'm a long-term resident.

We're all familiar with the Aaron Brockinvitch, California case and the grassland disaster in Lakeland.

Residents in both areas became very ill as a result of living near or on former mines that emitted toxic chemicals and had contaminated groundwater.

We don't want this to happen to our community.

I am aware that there's an environmental evaluation that will take place when we get to step five.

It's also outlined on page 30, the application summary.

There are potentially major downstream health impacts before us.

A lot of unknowns.

Testing must be transparent.

It's going on right now, and problem areas have already been identified.

It's critical that we all stay informed along the way, and it has made public information.

I want to explain the scope of this request in more detail.

First, it's located on a radon corridor.

The Florida Health Radon website shows that 41% of the homes actually tested in the zip code have unacceptable radon levels.

That is high.

Phosphate mining occurred for over 20 years, and the land was never cleaned up.

The sludge ponds where the proposed homes are going were unlined.

There's a railroad track running right through here.

This is not a flat piece of land that just needs to be graded and concrete poured for homes.

There are deep pits, unlevel ground, dips, valleys.

It's a major undertaking.

You get heavy equipment in there to move the dirt and reshape the land, it all gets touched.

Be aware that from 1958 to 73, the tailing sands and clay waste from the gypstacks were dispersed all over the property.

That's how the 20 to 30 foot berms came to fruition.

The contaminated soil was just mixed mixed in.

Trucks and skids, heavy equipment, other vehicles still drive around on top of them.

I see them as they go by.

For nine years, local businesses dumped 16 million gallons of commercial waste and oil outback that resulted in a super fund site.

In 1979, when the EPA got involved, they installed 30 monitoring wells for groundwater surveillance based on the one four dioxide oxane and other chemicals of concern that were discovered.

The dumping ceased in 1981.

Then over a decade later, in September of 2002, the EPA released the first five-year water quality report.

The results were even more alarming.

In 2007, Hillsboro County found and removed 55 gallon drums that have been left behind.

So more groundwater wells were installed.

Reshaping the land will be a huge disturbance to the radon and any other contaminants present or that may have not been found yet.

It will negatively impact the flow of natural resources, our flood map, and most importantly, the storm water runoff, just to name a few.

Our aquifers are just below the land and the superfund site.

They extend to the entire county and state.

Why are so many citizens in our area stricken with lung cancer, deafness, and chronic GI issues?

Ms.

Martin, I can wrap up your present your time.

I'd appreciate it.

I'm yep, I'm almost done.

Thank you.

I don't know either, but they're all the same symptoms that citizens have when exposed to high levels of racial radiation and chemicals of concern.

I oppose this request to rezone the property and um request that testing is done everywhere, not just in specific pockets.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

All right, whoever would like to go first, if you could come forward that's in the room.

Good evening.

If you give us your name and address, please.

Danielle Kimbrell, 1215 West Risk Street, Plant City.

This plan is inconsistent with what was discussed by the county officials today at the Plant City Commission and Hillsborough County Plant joint meeting.

I have graphs, they have graphs.

The whole presentation was absolutely gorgeous because the community does not support this growth.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Next, please.

If you could go ahead and line up closer to the podium, we can move it along.

I appreciate it.

Good evening.

Renee Madison, 1502, Windy Gap Place, Val Rico.

This this 3,000.

They're trying to show a graphic on the overhead.

There you go.

I see it.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

This 3,000 acres is a deep concern for the community's health and safety, including future residents and workers.

The EIP, the EPA's October 2023 report outlines that the emerging contaminant, 1-4 dioxane is not stable and remains a strong area of concern.

It is continuing to migrate vertically and horizontally north and southeast that is shown here.

You will notice the yellow is the map on the map are the monitoring wells where it is the highest concentration of 1-4 dioxine that continues to migrate.

Note that 1-4 dioxane is dramatically higher in those wells.

The migration is approaching the outward boundaries of the institutional controls, which is the yellow line around there.

It is pushing up against the 325 acres of the institutional controls known as the Superfund site.

1-4 dioxide continues to migrate through storm and groundwater without any disturbances to the land.

How far will this contamination migrate when the dirt begins to be moved?

1-4 dioxane is in the Hothorn Aquifer, the upper unconfined aquifer of the Floridan.

This is the drinking water for 10 million people in five states.

Phosphate mining nuclear uh radionuclides.

This is the radon corridor.

The radioactive phosphate ore tailings left from phosphate mining present a serious human health risk.

Radionuclides consistently emit alpha, beta, and gamma radiation for a half-life of 1,600 years.

Gamma radi grammar gamma radionuclide particles are serious concern.

They enter the human body through breathing in contaminated dust carried by wind and through contaminated drinking water.

Gamma radiation particles pass into and through the human body, delivering the opportunity for cancer-causing particle particulates to lodge in organs.

Moving huge amounts of soil and grating will exacerbate the movement of one poor dioxane, driving it deeper horizontally, farther laterally, impacting the health and safety and welfare of community wells as well as the Hawthorn Aquifer.

Equally concerning is the amount of radioactive dust that will be created 24-7 throughout the process of land development.

Our community will consistently be breathing radioactive nuclides and dust.

We are aware there's a proposed dust barrier plan.

Without the details of the plan, it is impossible to know if it is comprehensive enough to mitigate and dramatically quell the dust, the dust from moving off properly.

We demand our expert environmental engineer be given the opportunity to review the dust barrier plan as well as the storm water management plan.

We respectively ask that these things be granted to mitigate and ensure the safety of human health.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming down.

Don't forget to sign in.

And you're welcome to submit whatever you'd like into the record.

Okay.

Next, please.

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

Thank you.

George Neiman 4711 Dover Cliff Court, Dover, Florida, living next to Ground Zero.

There's a lot to say here.

I hope I can make it in the time frame.

As far as compatibility goes, this project is not really compatible, and it's deceiving the way it's presented.

All of the surrounding properties have a lower density in the north, the south, and the west.

Across Dover Road, you have urban service area, but uh we don't have anything nearby that is mixed use either.

So the density is a problem.

Um as the former speaker said, dioxane is a problem.

There's not enough test sites, and there should be test sites for this, and I'm just gonna put this in that yellow area.

There used to be a couple test wells years ago.

They took them out, but that yellow area was settling ponds where they stored uh the contaminated water and reused it and reused it, and there's probably a whole bunch of uh solvents, benzene, and uh of course with the dioxane.

So that area needs further testing.

They've done some preliminary testing because I've had some contact with the owners' representatives, and they've done testing.

They told me there were two problem areas.

They're testing for radon, and they won't give us the test results.

We think it's appropriate that you let the people that are interested and have to live there get some of the test results because by the way, I'm I'm living right next to that mine.

I've got cancer.

My wife uh has is a cancer survivor.

The neighbor across the road from me just passed away two weeks ago from cancer.

There's a lot of cancer in that area.

Uh it would be appropriate, even though there's a law that's pending where it would it would give the the sellers of uh this property and homes that they would just have to put it put it in a listing, and um that's that's not gonna be enough.

Uh, we'd like a commitment that they would talk to every single potential buyer of a home there, should be told it's a former mine.

I'm going to be turning in, uh, by the way, uh, they want to remove the berms.

We think the berms are a form of stability.

And I'm going to turn in a write-up that a professional architect did where he says the berms are stable and there's no problem with them.

And uh I'm also going to turn in uh evidence that the community is overwhelmingly against it.

We've got close to a thousand signed petitions.

I'm only aware of one single person that ever came forward that said he liked the project, but the rest of the community is overwhelmingly against it.

Uh so I'm going to turn in a soft copy of that.

And uh I think that'll cover it for me.

All right.

So I'll I'll yield my time if I can.

All right.

Is it your wife that that's the next speaker?

So good evening.

Good evening, Yvette Neaman here.

I am going to just put something up here.

Okay.

So I reside in Dover Woods, which is right next to Ground Zero.

I'm sure all familiar with the ongoing Camp Lejeune law.

What's that?

Your address for the record, please.

4711 Dover Cliff Court, Dover.

The ongoing Camp Lejeune lawsuit.

There's a strong parallel in that case and the residential development now being proposed at the EIP.

Toxic chemicals that were used at Sydney Phosphate Mine in Dover, like benzene and kerosene, most likely are in the soil and could create vapor intrusion by seeping into the residential and commercial buildings that will be built at that site.

Nobody's talking about the health risks but us, not the county, not the Hillsboro EPC, and certainly not the applicant.

Please take this into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, please.

Good evening.

Hi.

Hold on.

Okay.

I'm Debbie Holliday.

I live at 2130 Martin Road.

You've already heard about the cancer causing dioxane and the other chemicals that have already been found as unsafe levels.

Dioxane 1,4 spreads when the water flow is disturbed and the plume has already expanded to the northwest and the southeast.

It is not stable.

It's not just about the superfund site.

They keep referencing that, but the stuff is not just at the Superfund site.

The number two cause of lung cancer.

Right and gas is also on the property, and two mines worth of radioactive tailings are contained in the berms.

Taking these down can cause leakage, not only to the air, but into the water.

The berms also protect us from flooding and radioactive runoff water from the site.

Mitigation systems are costly and can be thousands of dollars.

Residents in the surrounding areas have already had to install these things.

I know of no plans to test the water for radiation.

Dioxane 1,4 is the only chemical being tested for on the residential site.

County water will be used for new residents, but runoff water can carry contaminants to the surrounding residential homes who have wells like me.

All of Florida water will be contaminated if it gets into the aquifer.

So we're not talking about just our wells.

Traffic congestion is a huge concern.

We have four main roads, three of which are two-lane roads.

Durant, Dover, and Turkey Creek have five schools, with four of them being on Durant Road.

An additional 92 more homes are also approved for development off of Dover Road.

And on Durant, there's another 30 homes that's also been approved.

My big question is how will emergency vehicles get through all this traffic?

We are highly congested now, as you can see from the pictures over here.

That's just Durant Road, and that's like a main road for us.

You got a little less than a minute left.

Pardon?

A little less than a minute left on your time.

Okay, that's Dover Road in Durant.

Traffic travels down Dover south to Durant, and then it goes to all the schools.

I have other pictures, but I'm not gonna have time for that.

The wildlife also will be in jeopardy as they have no place to go.

We're talking 3,000 acres of habitat.

I read that the commissioners do have the right to deny development based on safety concerns.

If it constitutes a pair of public health, safety or welfare.

Thank you for listening to me.

I have um also some additional documentation we'll turn in about contamination and additional pictures of the surrounding area.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have one more?

I believe.

Or is that it?

Were you the last speaker?

I think I was.

Okay, perfect.

All right, seeing no one else in opposition, we'll go back to the county to development services.

Ms.

Heinrich, anything you want to add?

No, ma'am.

All right.

Then we will go back to uh Mr.

Kramer, you have rebuttal.

I'm willing to entertain additional time given the length of the opposition.

Thank you.

I think maybe one extra minute, but we'll try to keep it short.

Um, first I'd like to bring up the representative for uh the other property owner uh in this PD.

All right.

Good evening.

Good evening, Cammy Corbett for the record uh with Hill Ward Henderson.

I just have some documentation that backs up this governor's error issue that Mr.

Ratliff was talking about that includes the actual official traffic report from the prior rezoning.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh Jay Kramer again now, David Smith will address a couple of the planning concerns.

David Smith for the record.

Um to clarify the CSX question, again, that's in the non-residential option.

It is shown as two crossings.

Um FTOT is looking at those because if you're crossing the railroad track, that traffic is supposed to go all the way up from the industrial option to 60.

And in the residential option, that is not those crossings are not proposed.

Therefore, only access to Dover Road and the stub outs for future development that staff has uh requested that we put in place.

As far as compatibility, it's clear that the residential to our south is less dense than we're proposing.

However, the suburban densities to the west are clearly Res 4, Res 6.

Um, this development at uh 2.58 units per acre uh when allowed to develop it based upon the conditions, is well underneath uh the densities uh you know that's anticipated for the other areas as well.

Um the berms uh have been identified by FDEP as unstable needing to come down.

Um we are replacing bermed on the southern boundary to provide an additional buffer along that southern area, which enhances the compatibility in the residential option.

Um I'll have uh Mr.

Kramer speak to the environmental issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jay Kramer again.

Uh now I'd like to uh bring up uh Dr.

Bod Damott, who is our toxicologist who helped us work on the environmental conditions uh to talk a little bit about how how we developed those good evening.

Thank you.

My name is Robert Damont.

My address is 10150 Highland Manor Drive in Tampa.

And I am a toxicologist and risk assessor, worked on contaminated lands here in Hillsborough County for 30 years.

I wanted to address two topics the solvent plume that you've heard of related to the superfund site that's approximately a mile away, and the potential radon impacts from uh naturally recurring radioactive materials related to mining.

With regard to the solvent plumes, the superfund site you've heard repeatedly is a substantial difference distance away.

And importantly, with regard to the groundwater, the direction of groundwater movement is to the north and west, away from the residential area.

You can see the residential areas in red to the south, uh, and the superfund right site is further to the north.

Importantly, EPA has been very actively involved in regulating the superfund site cleanup, and Hillsborough County has been very active in remediating and establishing a network of wells to monitor and determine where the limits of the contamination are, and they establish the contamination remains well to the north.

With regard to radon, um the approach was to mitigate even in the absence of testing, yet require testing.

It's been referred to as a three-legged stool, and that is that every home site would be required to have a vapor mitigation barrier, which would prevent the movement of radon from the subsurface into the building into the home.

And regardless of that presence of that barrier, a test would still be required, and the county would review and have to agree that it meets the EPA's guidelines for allowable levels of radon.

That's the second leg of the stool.

The third leg of the stool deals with the land that's not under the um under the buildings.

And in that case, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Health executed a memorandum of understanding about 10 years ago to address naturally occurring radioactive materials on redeveloped phosphate land, and that will be served as the basis to establish that there are no exposures above the background specifications.

So what would be there normally at the end of the redevelopment of the property?

And the DE Florida DOH would be a reviewer of setting those levels.

I'd like to present the memo of understanding into the record.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Jake Kramer again.

Just like to place a couple of things in the record.

One is an email that I got from an environmental advocate in East Tillsborough County, Miss Gretchen Hoke.

She sent an email to the BOCC, didn't realize it, didn't make it into the record, and asked me to place this in the record.

And she knows that she uh supports the environmental conditions that are being outlined in our PD.

The other thing I'd like to put in the record is we this was all provided electronically, but it was late last week.

So you'll see DEP's report that actually orders us to remove the current berm because of stability concerns.

And what I wanted to outline for the public and for you is that from here we go into the site planning process, but we've got a uh the full alphabet soup of of at least six environmental agencies that are going to be reviewing all of these tests before we can even start turning dirt for residential.

And then as you'll see in the conditions, we've committed to additional testing, for example, for for radon, even after construction before those residences get a CO.

So again, we're we're really at the very beginning of this entire process of testing and compliance.

So I don't think this was really a safety analysis.

It was more of a an analysis of whether berms would be a good idea.

And that's why we included those in the conditions to be able to rebuild the berm system.

So that's all I have.

Just one additional question to for the record.

Those uh additional testing in that process graphic you just put up.

That's correct.

And most of those agencies have a public input process along the way as well.

That was an only question.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Then with that, we'll close major modification two five-eight one zero.

It's eight o'clock, so it's time for our five o'clock five minute break.

And so if you could, by the clock on the back of the wall, be back about eight oh five, and we'll resume the hearing.

All right, good evening, everyone.

If you could please take your seats so we could resume the hearing.

If everyone could take their seats, please, so we could resume the hearing.

All right.

Then Miss Heinrich, I believe we are ready to call the next case.

Our next application is item D three, major mod twenty-five-eight um zero eight four nine.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PDO six-0491.

Tanya Chappelle with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening, uh, Madam Hearing Officer Brian Onst, uh, two zero one North Franklin Street, uh, Tampa, McFarlane Ferguson on behalf of the applicant.

I also have our civil engineer, Kree Cor Kazargian uh with Gulf Coast Consulting, and the property owners are also joining us uh this evening uh for any questions.

Uh, we do have a brief PowerPoint, uh, if we could get that displayed for the hearing officer.

Uh this is uh Misty Moon Properties LLC located at sixty ten and six one zero two Duncan Road in Riverview, Florida.

Uh as you can see, the existing site uh has some mobile homes on it.

It's about twelve mobile homes.

Surrounding properties are uh multifamily in nature to the east and south, and then we have a gas station to the north, a racetrack gas station.

This is PD Zero Six Zero Four Nine One.

PD Zero Six Zero Four Nine One approved about twenty-one thousand square feet of permitted uses in the commercial neighborhood zoning district, including uh forty-six multifamily residential units, two thousand square feet of a child daycare use, um, and some additional commercial uses, convenience store, fast food restaurant, etc.

Those uses have not been developed, but the property owner would like to keep that uh PD as an option.

So we're adding a second development option uh if this uh major modification is approved.

So we would not be eliminating uh the two thousand six PD approval.

We will be keeping it uh as a retained development option.

And of course, that uh PD was approved and was found consistent at the time uh by the staff, uh, the magistrate, and by the county commission.

So our request uh, Madam Hearing Officer, is to allow a maximum number of sixty mobile home units on the site, where twelve currently exist.

Um these mobile home units are rented out uh predominantly.

Uh, they are not owned.

Uh, they are subject to the residential landlord tenant act.

They are not subject to the Mobile Home Act for what that's worth for tonight's hearing.

Um, the rest of the modifications to the B PD involve improving the site, uh, providing additional amenities, uh, bringing everything up to code for stormwater, um, ingress egress, uh, there's significant uh ingress egress improvements.

I did want to mention that we do have a finding of consistency from the planning commission, recommendation of approval from development review services, and transportation with a condition.

This is the current approved site plan uh on the bottom that would show you those uh CN multifamily daycare center, uh, fast food restaurant retail sales and services uses.

Uh, and this is the proposed option B or option two, a major modification before your honor tonight, and I would like to ask our civil engineer, uh, Mr.

Kazarjan just to briefly address this and also uh the condition from transportation related to choke depth uh and how we're going to show compliance with that.

He's going to actually show something on the overhead very briefly.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Don't forget to sign in.

Hello, Cree Court Cassarge and Principal with Gulf Coast Consulting 13825, ICOT Boulevard, Clearwater.

Uh so this is the uh this is the uh option B that we've submitted.

Um, and as you could see there within the the front 45 feet is the side roadway.

I want to show so uh I believe staff has approved with a condition to correct that.

Thank you.

Uh to correct that throat depth.

So I just wanted to show in our presentation.

So now we're going to the overhead.

Thank you.

If you just turn that over, there you go.

So on the overhead, just wanted to show that we uh instead of having the connection up here in front, it which causes the 45 foot depth uh throat depth.

We we are looking to potentially reroute it around the long way this way.

The the throat depth is actually the full length all the way to the back.

So if you had any questions further, that's all I had.

No questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh, and just very briefly, madam hearing officer.

Uh, to conclude, uh, we do have findings of consistency, worked very diligently with the staff over many months.

And again, as you've heard throughout the evening on uh the mobile home park and park model cases.

Uh, this is an affordable housing uh uh provision in an area that's predominantly multifamily uh slash some commercial, which is the gas station to the north.

So we do think we've provided compensational evidence for a recommendation of approval to the county commission and uh appreciate your consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, development services.

Good evening, Tanya Chapella Development Services.

The applicant is requesting to keep the existing entitlements as a development option and to include an additional development option to allow a sixty space mobile home park.

The proposed use is comparable with the surrounding development to the east and south across Duncan Road.

Furthermore, the proposed density is under maximum permitted in the CMU 12 comprehensive plan category.

The proposed buffering and screening exceed the code requirement.

A 20-foot wide buffer type B screening is proposed in lieu of the five feet wide type A screening between the subject site and multifamily residential to the east and south areas.

Furthermore, the proposed uh buffer and screening are consistent with the code requirements along the northern property boundary.

And in addition, the mobile home park setbacks um requirements will also be provided.

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

Staff recommends approval of the request subject to conditions, and this concludes my presentation.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission Commission staff.

The subject site is located in the community mixed use 12 feature land use category.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the Riverview Community Plan as well as the South Shore Area Biosystems Plan.

The subject site consists of a mobile home park and therefore meet the intent of future landing section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3 regarding compatibility.

The proposal also meets the intent of objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 that require new developments to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood as a surrounding land use patterns comprised mostly of mixed uses with residential and commercial uses in the immediate area.

The subject site is located in the highway 301 corridor district, which is noted under the Riverview Community Plan to provide a safe, attractive, and efficient corridor system that contributes to the character and economic uh well-being of the community and provide a sense of arrival.

Goal one of the cultural historic objective of the South Shore Area Y Assistance Plan, which seeks to promote a sustainable growth and development that is clustered and well planned to preserve the area's environment cultural identity and livability based upon those above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies.

Planning commission status find the proposed uh major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hismore County comprehensive plan subject to the proposed conditions by the development services department.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

Ms.

Heinrich, anything further?

No, ma'am.

All right, we'll go back to the applicant, sir.

No, ma'am.

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close major modification 25-0849 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D4, PD 25-0934.

The applicant is requesting to resume property from AR to Plan Development.

Tim Liamkinwood Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you, Madam Harry and Officer and Staff.

Jim Porter with Ackerman 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa.

I'm here representing the applicant.

With me as part of the applicant's team who will be making the primary presentation is Todd Pressman.

We also have Sam Sabale, who is the project engineer.

Steve Henry, our traffic engineer, and Abby Naylor for any environmental questions.

Madam Hair and Service, we worked very hard with staff of both the Development Services Center and Planning Commission to get to this point tonight for this hearing.

And we're very pleased that we have a recommendation of approval from development services and a finding of consistency with the comp plan from the Planning Commission.

I'll note that there are no objections from any of the reviewing agencies, nor are we asking for any variances.

As you consider this application, we're going to ask you to specifically focus on several things that we feel are very important.

Um, we are not proposing any impacts to any of the wetlands on site.

There are approximately 182 wetlands on site, and there are no proposals to impact any of those.

The other piece that we think is very important is our distance from the interchange of the Sun Coast Expressway.

We're approximately 500 feet away from that, which is a critical component of this application.

We're also an agricultural enclave under Florida statutes.

I'm going to be submitting into the record uh three legal memorandum, one written by me, one written by Dom Hemkey from Carlton Fields, who is a uh prominent land use attorney, and another by Jeffrey Warren from Bush Ross, who sort of bolster the um the fact that this is an agricultural enclave.

We will be making roadway improvements, and to that end, we ask to the greatest extent allowable by law that impact fees that will be paid for this project be applied to this immediate area.

Um I'll note finally before I turn it over to Mr.

Pressman that the vast majority of this site will not be developed.

The intent is to cluster either the residentials or the the residential uses or the RVs, if that's the option that's chosen.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr.

Pressman and reserve time for rebuttal.

I'll be submitting this into the record.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Hearing uh hearing officer Todd Pressman, 2002nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

Um I am as well working with Jim and a team here as agents for Mr.

Stephen Dibbs.

This is RZP D 25-034.

Um, and just to mention, which is in staff reports that there are uh companion, uh, two companion future land use amendments to move into USA and to change the densities.

Planning Commission consistent development services supports transportational objection and meets locational criteria with no variations.

Proposed rezoning is from AR to plan development for 392 single family homes or 392 RV park units and 9.22 acres of commercial uses.

Located in the Keystone Odessa area.

You see it's uh one side, about 500 feet as Jim mentioned, from the Veterans Expressway and running along Lutz Lake Fern Road.

This is the approximate location.

You note the major water feature uh helps orient the site.

Looking at the PD plan as presented, again with the water feature.

As Jim indicated, there's limited development only in that general area, which will get more detailed.

No development in the great majority of the site and commercial proposed on Lutz Lake Fern.

So development area, not including that water feature area is about 30 percent.

The area not to be developed is about 70 percent MOL.

And we we're we're presenting that because we think it's important to have an overall view of the limitations of development in the entire area.

Uh looking at uh 392 single family homes, that would be a very important statistic, which would be a 1.38 gross unit per acre density.

That's the low density.

1.38 gross units per acre.

Now, included with this, of course, because a lot of it is undeveloped, is just a tremendous area of buffer and screening.

And you can start to get a feel for the for the area, just looking that's green, which is just very dense, very thick.

Uh forestation and wetlands, as well as berms throughout the site.

Aerial view looking towards Lutz Lake Fern Road.

You can see the depth of forestation, which would be tremendous for a reaching uh screening and buffering both to the south, the east, and the west.

This is looking east.

You can see the house in the west, can't see into the property.

There is a large berm there as well.

You can see the forest station throughout surrounding the site where development will occur around that water feature.

And then looking to the north, you can see Ivy Leak Estates, which abuts to the north and PASCO, and Terramore, which is to the east.

And again, giving idea of the Birmingham and the forest station to the north.

On the ground, you can see the Birming Forestation and for reference, you can see there was a cow on property that is highlighted a little in the yellow, just give you an idea of the depth and intensity of that.

And this would be the current site where uh development would be clustered around the water feature.

Planning Commission recommendation, which I think is important notes, the existing forage station along the entire, not just one side, but the entire western, northern, eastern boundaries will be preserved, providing significant buffering and screening from adjacent residential uses.

Planning commission recommendation.

The request is consistent with the objectives and policies associated with growth in the environmentally sensitive areas.

And of course, as I indicated, as Jim indicated, the development would be clustered into the areas that are designated for development.

When you look at the Keystone Odessa lot acreages throughout the Keystone area, you can see that there is a wide variation from small to large acres, as you can see, color-coded.

And regard to septics and wells as well, you can see that there is a variation of septics and wells and public water and sewer.

And looking at the existing lands usage map, what would be single family is yellow, is pretty pronounced in terms of single family, and the site is showed there as agricultural.

So looking at current development, current development surrounding to the north that borders Pasco County at that side of Pasco County is three and four units per acre with water and sewer.

To the east is 243 homes a terramore with water and sewer.

And to the south is 81 homes, single-family homes, and 78 single family homes, all with water and sewers surrounding the site on the three sides.

So that's three to four units to the north.

We have it as 4.3 units to the east.

We have it as 6.2 units on the south surrounding the site on three sides.

And when you look at that as comparison from the left, which is today's site at 1.38 units per acre, it's the very lowest running all the way up to the Cheval area at 6.2 units per acre per R Math.

Looking specifically at development, this is the project site at the county line, right on the other side of the county line is the three to four units per acre existing.

And the project site on the ground here is located on the right.

Again, you can see a wall, and there's Burming in front of that, and Pasco homes in the north are literally less than a stone's throw across that property line from the property, again, to give you that spatial feel.

These are Chavaux homes on the south.

You can see again suburban intensity residential single family homes, and this is Terramore homes to the east as well.

You can see the substantial residential development.

In addition, the existing forestation, I'll read this again, because I think this is an important statement, along the entire western, northern, and eastern boundaries of the properties will be preserved, providing significant buffering and screening from the adjacent residential uses.

Development Services Department zoning notes that it is consistent with the existing residential character of the area.

And they note that a small commercial component is proposed in the southeast corner, which will allow limited commercial in the southern portion of the PD.

Planning Commission recommendation notes that the commercial component is integrated with a larger mixed-use development that satisfies the applicable criteria of future land use policy 4.7.3, which is commercial location criteria.

Another important dimension here is water sewer and urban service area.

Now, to the south, urban service area exists.

To the east, it's approximately five to six hundred feet or so to the urban service area, and abutting to the north, Pascoe County has water and sewer.

But more than that, it's a regional water and sewer system that runs through Hillsborough County through the proposed site, known as proposed expansion to PASCO.

So it would be part of a natural existing USA corridor of providing water and sewer.

Water quality and quality goals, wetlands open space, environment wildlife of the or natural systems of the Keystone Odessa plan is an important element of that plan.

And taking this site off of water, excuse me, well and septic would align with many of the Keystone Community Plan goals.

Because septic tanks leach into the ground.

I will tell you, uh hearing officer, is as a former member of the Swift Mud board, as a former chairman of the Swift Mud Governing Board, that agency, Hillsburg County, the City of Tampa spend millions of dollars with programs to take residential uses from water and sewer, excuse me, from wells and septic to put them in water and sewer.

So we don't have straws in the ground, hundreds, thousands of straws in the ground, drawing water out of the aquifer, and little pipes in the ground going the septic tanks that leach and are creating tremendous pollution problems in our groundwater and our water system.

Looking as Jim indicated, uh the distance to the uh veterans ramp is about 500 feet MOL, which connects residential developments from Citrus County, City of Tampa for entertainment and the airport.

Veterans carry 60,200 vehicles today, and will be significantly widened through PASCO and through Citrus County.

And that's an important policy recognizing intensity within 660 feet of roadways of that nature.

Loose Lake Road Fo loose Lake Loose Lake Fern is a county arterial roadway on the classification and carries approximately 7900 vehicles per day.

But in 2012, 12.5 million dollars was spent on the interchange of veterans expressway to accommodate future growth.

And at that time, the civic group supported it.

So here we are looking at future growth that will specifically use that interchange that we spent millions of dollars.

We need to use it.

We submitted a number of traffic reports throughout this whole process.

Steve Henry is here, and those reports are in the record.

Any questions, we'll be happy to answer them.

And the bottom line is that under the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, by 2050, Hillsburg County will have welcomed more new residents than the total number of residents living in the city of Tampa in 2024.

So we are expecting tremendous growth.

This is a great area for growth.

The roadways are established, the veterans is established, and we spent a lot of public money to improve those roadways.

So by 2050, again, unaccorporate Hillsborough County, we'll have a 39% more residence and 43% more jobs.

But looking at the planning commission on the Odessa Keystone Community Plan, the planning commission has determined that it does support the vision of the Keystone Odessa Community Plan.

And they note that the site design and proposed mitigation measures incorporate many of the standards that are within the rural design guidelines and would allow for development that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

We do want to note that the development site is in the X flood zone.

And we do have an economic impact study by Mr.

Buckman, I'll put in the record, which shows total revenue to Hillsburg County would be almost 13 million, and recurring revenue for the project would be about 44,000 4,300, 4,326 million dollars a year.

The entire chapter of the Hillsborough Comp Plan applies in most areas to provide housing and make sure that there's adequate housing for Hillsborough County.

We had our Tees Planning Solution also do report.

She noted it is consistent with the abutting development to the north and PASCO and to preserve significant wetlands and appropriate to consider the value of the land.

That distinct Odessa Keystone property differs tremendously from Odessa Keystone area.

It's in a sense a leftover enclave.

This area is located neatly to a vicinity to the expressway.

It has USA on two sides, third side very close.

It's abutting higher density residential, some of its clustered.

It's located in major arterial, tremendous natural buffering and screening.

It's located at the border of the district.

Water is abutting, wastewater is available nearby.

So we feel that this property is an enclave left over that doesn't compare really to anything else in the Keystone Odessa area.

So with that hearing officer, we appreciate your home consideration.

I'll put this in the record.

We're here to answer any questions you might have.

Just a couple quick questions.

I uh the the reference, Mr.

Porter and yourself also made reference to the 500-foot distance from the interchange.

That is to the proposed commercial area.

Is that correct?

Um I have I have a graphic here if we can pull it back up.

And Sam will come up.

Sam Somali is the engineer who's done a great job here.

Tim, would you like would you like to answer a question?

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Sam Sabali.

I'm with Thomas and Hutton Engineering.

My address is 5127 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida.

The 500 feet is uh to the east boundary, which is approximately where the commo commercial is being planned, so it is close to the commercial.

It's being planned, so it is close to the commercial.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then I uh thank you.

Mr.

Pressman.

Sir, if you could sign in, please.

Mr.

Pressman, the um the RV park component.

There's a, as you know, there's a tremendous number of letters in opposition in this in the file for this in the backup.

And a lot of them cite the same concerns.

They talk about density, the water sewer.

You are connecting to public water and sewer, is that correct?

Yes, and one of the comp amendments brings us into the USA.

Okay.

With that plan amendment.

That's correct.

Understood.

They talk about wetland impacts.

Mr.

Porter already assured that there are no wetland impacts.

They talk about traffic on Loose Lake Fern.

And I one question I had in reading the Planning Commission's report.

They talk about for the RV park a hundred and twenty-day limitation on how long you can stay in that site.

But I don't see that in the conditions.

Is that something you propose?

Jim Porter, for the record, that hasn't been um discussed with staff, and if it's something you want us to consider, we'd be happy to consider that.

Just pointing it out.

It hasn't come up in any of the uh conversations.

All right, thank you so much.

And uh for now, I believe that's my only question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

We'll go to development services.

Good evening, development services.

Uh we have a uh revised um report that was uh submitted uh for transportation.

And I'll read that into the record since it uh came very late.

Um it's uh condition number two A, and the addition is after Barrie Acres Trail period at the request of Hillsborough County, comma, the developer shall conduct signal warrant analysis at the intersection of Lutz Lake Fern Road and Barrie Acre Trail, period.

If warrants are met, the developer shall be responsible for constructing the required traffic signal.

And uh and that was a substance of their changes.

Uh there were some other um prior to site plan certification changes that were added in the uh overall staff report.

And with that, oh to answer that question, uh that's the 120 days.

It comes from uh LDC section 6.11.11, and that's recreational vehicles, and it's uh the duration of stay uh vehicle sites for RV park shall be rented by the day or week, and then uh, but in no case it ends exceeding 120 calendar days within any 360 day period, whether accumulated uh consecutively or intermittently.

So, Mr.

Lampkin, would this project then be subject to that code requirement?

That is correct.

All right, thank you.

Um with that, uh the applicant uh seeks to develop an approximately 360-acre property.

Uh the eastern uh property boundary is located approximately um uh 600 feet west of the Suncoast uh parkway off ramp to um Lutz Lake Fern Road.

Uh the site currently has a borrow pit use in the property, which the applicant has stated will be terminated if the proposed PD is approved.

Uh located adjacent to the eastern perimeter is there are a number of PDs surrounding it, uh predominantly uh that one is a single family residential development developed at RSC4 standards with up to 243 single family homes, similar to the proposed option one residential development.

Uh staff does note that the development's limited to a 30-foot height limit or one story, whichever is more restrictive.

Uh the development uh to the east also does allow up to 25,000 square feet of commercial neighborhood uses accessed internally due north of Lake Fern Road on the west side of uh Suncoast Parkway and adjacent to the subject property.

Uh to the south is the applicant stated it's also developed with uh single family uh residential and a golf course and uh single family detached lots in uh it's broken down in villages 134 and nine are required to comply with RSC six standards and conform to RSC RSC9 zoning standards, which are within village two.

And that one allows 869 dwelling units.

And in that one, the heights uh may not exceed 35 feet.

Uh the proposed residential uh component of the development is consistent with the existing residential character of the area as the development of adjacent land uses or predominantly residential.

A small uh commercial component is uh proposed on the southeastern portion of the site, limited to commercial general uses adjacent to the PD, which also as I just did allows a limited commercial in the southern portion of that PD just north of Lake Fern Road.

If developed as an RV park, the applicant would be required to provide a 20-foot buffer with type B screening along the perimeter uh the perimeter of the park adjacent to the uh residential development.

And um the applicant's not requested any variation from the uh site plan um, including uh part 6.050, 6.060, or 6.077.

Uh there's also a pending uh Hillsborough County comp plan amendment 25-03 to amend the future land use uh to residential four and another concurrent Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2504 to expand the urban service boundary, and uh with that uh staff finds the request approvable subject to conditions and sub pursuant to approval of the pending uh comp plan amendments and that concludes staff's presentation unless you add any other questions.

No further questions at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

Um this request uh for a plan development is considered concurrent and dependent on the approval of HCCPA 2503 to go from agriculture rule one or five um to residential four and HCCPA 2504 to expand the urban service area boundary.

Accordingly, the proposed PD will be evaluated and analyzed uh based on the res for future land use designation and the size inclusion within the urban service area.

The proposal uh includes uh 392 units compared to the maximum potential of 500 units, resulting in an um overall density of 1.38 acres um per gross um units per gross acre.

Um therefore it meets the future the intent of future land use section um objective 2.2 and its associated policies.

Those surrounding um areas are designated at lower densities than the proposed res uh for uh category of the site.

There are adequate um transition abuses provided with mitigation measures.

The development is buffered from adjacent uses by substantial wetland areas, and the residential development is expected to be clustered.

Um, in addition, existing natural forestation along the entire western, northern, and eastern boundaries of the property will be preserved, providing significant buffering and screening from adjacent um residential uses.

The development services department included a condition of the for the site that requires a 30-foot uh wetland buffer as part of the site's landscaping and screening measures.

Policy 4.7.3 provides additional criteria under which uh neighborhoods serving commercial uses may satisfy commercial and locational criteria.

One such uh criterion allows for a neighborhood serving commercial uses that are integrated and connected as part of a larger mixed use uh development of at least 10 acres in size.

The proposed PD exceeds 10 acres, has a mix of uses, and provides connectivity to the northern residential area via the Barry Act um acres trail.

That is within the site.

As such, the commercial uh the uh commercial component is integrated within um large mix larger mixed use um development that satisfies the uh criteria of policy 4.7.3.

While the Keystone Odessa community seeks to maintain a predominantly rural pattern of uh development, the subject site is being evaluated under the concurrent urban service area expansion and residential four uh comprehensive plan amendment requests, and therefore it's analyzed um though um sorry, analyzed as though uh those amendments have been approved.

Based upon those considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staffs find the proposed uh plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department.

Ms.

Myers, let me just because this application is um dependent upon those two comprehensive plan amendments, one to expand the urban service area and two to amend the category to residential four.

Where do those stand in the planning commission process, the amendments?

I believe they went to the planning commission.

Um I'm just make sure to see when it went to the or when it's going to the board.

Um I apologize, I should have had those pulled up.

Um we can come back.

We can circle back to you and give you a minute.

Absolutely.

All right, so we'll call for anyone that would like to speak in support.

Anyone in favor that would like to speak?

All right, seeing no one.

How many people would like to speak in opposition?

All right, if you hold your hands up.

Did you have something you wanted to add?

Well, I'm sorry, how many online?

Just one person.

Good evening, uh, Officer Finch.

We have um uh a presentation with a number of us that would be for 15 minutes.

I want to make sure that there's time for that.

Um, it includes myself, Ethel Hammer, um, who is a neighbor and land use planner and representatives from Terramore, Ivy Lake Estates, a neighbor Brittany Berry, and Keystone Civic Association representative Beth White, and we've um we've planned this out for 15 minutes.

Okay, that's terrific.

Is there anyone else besides your group that also wants to speak?

All right, so if you ma'am, if you could just step out of the way just for a second, just so I can see the hands in the audience.

So raise your hands again if you're not part of that group and you want to speak.

All right, so I see one hand, two and three.

Okay.

So if we will get I'll allow you 15 minutes for your coordinated presentation, and then the three people in the room that would like to speak also.

If I could just limit you to a minute a piece to add on to their presentation if you feel like they have commented and made your points that you wanted to make, it would be simpler just to put your name and uh address on the record.

That is even better if you'd like to handle it that way.

So let's Alison, let's do 15 minutes for her group, which consists of how many people?

So it is just so we can keep track.

Myself, Ethel, there's okay, there's six.

Six, okay.

So for those six, we'll do 15 minutes and then a minute apiece after that.

All right, go ahead, give us your name and address, please.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Jane Graham of Sunshine City Law 163703 early riser.

I represent the Keystone Civic Association, which is an association formed for civic improvement and promotion of the interest, welfares, and ideals of the Keystone community.

You have received over 500 letters in opposition, and many are here tonight.

So I would just like to say if you are in opposition, please stand.

Well, case law says, please don't clash.

Well, case law says rezoning is not a popularity contest.

The content of the opposition concerns does speak to the gross impatibility of this proposal with the surrounding area.

As a threshold matter, this application is contingent on the two pending comprehensive plan amendments, one which proposes to change the land use from agricultural rural, which has a density of one unit per five acres to R4, a much denser category.

The other proposes to expand the area, uh, 295 acres of it into the urban service area.

The planning commission unanimously voted to find both amendments inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, citing compatibility policies relating to rural areas, agriculture, neighborhood development, and the livable communities Keystone Odessa plan.

I have a copy of both of those resolutions that I'm going to put in the record for you.

In the materials, the applicant claims the Keystone Odessa plan is out of date and non-binding.

This is simply wrong.

It's in the livable communities plan of the comprehensive plan, and I'm including a copy of that in the evidence packet as well.

The applicant has unsuccessfully challenged this plan in federal court on this exact piece of property over 10 years ago.

And the district court and the the middle district and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Keystone Plan, stating that the Keystone Odessa plan was it was developed to guide development and provide guidelines for developers who are considering buying land in the area.

While not everyone in the area might agree with the decisions made by the planning commission, these are political issues, not constitutional issues.

Which was omitted just now in the applicant's presentation that shows large lot sizes directly to the west of the proposed site, many well over five acres and in stark contrast to the proposed 10,000 square foot lots, which is a 20-fold decrease in size.

One with the RV park and one with single family homes.

They're disparate impacts, and it's inappropriate to even treat it together at the same time.

Staff had noted in their traffic analysis that it also lacked the worst case scenario and peak trip analysis.

Um, so there's not competent substantial data to support this.

I would just object for the record as to any new information about the signal warrant analysis needed and say that we would want to be able to include additional evidence if this comes up again.

Um the proposed hundred thousand plus square feet of commercial sticks out in the residential and agricultural area.

It is not just a small commercial area.

Um the Keystone plan speaks to the fact that there is a commercial activity center by Mobley and Gunn Highway.

I'm including information in the record that shows that there's a strip center that's around 30,000 square feet at that commercial area for Keystone.

The other thing you should know is that there's Seed World, which is a plant nursery, um, which is on Lutz Lake Fern, and that's like 16,000 square feet.

So to have a hundred thousand square feet of commercial really sticks out.

It is totally incompatible.

Um I want to yield the rest of my time for these reasons.

There's a failure to support with competent substantial evidence, and depart from the essential requirements of law, I have packets of evidence I'd like to put in the record.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Ethel Hammer.

My address is 19825 Angel Lane, Odessa.

My property is immediately adjacent to the Dibbs property.

I am here as both an affected homeowner and as a qualified professional land use planner with over 40 years of planning experience in Hillsborough County.

The first aspect of my opinion relates to the application's consistency with the COM plan.

Time is not going to be permit me to discuss all the relevant policies, so I'm going to discuss just several of the critical portions of the comp plan and enter the rest of my opinion into the record.

First, the applicant did not request an amendment to remove the property from the Keystone Odesity Odessa Community Plan.

Therefore, the property is subject to those regulations.

Both uses, either small lot less than a quarter acre, or an RV park, are inconsistent with the intent of the Keystone Plan to maintain an agricultural large lot residential community.

The commercial portion of the application does not meet locational criteria for commercial development, and that was confirmed in the staff report.

Therefore, staff attempted to base their recommendation on an exception clause, but this application doesn't meet that exception clause either.

Although it is part of a mixed use development over 10 acres in size, it does not meet the most important part and critical language of that exception clause.

In fact, it is physically separated by a large conservation area.

Patrons of the retail are going to have to get out onto Lutz Lake Fern Road to even access the commercial portion of the project.

So clearly, it is not integrated and connected.

The land development code has specific standards for RV park, which are they were referenced earlier, actually.

It's Article 4, Section 6.11.110.

It's a dead-end local street, providing access to fewer than 10 properties.

It has substandard pavement in some areas and dirt in other areas.

It is only 15 to 20 feet of right of way, not maintained by the county.

Barry Acres Trail does not meet the definite definition of a collector road.

It does not collect from anywhere, as it's a dead-end local street.

Staff made the incorrect conclusion that it meets that criterion by suggesting that if the applicant dedicated additional right away to widen this small section, a Barry Acres Trail adjacent to their project driveway, and to pave that small section to collector standards, somehow that entire road would automatically become a collector.

This attempt to circumvent the code requirement completely undermines locational criteria.

This in no way makes Barry Acres Trail a collector road, and therefore the RV park doesn't even meet locational standards.

No consideration was given by staff or the applicant to the incompatibility of either the requested uses for the low density agricultural community to the west or to the established residential community to the north, where homes actually back up to or face the adjacent property.

The setbacks, buffering, and screening in their entire application are the absolute minimums that they could get away with.

This is a planned development application, and staff did have the flexibility to require more stringent standards, but they did not.

I into the record, I'm going to enter my entire presentation, which I had to abbreviate.

The goals, objectives, and policies analysis, the lot size graphic, and two additional letters in opposition for two of my neighbors that were to come here today, but then found out that the gentleman had to have surgery today.

So I want his letter to be in the uh a record.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

You've got about four minutes left.

Okay.

I'll just show my pictures on the screen.

It's okay.

Um, so I have some videos and pictures I'd like to present put into the record because I don't want time to do it today.

Okay.

Um, some of it will show some traffic of just usual traffic that we have on the road and sun glare that turn where well, first let me say who I am.

I'm Brittany Barry.

Um I live on 1950 506 Barry Acres Trail directly west of the existing borrow pit and property under consideration.

I am on the driveway that they want to use as an entrance and exit of the RV park or potential development.

My husband and I are raising our two young daughters on a 10-acre property alongside my in-laws, Jim and Kathy Barry, who have lived there for 42 years.

We have a direct line of sight to the proposed development.

Um, we own a small family operated business with one location in Ybor City.

We own another location in Trinity.

So I'm not unaware of where development occurs in the city of Tampa and heavy traffic.

I'm familiar with dense development and impacts.

I choose to live in Keystone, Odessa specifically because the adopted community plan that we have in place, it preserves our rural character through one home per five acres and protects this unique part of Hillsborough County.

That is why we choose to live there when I have the opportunity to live other places.

Um herd.

Um, two of our bordering neighbors operate horse stables.

This area is actively agricultural and rural in nature.

So while you can see in this that Terramore Abbey Lake Estates, some of the mentioned properties over to the west, you can also see that there are these are active horse stables, these are active cow calf operations, and this whole area is very rural and very agricultural in nature still.

Residents from across Hill Road County visit this area precisely because of its rural and character rural character nature, um, including its access to Upper Tampa Bay Trail, which is real close by, about one mile away, and Brooker Creek Preserve.

So just some other pictures to show you.

Um, our house in the background, playground, our cow calf herd, um that's looking out on Lutes Lake Fern Road, which is not a major arterial, by the way, it's a two-lane road.

A little less than two minutes left.

Thank you.

I'm here today to specifically um to respectfully ask that you deny the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment.

Thank you.

And feel free to submit whatever you'd like into the record.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Carrie O'Donnell.

I live at 16127 Ivy Lake Drive, Odessa.

I've been a resident of Ivy Lake Estates for 20 years.

I'm the current HOA president.

I've served on the board for over 10 years.

I'm speaking today on behalf of 551 residents who overwhelmingly oppose this rezoning request, evidenced by the hundreds of opposition that is received and on record.

Ivor Lake Estates directly abuts the Dibbs property to the north.

We share nearly half mile of common boundary with 26 homes located on average of just 50 feet from the boundary.

That's to the actual house structure, not property line or pool cage or anything else.

That's a house of 50 feet from that property line on average.

Mr.

Dibbs is asking you to disregard the Keystone Odessa comprehensive plan that was in place, mind you, when before he bought his property, approving this request would not only undermine that plan, but set a very troubling precedent.

More importantly, it would allow for an RV park that would fundamentally change and harm our community.

An RV park brings traffic, increased traffic, noise, safety concerns, including safety for the many children that live in our community, as well as a very clear risk to our property values.

This will be on the other side of a fence where our residents like to enjoy the serenity of their own backyard.

These impacts have not been adequately addressed.

What this represents for Mr.

Dibbs is a business opportunity, and what it represents for our residents, it's their home, their sanctuary, and their single largest investment.

Madam, I respectfully urge you to consider the real and lasting impact of this decision on the families who live there every day and deny this request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir, are you the last?

Are you the last speaker in your group?

Is that correct?

All right, but I just want to make sure because we are now over the 15 minutes.

Were you part of that original 15 minute group?

No.

No, so you're part of the three extra.

Perfect.

Well, you timed that perfectly, then.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Then we'll go a minute if that's sufficient.

And uh give us your name and address, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, good evening.

My name is Rohelio Panetta, and I live in Terramore.

It's 6156, Marsh Trail Drive, Odessa, Florida, 33556.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Uh, when I moved to McDill uh when I moved here to this area and uh breaking out of McDill Air Force Base, I I did a research and what was the best location to actually live, and we picked this area because of the gray schools and for the safety and the security that are for our kids.

Uh considering that there will be an RV area within that location where we have four schools.

We talked about they talked about 500 feet being from the Suncoes Highway.

Well, just on the other side of the Sun Coast Highway is Steinbrenner High School and three other schools.

Um, and with the RV with the turnover every 120 days, potentially with new people, it just runs risk for the greatest treasure that we have in Hillsborough County, which is our kids.

That's all I got.

I appreciate it.

If you could sign in if you hadn't already, yes, ma'am.

Next, please.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I haven't been sworn in.

Okay.

If there's anyone in the room that has not been sworn either for this case or the rest of the agenda, if you could please stand, raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

All right.

Go ahead, please.

Give us your name and address.

Uh, Beth White P.O.

Box 95 Odessa.

The Keystone Civic Association voted unanimously to oppose this application.

This application violates the livable communities element of the county's comprehensive plan, namely the Keystone Odessa Community Plan, which was adopted to protect our area from suburban and urban sprawl.

The proposed commercial use along Lutz Lake Fern is inappropriate, as our planned specified areas like Gun Highway and North Mobley Road, which would be the rural activity center to serve the majority of the community's commercial needs.

Adding over a hundred thousand square feet of commercial, disconnected from any other commercial area in Keystone belies explanation.

Keystone is not opposed to development on this property as long as it is consistent with our community plan.

Please deny this.

Thank you so much.

And the next person, please.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh Tim Lahamadu, 17712 Lakes Keystone.

I'm here representing the 58 homeowners in the Lakes of Keystone Homeowners Association and the President.

And want to echo some of the other thoughts that Ethel brought up around this being consistent with the plan.

It's disappointing as both the father, uh the HY president, as well as some of the lids in an agricultural community to see that the Hillsborough County Planning Commission is not stepping up and addressing some of these challenges.

They're already overcrowded.

You recognize there's no additional space.

So we're here on behalf to support that you would ask you reconsider this and deny.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And now that was the three.

Is there just one more?

All right.

Remember what that time when we raised our hands to say.

Okay, sorry.

All right.

So if you could really limit it, um Alison, let's just do one more minute apiece and just these final two gentlemen.

Go ahead, sir.

Good evening.

My name is Mark Dranoff.

I live at 6054 Marsh Trail Drive, Odessa, which is in Terramore immediately adjacent to the property that's being applied for.

Um if anyone's never driven along Lutz Lake Fern Road, I would just request that you do, because it is not any commercial activity whatsoever on that road.

It's a two-lane road, it has no median, no margin.

Um I mean, I just can't imagine RVs driving along there, trying to maneuver, having to turn around because they made a wrong turn.

In addition, having a short-term RV, 160 day or whatever the time limit was.

It brings transient people, sex offenders.

This is a very community-oriented um area with like families, and you know, we're all concerned for our children.

I have three children of my own.

Thank you.

I'll yield my time to the next person.

Thank you so much.

Please sign in.

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor.

They'll show it once you start speaking.

Yeah.

Give us your name and address, please.

Good evening, Adrian Bishop, 1044 Tarpon Springs Road.

I've been in Odess for quite a while now.

I just want to cover down a few things that were inconsistent with Mr.

Pressman's uh broad stroke that he used for our area.

As you can see here, I've did a color code on this map here off of the uh property appraisal website.

Red is Mr.

Div's property, uh yellow five a point five to one acre, blue is one of the five acres, and green is five to ten acres.

His diagram had yellow throughout this whole area saying they're single family homes.

Yes, they are.

They're horse farms, their cattle farms, their ranches.

That's what they are.

Terramore, uh Ivy Lakes, he included that as well.

That's Paswell County.

Um Chaval, 1980, their grandfather, and so is Terra Moore.

Has nothing to do with the Keystone plan.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right, then with that, we'll close opposition testimony and we'll go back to the planning commission.

I'm sorry, I thought you said there was no one.

I don't know.

Can you hear me okay?

All right.

This is it.

One last one.

We have to move on with this hearing.

I will keep it extremely brief.

So your name and address.

My name, yep.

My name is Adam Hollyfield.

I live at 1992 one Cyber Springs Drive in Odessa.

I'm the uh vice president of the Terramore Homeowner Association.

Um, so I'm here on behalf of the 198 homes in the community.

And uh, we specifically oppose the PD zoning and the 100,000 uh square feet of commercial space.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, we're gonna close opposition testimony and go back to the planning commission.

You have that information on the status of the two plan amendments.

Yes, I do.

Um, so it was voted um inconsistent on um April 14, 2025 by the planning commission, and it was transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners on May 8th, 2025.

So it was voted inconsistent for both of the plan amendments.

All right, thank you.

That's exactly what I needed.

Miss Uh Heinrich, do you have anything else from development services?

Uh yes, I was just going to add this, as you heard, is um in association with two comprehensive plan amendments.

So those two amendments in this rezoning will be heard together at the March 12th 2026 um CPA hearing, which would be here in this um room at 6 p.m.

Okay.

And I transportation has some a few uh wrapping up comments.

Okay, and those plan amendments must be approved before this uh rezoning could go forward.

Correct.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ratliff.

Uh yes, James or Allops Development Services.

Um I think the first speaker opposition speaker spoke about the traffic analysis, um, that it was not a worst case scenario and raised some concerns with that.

Um the staff report went on to point out that that's why a trip cap was placed on that, um, since it wasn't a worst case scenario, so that will control for that issue.

So they won't be able to construct even if the entitlement is there on paper.

Uh, once they bump up on that trip cap, they would not be able to construct past that.

So uh that's sort of you know a mitigating issue for that.

Um, and then uh the second issue was there was a speaker, um, I think it was Ms.

Hammer talked about uh the you know Barry Acres Trail and being uh improved to collector roadway standards.

So again, I can't speak to the compatibility aspects of the requirement in 6110, but to the extent that uh there, you know, is a traffic component to that requirement.

The requirement to upgrade Barry Acres Trail to collector roadway standards is a safety issue.

So that again, that's wider um wider lanes that's going to include bicycle facilities, and that's a road that um can safely um you know uh accommodate uh traffic with uh you know potentially those RVs, and so from at least uh again, not speaking to a compatibility standpoint, but from a uh transportation standpoint, um that's why we believe upgrading the road to um a collector roadway, which again was also I think indicated uh under both scenarios because of the volumes that were needed.

Uh again, a local roadway just can't satisfy the the amount of traffic that's needed there, and so that's why the the standards uh or the conditions call for constructing a collector roadway, and we believe it meets that 61110 standard.

All right, thank you so much.

And Ms.

Myers, one more question before I move on.

The um uh the requirement that or your staff report for this rezoning finds uh consistency, but is it true that it's the planning commission's um policy to if there is a pending plan amendment, regardless of what the planning commission's findings are in this case would be inconsistent, that you write it as if they were approved.

Is that correct?

Yes, it is.

All right, so thank you very much.

All right, then with that, we will go back to the applicant, who typically would have five minutes, but we've gone on so long that I would certainly grant you additional time.

Uh thank you, madam here.

We don't intend to use that, but we appreciate the offer.

Uh, first of all, let me thank all the speakers for coming.

This is a significant piece of property, it's an important piece of property, and we understand the interest in it.

Um, I will note for the record though that many of the people here tonight also oppose the extension of the land excavation permit when we applied for that.

The man has a right to develop his property.

Uh, what we're proposing is something that has been found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and plan and development services staff found it approvable as well.

That that's really important because as you know, um the Board of County Commissioners' decision and your recommendation needs to be based on competent substantial evidence.

Under Florida law, the staff report is competent substantial evidence.

The planning commission's report is competent substantial evidence.

Citizen opposition testimony, while something that you can consider is not competent substantial evidence.

Uh, you noted the number of letters in the record.

If you look at those, many of them are form letters.

They say basically the same thing.

They're just they're cut and paste type of letters.

We address some of the issues in those letters.

We're not proposing to impact any wetlands.

The allowable density, if our comprehensive plan amendments were approved, we could have a under under the um total amount of units, we could have 1235 units.

We're asking for 392 units.

So we're well below the allowable density if those comprehensive plan amendments are approved.

And I appreciate you bringing up that point because we're fully aware that we have to be successful with the county commission on having those those two comprehensive plan amendments approved.

Everything is based on that.

If the board ultimately votes to not approve those, then we understand the position you're in.

Again, I want to come back to the staff reports because they're both very strong.

And many of the items that were brought up tonight are directly dealt with in the staff reports.

I want to go over a few of those because I think they're important.

Uh the Keystone Edessa plan, if you look at pages six and seven of the planning commission's report, they specifically address the issue of the Keystone Edessa plan.

There's some very strong language in there.

I'm reading on page six now.

The site design and proposed mitigation measures incorporate many of the standards that are within the rural design guidelines.

These include compatibility between new and existing uses, maintaining ecological balance, protecting natural resources through clustering development, including screening and buffering requirements, and providing for the development of paths and trails where appropriate to move people without cars.

Turning over to page seven, you also have very strong language about the Keystone Edessa plan.

All density and intensity calculations for the subject site were calculated using only the upland areas and is therefore consistent with the strategy of the community plan.

And this is really important.

The last um sentence in this paragraph.

Overall, the proposed plan development rezoning is consistent with the guiding principles of the Keystone Edessa plan.

That's competent substantial evidence.

That's from your planning commission, and that's something that has to be given great weight under Florida law.

The commercial uses also were brought up, and I'm not going to read everything because it's in the report, but for the record, I'll direct you to page five of the planning commission's report that deals directly with the proposed commercial uses, and they found that consistent with objective 4.6.

We would like consideration of one of the conditions that limits the single family residence to one story.

We would like consideration of two stories.

That seems reasonable given that we live in Florida and given the compatibility with the surrounding area.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr.

Pressman and Mr.

Henry if they have any comments.

And we're always happy to answer questions.

We would appreciate a recommendation of approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll make this very quick.

I I want to make one observation with the greatest respect to the residents who have spoken.

I do great respect for them.

I know some of them and they're good friends, but I think it's very important as I was catching addresses of folks coming up and speaking.

And as I look through a number of the uh emails and letters that come in, for example, this evening, two speakers were from Ivy Lakes, two speakers were from Terramore, two speakers from a Street Mulch Trail.

Those are homes that are subdivisions very tightly uh developed in very similar fashion to what's proposed here.

I think I think, and I don't like to speak negligently, but I think it's very important to recognize that a lot of the speakers and a lot of the letters that I saw in the file who are opposing this live in higher density single family residential.

And I think that needs to be said and put on put on the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh that concludes our rebuttal.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning PD 25-0934 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D5, major mod 25-1239.

The applicant is requesting a major mod to Plan Development 85-0355.

Jared Following with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

I'm sorry, could you please if you all could exit quietly?

We need to continue on with this agenda.

Sir, could you please step out?

Sir, if I could ask you to clear the room quietly, we still have an agenda to continue on with.

Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Yes.

Okay.

Ms.

Hyrigate.

She did the presentation.

She did.

For the record, Todd Pressman 200 seconds south, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

This is Major About 25-1239.

Planning Commission has found this request consistent.

It's made a major modification primarily to update the current PD from 1985 to CG uses from the old C1 and to add a building on the outparcel.

The conditions regard the outparcel would only be allowable for drive-through pharmacy like a marijuana or a pharmacy like or marijuana dispensary use.

Restrictions, no gas, no vehicle repair services, only first food service would be for takeout use only, no dining in.

So we're trying to restrict the impacts of that proposed uh outparcel building.

This is the 1985 plan and the 96 PR PRS plan.

1995 was uh the most recent or the oldest area I could find that showed the site.

We are located in the Lutz area.

This is the uh location on Bears, which is close to the uh curve at Bruce B Downs, as you can see per the property appraiser, two parcels on bears, as you can see here, and also on North 30th Street.

Future land use categories are 20 next to or somewhat close to an R12.

And zoning uh is a are a number of PDs that run along bears uh and um uh skipper.

This is the current PD plan.

You can see the proposed building envelope there as highlighted.

Uh this was the uh building size characteristic, which is the retail strip center.

Planning commission recommendation notes it is consistent with the intent of a number of policies which require new development compatible.

Subject site does meet commercial location criteria, and they find that the proposed major modification is compatible with the existing development pattern found in the surrounding area.

Development services did not foresee any compatibility concerns.

This change the CG will allow the plan development to be up to date with the with the current uh LDC.

And while the change slightly increases the intensity of the site, the location is appropriate for commercial use is permitted in the CG.

However, development services did have concerns with some transportation issues.

Uh Libby Rodriguez is here, she's going to speak to those, and she'll speak to those directly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign in.

How do I advance the slides?

Would you want?

Well, when I talk about the slides are on here, how do I go to the back of the road?

Oh, just the arrows.

Sorry.

Good evening.

Hi.

Elizabeth Rodriguez, 18156, Sandy Point Drive, Tampa, Florida.

Um, so Todd has introduced the project, but relative to transportation, what is at issue here is uh that transportation staff want the full access driveway that you're looking at on Bears Avenue uh turned into a ride in, ride out only, so that from Bears Avenue you can't make a left in or a left out of the driveway.

Uh the developer does not want to do that.

Uh commercial development is unlike residential development and unlike office or warehouse or any other kind of development.

Those other land uses are deliberate destinations.

If it's inconvenient to get to your house or your office or whatever, you will not go to another house or a different office.

Commercial uses are more interchangeable.

If a store or restaurant is difficult to get in and out of, people will go to a different place.

So this developer does not want to lose half his existing bears access.

Furthermore, he is not convinced that this is a dangerous situation.

I asked app to pull five years of accident reports, which include this driveway, the one across bears, and any involving people approaching the signal at Bruce B.

Downs or the one on Livingston, because all that traffic is co-mingled in front of the site.

Um let's see if I can show you.

Okay, um lost.

Um the first thing to note is that there were no fatalities and no severe injuries.

The second thing to note is that the vast majority of what you're looking at here, which is the five years of um crash reports, um, the vast majority of these are crashes of people in line for the two signals on either side of the driveway, rear-ending one another, and it's completely unrelated to this driveway.

When we subtract those, there are only 10 crashes over a five-year period, an average of two per year.

Um so that is an average of one non-severe crash per year attributable to the Somerset apartments to the south on Bears Avenue that use this median opening, and an average of one crash per year for our Bears Avenue driveway.

There aren't really standards for this exact scenario to say what is or is not an acceptable number of crashes, but there are standards in the MUTCD involving numbers of crashes for signal and four-way stop warrants, and for those one crash per year would be considered insignificant.

Here are some pictures taken during the peak hours.

It was interesting to see that even during the peak hours, because of the way the signals are timed, there are times when left turners can egress the driveway very easily.

Um this photo was taken at 5 39 p.m.

on a Thursday.

However, there are also saturated conditions where traffic from both adjacent signals backs up to the median opening.

Um counterintuitively, this saturated condition is not unsafe.

Traffic is moving very slowly, like in a parking lot, and people are able to get in and out of the driveway is evidenced by the historic lack of accidents.

Um access management can become too draconian to where it's bad for business, and the developer is trying to invest in North Tampa and improve it.

Making people drive extra mileage and make U-turns adds unnecessary vehicle miles of travel to the transportation system.

This center appears to be very overparked.

You have to take my word for it.

Again, these photos were taken during the PM peak hour.

In making transportation recommendations, we are also supposed to consider mass transit.

The main reason transit works in northern cities and not in Sunbelt cities is that these cities were developed later and they're less dense.

Transit doesn't work in less dense cities.

This petition is to add density in lieu of a large unused parking lot.

Mr.

Let me let me ask you a couple questions.

So as you know, and Mr.

Pressman, weigh in if you need to.

Um the Planning Commission finds this consistent.

Development services is for the most part okay with it, except for the transportation issue, and we'll get to Mr.

Ratliff and I'll get his thoughts.

But while you're up here, so the photos of that site show a full access.

Yeah.

Media and opening.

Okay.

And so your request is the evidently the county wants right in right out.

You want to keep it a full access point.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Well, from and I'll get to Mr.

Ratliff, but from reading his staff report, it shows that it that issue was not evident to me at all.

What was evident was he was lacking information.

And you applied for or someone applied for an administrative variance that the county engineer was not able to evaluate because there wasn't sufficient information.

So it appears that there that discussion has not taken place of the write in, right out versus the full access, because it appears that the county does not have sufficient data to do that.

And so weigh in on that, and then when it's Mr.

Ratliff's turn, I'll get his point of view.

I don't know.

I just um was told that the staff wanted a write-in, right-out driveway, and that we were gonna go forward to ZHM, and that we needed to show that we needed a full median opening.

Um you're saying of the driveway spacing variants?

Is that the variant?

What variants?

There's space, yes, there's spacing issues, that there's queuing issues.

Yeah, and I think that um, you know, I know that they don't I'm speculating here.

I know they don't prepare zoning conditions if they're not recommending in favor.

So um maybe we thought that that all kind of stopped as well as far as any uh uh variances or design exceptions as well, and that that would be done, assuming that this got approved like at site plan or something.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we'll this will go on, but I just wanted to get your take on it.

Mr.

Pressman, if you want to add anything.

Um I just uh I do have a I did prepare um a list of conditions to put in the record, if I may.

Okay.

Does that complete your presentation?

Uh yes, it does, but I would like to, as you're bringing up this issue about potentially not having a complete discussion or information.

I would like to hear, which I'm sure will from Mr.

Ratliff, and if we need to address it, we'll be happy to address it either now or in the near future.

That's okay.

If that occur, we'll be happy to make sure that we uh accommodate that.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you so much.

Then we will go to development services.

Good evening.

Good evening, Jared Fallon with Development Services.

Uh so this is a request to modify a portion of Plan Development 85-0355 that currently permits 35,000 square feet of C1 uses and old zoning designation and update permitted uses to those allowed in the CG commercial district.

This request also seeks changes to the general site plan, adding in a commercial outparcel with restrictions.

These restrictions include prohibiting convenience stores with or without gas pumps, dine-in restaurants, and drive-throughs, except when associated with pharmacy-like uses.

The site is currently developed with a shopping center comprised of various commercial uses.

The proposed out parcel is vacant and includes a 5,228 square foot building footprint, which is the amount of remaining entitlements available in the PD.

The site is located along our major roadway and is adjacent to commercial property to the east.

Development services zoning does not have any compatibility concerns with the proposed changes of the PD.

The update to CG will allow the PD to be up to date with current land development code and the location is appropriate for commercial uses.

However, we will not be able to recommend approval of the application due to several concerns raised by transportation.

The application does not include sufficient transportation analysis of the proposal and did not address safety concerns, including access and queuing issues.

More information on transportation's position is provided in section nine of the report.

No, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Oh, sorry, I have also have a revised staff report, just minor changes is okay.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ratliff, give us your take on this.

Uh James Ratliff Development Services.

So yeah, I I'm not sure what that what they can provide.

I mean, the the hearing, you know, the record closes after tonight.

So, you know, we did inform the applicant that in our opinion this was not a sufficient application.

So, you know, I think the time to have cured the application would have been during the sufficiency process so that that could be reviewed.

Um I did not sit in in the meetings between you know the applicant's engineer of record and um the county engineer.

Typically that's the manager of uh transportation uh review section.

Um, you know, my boss who is liaison to the county engineer for those, so they have to, you know, work together to get uh application ready to you know put forth to the county engineer.

Ultimately they ended up withdrawing one of those throat depth variances and again throat depth kind of goes hand in hand with access.

Um you know, so I can't relay to you all of the specific concerns or issues.

Just uh you know, simply speaking, access management's not only about safety, it's also about operational impacts.

Uh and and that gridlock picture that she showed again.

There's uh I think this road has a V over C put it in the staff report of it, let's just say that it's exceedingly past the point of failure.

So uh at some point, you know, access management is also about maintaining stable flow on roadways, uh, and and also it's a safety uh issue.

So it's accurate to say from your perspective, there's a a lack of data and analysis that has been provided that has not been provided by the applicant in order for you to do your analysis.

Correct, and a lack of additional uh again, they they had submitted a throat depth variance and then withdrew it and we're going to defer it to site, but how do you how do you uncouple that from the access spacing issue?

Because you know, having a short throat then exacerbates an access spacing or the potential for safety.

You know, those things go hand in hand, so you really can't look at them separately.

Uh and so then of course the county engineer informed me of his intent to deny the the the remaining variants and um that's where it's positioned.

All right, thank you so much.

Uh Mr.

Pressman.

It appears that there is a lack of information from the county's perspective, and that uh position of the development services department cannot change until uh that information is provided and so forth.

So I would give you an opportunity to continue this application or we can move forward your choice.

Well, I with all due respect, I'm not sure if we have clarity on that.

Um, because I uh I did hear James, who I read respect for, say at one point that he was not involved in all the discussions, but um Libby has met with Mr.

Williams, reviewed this with him.

So I don't know if their communication saying not enough information to approve, or we supplied what we wanted to Mr.

Williams, and his response was we can't approve it, and then bringing that forward to you.

When I asked Libby, Libby indicated that she had met with Ms.

Williams and presented to him the information that we that we had to provide.

Um so with the greatest respect, if I can have Libby, if I may, with respect, we may be out of sync here, but I'd like to have Libby on the record as to where she stands on if there is any more information to give the county.

If there is, then yes, or if we receive the no from transportation and we want to proceed to the board of county commissioners with information that quite frankly, I think Libby's information is extremely clear that there uh has been an infinitesimally small amount of accent history regarding the issues.

Let me let me just we're not gonna belabor this point because this is a transportation issue, and what you want is a major modification that pertains to a zoning.

And so the I'm just telling you that recommendation of development services hinges on this transportation issue.

It is not going to change, uh, Mr.

Ratliff, without additional data that he feels he's testified to, he does not have.

And so if you would like to proceed as the facts are right now, I'm that's perfect with me.

With all due respect, I'd like to have Libby respond if we may.

All right, Miss Rodriguez, just one minute, because we are out of order here.

Okay, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Out of order, meaning sequentially, go ahead.

Oh, okay.

Um Mr.

Williams has not found the driveway spacing variants approvable.

And I just didn't know whether he could if they don't find if they don't agree with me about closing that media and opening.

You know what I mean?

So that was still a gray area, and I don't know if that got continued, if we'd be able to find that approvable or not.

So I I think with the the lack of clarity here uh on our part, I think we'll ask for the continuance.

Let's bring it back and we'll uh have Libby uh in in uh iterate back with James and uh Mr.

Williams, thank you.

Okay, absolutely.

Ms.

Heinrich, what would be the date for the continuance?

March 23rd.

Okay.

So with that, we'll uh continue major modification 25-1239 to the March 23rd, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing at 6 p.m.

Thank you, hearing officer.

Thank you.

All right, then we're ready for the next case.

Our next item is item D6, major mod 25-1247.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 04-0459.

Tim Lee King with Development Services has reviewed this and will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

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

Uh it's trying to get the word getting late.

Um I represent the applicant, which is the bridges of Sweetwater Grand.

Uh this is an existing uh assisted living facility.

Let me just get that back up for the graphic.

This is an existing assisted living facility.

It's located in Bloomingdale, uh, in between Providence and Kings Avenue.

The future land use is res uh res 6 and res 12.

Uh the zoning is PD.

You can see the image on the right.

The assisted living facility and the clubhouse are fully uh constructed, and their single family subdivision called the bridges, also uh has been platted, and this there's some undeveloped uh unplatted land in the PD still, too.

This is the site plan.

The areas of modification are circled in green.

Uh basically what we're doing is taking four residential units from the rest of the development and making them into an additional 20 beds in the community residential home.

That will be contained with those beds will be contained within the existing building.

Um we are also establishing a variety uses permitted in the clubhouse.

We're adding a restaurant, personal services, satellite pharmacy, and recreational uses.

And one thing I noticed when I was putting this slide together, there were some inconsistencies with the site data table and what's on the site plan itself, so some of the prior to certification conditions will uh change the it says what's on the screen says proposed increase to 117 units, it's actually 121.

And then the clubhouse will include those additional services.

So they'll just be noted on the site plan so there's no confusion in the future.

Again, existing facility, we intend to make full use of what is there already.

No new construction is proposed uh to accomplish these changes.

Um we just want to make it a more vibrant community.

Those services will be available both to the assisted living and to the single family residential uses that are within the PD, so all of the residents within the PD can access those.

We've bound been found consistent and compatible with the surrounding area, um, and everyone has uh recommended approval, and we would respectfully do the same.

We did have one email in the record regarding Patterson Street and the some of the flooding conditions, and I'd like to have Todd Aminen, our engineer, come up and address that.

Could I ask you one question before Mr.

Amadon comes up, and that is just to for the record, the increase in the number of beds for the community residential home equates to the decrease that conversion, uh the decrease in the single family.

Yes, that was it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Amidon.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh Todd Ammitt and Landmark Engineering 8515 Palm River Road.

Briefly, Ms.

Hearing Master.

I believe the comment had to do with Patterson Road on the west side of our property and some stormwater issues.

I will note for the record this community is a master stormwater plan, as you can see from the aerial, it has a centrally located stormwater pond.

Uh master plan for all future development.

All runoff from the projects is directed to the interior pond without fall.

Um, and this request doesn't have any effect on stormwater.

I don't see uh Hillsborough County or Swift Moad drainage modification because of it.

We're just simply switching density.

And then finally, Patterson Road on the west boundary starts at Bloomingdale Avenue, it goes north.

It starts as a historic local roadway as a substandard and gets sub-substandard as you go north from there.

Um probably 12, 14 feet of pavement.

There's no curb, there's no gutter, there's no stormwater facilities.

It's an historic local road, and I don't see this project having any uh negative effect whatsoever on it.

Thank you so much.

Any questions, ma'am?

No, I just had an additional question.

If you want to address it or Miss Corbett can that letter also talked about possible negative impacts of light, light uh intrusion, like pollution, I think is the term they used, and just what if there are any waivers to the code requirements regarding that.

Cami Corbett again.

No, there are no where waivers or variations that are requested that are in the existing PD or this one that would affect that.

Thank you so much.

That was it.

Appreciate it.

All right, development services.

All right, uh Tim Lampkin, Development Services uh for uh 25-1247.

And I'll make this brief um since uh the applicant went through your you know the location, it's uh off of Blooming uh Dale Avenue.

It's uh just north of a mixed use development known as uh Winthrop, which is uh developed with a mix of uh commercial and residential types.

Uh the property is located in an existing residential development with an on-site community residential home.

Uh amenities include a clubhouse commercial outparcel, which isn't part of this request within the south uh east quadrant of the PD.

Per condition number one of the residential development is subject to LDC section 6.11.51, which requires at least 80 percent of the units or occupied by at least one person, 55 years of age or older per unit.

The development allows a mix of dwelling unit types, including single family detached uh duplex, triplex, and quadplex.

The uh community residential home type C currently allows 101 units.

What the applicant's proposing to do, and you asked the question already.

The ratio is a five to one ratio, and so they're decreasing the number of um single family dwelling types and quads to by four units and so concurrently increasing the community residential home by uh 20 beds.

And the revisions in the staff report is the applicant noted.

The applicant noted that it appeared that some of the carryover from the previous site plan, they made the modifications in the site data table, but there were a couple notes that the applicant didn't change, and so they're that those are the that's why this the prior to site plan certification revisions have to deal with that.

And uh the applicant also proposes allowing more uses within the clubhouse, including a members restaurant with alcoholic beverage service, which uh the applicant has in process uh special use AB permit that um will be coming to whoever is at the LUHO in April after if it's approved.

Uh and the applicant's not requested any variations of the land development code and uh staff finds it supportable.

Great, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Planning commission.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

Um, the subject site is located in the residential six and uh residential twelve feature land use categories.

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the brand and community plan.

The surrounding development pattern of the site reflects predominantly residential uses, including this uh use of the site itself.

Although light um commercial uses are located to the south, they are largely separated by West uh Bloomingdale Avenue and do not influence the intent of the use.

The subject site has already uh long functioned as an institutional resident residential use, and the proposed modifications would not um or would not have any significant um impact to the surrounding area.

The proposal meets the intent of objective 1.1, objective 3.1, and objective 4.4, and its associated policies regarding compatibility and neighborhood protection.

The requested modification maintains a consistency with the site's feature land use designation, which allows um for a limited internal reallocation of density to better accommodate assisted living facility uh needs without increasing overall development intensity.

Objective 4.6 states that certain non-residential land uses, including but not limited to residential support uses and public facilities shall be um allowed within residential neighborhoods to direct um to directly serve the uh population.

It is also consistent with the brand and community plan by remaining with the intent of the suburban character district.

Uh based upon those considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies planning commission staff fines a proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Heinrich.

Anything else?

No, ma'am.

All right, Miss Corbett.

Anything else?

All right.

Then with that, we'll close major modification 25-1247 and go to the last case.

Our last item is item D7, MajorMod 25-1354.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 89-0061.

Jared Fullen with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Hey, uh good evening for the record.

My name is Patricia Ortiz.

My address is 2810 North Central Avenue, Tampa, 33602.

Um we are seeking a major modification.

The subject site is located on the west side of Sheldon Road, about 200 feet north of Moore Road.

It's 0.77 acres in size.

It is designated as a Res 20 on the future land use map, and it's located within the urban service area.

The property is currently approved for 6300 square feet of medical and professional office.

The intent is to change the approved use to a 15-unit apartment complex, which translates to a density of 19.5 dwelling units per acre.

The petition received favorable reviews from the reviewing agencies.

I would say that this development is reasonable considering the residential development pattern of the area and its proximity to existing multifamily development.

This multifamily development that exists abuts the site on the north, the south, and the west.

The proposal is appropriate considering the location within the urban service area and the county's uh growth management strategy.

The project will generate less than uh 50 peak hour trips.

Sheldon Road is a divided arterial roadway.

Um it has four lanes currently, but the corridor preservation plan uh shows uh a future um improvement to a six-lane roadway.

So the developer has agreed to conditions to um dedicate between three and a half and four and a half feet of right of way.

Um access is limited to a single driveway that would be right in, right out, extending from Sheldon Road, and uh pedestrian cross access will be provided.

Water and sewer lines exist in the right of way along Sheldon Road, um, right along the project frontage.

And we're not asking for any variances or variations, however, we do not meet the two for one setback requirement.

Um we are proposing in lieu of the two for one setback, um, a 10-foot type A buffer, and that would be along the north, south, and west property boundaries along the west property boundary where um the site abuts existing um multifamily, the screening would be a uh an opaque fence, a PVC fence.

Um typically buffering and screening is not required between multifamily uses, 12 uh dwelling units per acre or higher.

Um, and in addition to provide additional mitigation or sensitivity to the adjacent land uses, the building is pushed to the west, allowing the parking and drive aisles closer to Sheldon Road and in front of the building.

With that, I'll stand for questions and no questions at this point.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

One final thing.

I didn't see any opposition in the record.

Just to let you know.

All right.

It doesn't, if you look behind you, it doesn't look like there's anyone here for you.

So don't forget to sign in.

Thank you.

All right, development services.

Good evening.

Jared Follow Development Services.

Uh so this is a major modification to go from office to a multifamily residential.

Um this does include an increase of height of 45 feet, and they're not meeting two to one.

Uh they are providing a buffer and screening, uh, which they are not required to by code, but they are providing it.

Um, and we also found that the orientation of the adjacent multifamily is um compatible with the setback and the buffer uh from their property line.

So we didn't have any compatibility issues with that.

Um we are finding an approval.

All right, thank you so much.

Vening commission, please.

Alexis uh Myers uh Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is located in the residential 20 future man use designation.

It is in the Urban Service area and within the limits of the Northwest area and town and country community plans.

The subject site is also uh within the coastal high hazard area.

The requested density does not exceed the maximum allowable density under the current residential 20 feet land use category, and applicants are not seeking any density bonuses, which are prohibited in the CHHA under future land use section policy 2.3.5.

Therefore, the request is consistent with urban service area and CHHA objectives and policies.

Given the current development pattern that consists of higher density multifamily uses with single family uses oriented on the east side of Sheldon Road and south of Moore Road, the proposed um request is uh compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood character and would not uh neg negativity um sorry would not impact the um adjacent residential communities and therefore meet the incentive of objective 1.1 and objective 4.4 regarding compatibility and neighborhood protection.

The site uh meets the intent of the Northwest the Northwest area um community plan.

However, there are no applicable policies uh within the town and country community plan.

Based upon those considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff finds a proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the room that or online that would like to speak in support?

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

Heinrich, anything further?

Ms.

Ortiz, you have the last word if you'd like it.

Okay, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close major modification 25-1354 and ensure in the hearing.

Thank you all for your time and testimony.