Good morning.

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 morning, everyone.

I want to welcome you to the March 9th, 2026 hearing officer hearing.

My name is Susan Finch, and I will be presiding as the hearing officer over today's cases.

Let me start by introducing Ms.

Colleen Marshall.

She is with the Development Services Department, and she will introduce other staff that will participate in today's hearing as well as go and go over any off the agenda changes, Ms.

Marshall.

Good morning, Helene Marshall Development Services.

To my left is Mary Dorman and Jared Delvino, the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office.

During the course of the hearing, a number of other staff planners will be presenting their findings for various cases and be introduced for each item.

We have no changes to the publishing agenda.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

I'll start this morning by going over our procedures for today's hearing.

Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by a land use hearing officer.

I'll conduct a hearing on each agenda item and we'll file a decision within 15 business days following today's hearing.

Our hearing today is informal.

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

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

Our order of presentation today is as follows.

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

If you're in the room and you're done at the podium, if you could see Alison and Susan, they were at the clerk's office.

There they are.

They have their new official jackets on, and uh they are keeping a written log on top of the dais.

And so when you're done, if you could go over there and sign in with your name, address, and the case number to which you spoke to make sure we have your information correct.

All right, let me turn now to the county attorney's office who will provide you the legal requirements for appealing a decision that is made by a land use hearing officer.

Mr.

Delfino.

Good morning, Jared Delfino, assistant county attorney.

This land use hearing officer public hearing is for variance and special use requests.

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

Once the land use hearing officer has closed a case, the record of that case is also closed, and no new evidence regarding that case may be submitted thereafter.

Any decision by the land use hearing officer may be appealed to the land use appeals board.

Should a decision of the land use hearing officer be appealed, the record evidence, including the testimony presented at this public hearing, shall be the only evidence that is subject to review by the land use appeals board.

In reaching a final decision on petitions, the land use appeals board will only consider the decision of the land use hearing officer and the record evidence, including evidence any evidence from this public hearing.

If an appeal is filed, the land use appeals board hearing shall consist of oral argument by the party appealing the decision, county staff, and any interveners, each of whom may be represented by legal counsel.

The following shall have standing to appeal a decision of the land use hearing officer or to intervene in an appeal.

One, the applicant, or two, anyone who appeared before the land use hearing officer, presented testimony or other evidence, and is adversely affected by the decision of the land use hearing officer.

It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is allowed before the land use appeals board that was not presented to the land use hearing officer at today's hearing.

The county attorney will recommend that the land use appeals board disregard evidence or testimony that is outside of the record made at today's public hearing.

Any evidence presented to the land use appeals board that is outside the record created at today's hearing could jeopardize the legality of the land use appeals board decision, and the presenter of that evidence could hurt their own cause.

The safest course of action then is for you to write down any comments you make today and repeat them to the land use appeals board.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath.

So if you plan to speak today, if you could 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.

Then with that, Miss Marshall, we are ready to call the first case.

Today's agenda we have no vested rights, fee waivers, remands, or reconsideration requests, which brings us to Section F, site development variance requests.

Item F1, variance 260397.

The applicant and Stalia Figueroa LeBron.

The request is a variance to encroach into the wetland setback.

Staff findings will be presented by Wayne Doyen and Michelle Montebano.

Good morning.

Morning, ma'am.

Wayne Doyne has borough County Natural Resources.

This is variants application 26-0397.

Request summary.

The applicant requesting a variance from the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback requirement, section 4.01.07.

Point B.

Point 4 of the land development code.

The applicant specific requests are shown on the site plan submitted on 220-2026 to allow the continued existence of an existing shed garage, existing concrete sidewalk, driveway, and a portion of a proposed residential addition associated with an existing single family residence to be within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback.

The applicant is also requesting variances to the building setback requirement in the ASC1 zoning district for the new residents and the existing accessory structures.

L D uh LDC section, section 4.01.07 point B point four, LEC requirement, no filling, excavating, or placement of permanent structures or other impervious services should be allowed within the 30-foot wetland conservation area setback.

Variance, 24.02 foot max encroachment for the continued existence of the uh shed garage, existing concrete sidewalk and driveway, and a portion of a proposed residential distroom associated with an existing single family residence in the wetland conservation area setback.

Result 5.98 foot remaining setback.

I will now turn it over to Michelle.

Thank you so much.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Altoano Development Services.

Uh the next three variances are to LDC section 60101 for lot development standards.

First, the requirement is a minimum 50 foot front setback in the ASC 1 district.

The Upkins Gresley variants are 37 feet, resulting in a 13-foot front yard setback.

Next is a 15-foot side yard setback requirement for the opkins grassly variance of two feet, resulting in a 13-foot side yard setback.

Nexus for accessory structures.

Accessory structures should not be erected in any required front yard.

Exception structures shall be permitted in front yards twice the depth of the required front yard or 50 feet, whichever is less.

A minimum fitback minimum setback of 50 feet is required in the AC1 district for the structure.

Therefore, the optic variance of 46 feet resulting in a four-foot front yard setback for an accessory structure.

And also the property is now a certified non-conforming lot for lot six.

All right.

I just have one quick question just to confirm.

The agenda says 0.96, and in the applicant's narrative, it talks about 0.84, of which 0.66 is submerged lands.

And I just want to confirm that I've got the right acreage for it.

The survey says probably the 87 looks like from the survey.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you very much.

That was my only question.

I appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning.

Clay Matthews, attorney from Smoker Matthews, 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 850 Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Here on Variance Application, VAR 260397.

We are here on behalf of the applicant, Dolly Figueroa LeBron, who's here with us today, and her experts are also joining us.

Maggie Perez, Landy's planner, Tito Marketti, senior ecologist with Horner Environmental, and then Bruce MacArthur, Stormwater Engineer with Landis Evans as well.

I'll provide some brief background before turning it over to Ms.

Perez for additional expert testimony.

But in short, our client owns a property located at 17021 Crawley Road and Odessa, Florida three three three three five five six.

And I wanted to jump to the PowerPoint if I can.

How do I do that?

Oh, there we go.

I see it.

Okay.

All right.

And that is the property there highlighted in red.

And as you can see, there's a limited upland portion on the parcel, and that's what we're calling a skinny parallelogram.

Um as most of the property is submerged, and it's got very little depth between the road and the lake.

Um on the parcels, an old dilapidated single-family house that's about 57 years old, and a large shed on the west side that's about 40 years old.

Um there's also a seawall in the back between the property and and the wetland slash lake.

And on the property is also a driveway, some driveways and some sidewalks as well.

And here is a Google Earth street view from the south looking north.

There is the single family residence on in the foreground and the shed in the background, and you can sort of see the seawall there in the back.

And I'll go to some other site photographs taken by Miss Perez on a site visit.

The left photograph is the home, the middle photograph is the shed, and then the right photograph is again from the south looking north at the shed, and you can see there the seawall next to the shed on the right side of that right photograph.

And see, I may have skipped here.

Oh no, I'm gonna stop there.

Okay.

Um given the dilapidated condition of that single family residence.

Our client desires to demolish it and construct a new home and essentially the same footprint as the existing structure.

As to the shed, our client intends on.

She doesn't intend on demolishing and reconstructing it now, but she's gonna repair and rehabilitate it.

But also, you know, wants to reserve the right to be able to reconstruct it in the future if needed.

Um but given the property's unique and irregular size, shape, and location.

The current house and shed encroach in the front side and rear yard setbacks under the ASC 1 zoning, which notably those setback co-provisions were enacted after these structures were constructed years and years ago.

But in any event, those setbacks are with respect to at least the you know the residents there, 50 feet in the front yard, 15 feet on the side yard, and 30 feet in the backyard due to that lake, which is a wetland conservation area.

Um, and as noted by staff, I'll just go through it one more time before I turn it over to Miss Perez.

Our clients propose a new home, which again is an essentially in that same footprint as the current home would encroach into setbacks as follows.

37 feet into the front yard setback, leaving a 13-foot front yard setback, two feet into the side yard setback, leaving a 13-foot side yard setback, and 18 feet into the rear yard setback, leaving a 12-foot rear yard setback.

Um, and that's as to the residents as to the shed, which again will remain for now.

That will encroach as follows about 24 feet into the rear yard, leaving a six-foot rear yard setback, 46 feet in the front yard, leaving a four-foot front yard setback, and then the shed will continue to comply with the 15-yard uh side yard setback.

Um as such, we've submitted these variances for both the residence and the shed from both the wetlands setback under section 4.01.07 and the lot development standards under section 60101 and 61104 sub-C sub-1.

And we believe that both applications for both structures comply with the county's variance criteria, and I'll turn it over to Ms.

Perez to provide expert testimony as to why.

Let me just ask you one quick question.

You can come forward before you go.

I just wanted to confirm for the record that the intent is to uh encroach into the wetlands setback and not the actual wetland itself.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

That was it, and don't forget to sign in with the clerk's office.

Yes.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Margaret Perez with Landis Evans and Partners.

My address is 3810 North Dale Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, and I have been sworn.

I would like to share with you how the applicant, Miss LeBron's variance request meets the six criteria outlined in Section 11.04.02 B of the land development code.

The first criterion requires that the applicant explain how the hardships or practical difficulties are unique and singular to the subject property and are not suffered in common with other properties similarly located.

Miss LeBron's property is two-thirds submerged, and the remaining upland is a skinny parallelogram with little depth between Crawley Road right away and the lake.

Specifically, there's only approximately 40 feet of depth on the western end of the property and only approximately 90 feet of depth on the eastern end of the property.

Given the size, shape, and location of the property, there are very little uplands upon which to construct a single family residence nor shed.

Moreover, when today's ASC 1 zoning setbacks are applied to the property, there are effectively no remaining uplands upon which to construct a single-family residence nor shed.

Shown here is exhibit B included with the application, which illustrates that if the current ASC 1 zoning setbacks were applied to this particular property configuration, there would only be a triangular 36 square foot building envelope for a structure.

This is obviously inadequate to construct a single-family residence or a shed.

Therefore, the property suffers a substantial hardship and practical difficulties given its unusual size, shape, and location.

Shown here is exhibit C included with the application, which which illustrates the neighboring properties.

The properties adjacent to Miss LeBron's property on the east and west do not suffer the same hardships and practical difficulties.

For example, the parcel situated immediately to the east of the property has approximately 153 feet of frontage on Crawley Road, 250 feet of depth, and a 31 3100 square foot single family residence.

The parcel situated immediately east of 17011 Crawley Road has approximately 134 feet of frontage on Tiddleson Court, 222 feet of depth, and an 1,800 square foot single family residence.

On the western side of the property, the parcel immediately adjacent to the property has approximately 388 feet of frontage on Crawley Road, 126 feet of depth, is of a regular shape, and 2100 square feet foot single family residence.

In sum, these similarly located properties are larger, have more depth, and have a lower percentage of submerged wetlands compared to compared to developable uplands.

Unlike Miss LeBron's property, these neighbors have more developable uplands to construct a single-family residence or shed, even with the ASC1 zoning setbacks applied.

Thus, the similarly located properties do not suffer the same hardships and practical difficulties that are suffered by Miss LeBron's property.

The first criterion is satisfied.

I'd like to tackle back to exhibit B to share with you how the request meets the second criterion, which requires that the applicant describe how the literal requirements of the LDC would deprive Miss LeBron of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district and under the terms of the LDC.

As mentioned previously, Miss LeBron is left with 36 square feet to construct a single to construct a structure which the ASC 1 setbacks are applied without context to the property.

A total of 36 square feet for a structure is obviously inadequate upon to which to construct a single family residence nor a shed.

Moreover, if the current front and rear ASC 1 zoning setbacks are applied to the portion of the property where the shed is located, there were to be no remaining uplands upon which to construct the shed.

As such, if the little requirements of the LDC are applied, Miss LeBron would be deprived of the ability to construct a single family residence or shed on the property, which is a right commonly enjoyed by other properties in the ASC 1 zoning district under the terms of the LDC.

The second criterion is satisfied.

The third criterion requires that the request will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by allowance of the variants.

Miss LeBron's variance requests will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others.

The ASC 1 setbacks have encroached into the single family structure since the setbacks were adopted by the county, which occurred after the construction of the residence in 1969.

Similarly, the shed has been in existence since prior to 1987.

In the 50 years, 50 plus years since the home's original construction and almost 40 years since the shed's original construction, Miss LeBron is unaware of any injury, damage, or negative externalities caused by the home or shed imposed by the name imposed upon the neighboring properties and nearby submerged wetlands, and she has never received any complaints of the same.

This variance seeks to allow the reconstruction of Miss LeBron's residence in essentially the same footprint as the existing residents and keep repair replace the shed in the same footprint.

In other words, it seeks approval for the existing status quo, which is not currently interfering with or injuring the rights of others.

The third criterion is satisfied.

The fourth criterion requires that the applicant explain how the variance is in harmony with and serves the general intent and purpose of the LDC and the comprehensive plan.

We submit that Miss LeBron's request satisfies this criterion, and to be courteous of your time this morning, I will defer to the justification in our narrative.

The fifth criterion requires that the situation sought to be relieved by the variants does not result from an illegal act or result from the actions of the applicant, resulting in a self-imposed hardship.

Missile Bron's situation sought to be relieved by the variants does not result from an illegal act or any self-imposed hardship.

Rather, it results from the inherent unique practical difficulties due to their regular shape, size, and location of the property.

As such, the situation sought to be relieved by the variants is due to the pre-existing dynamics of the property and residence and not due to any illegal act or self-imposed hardship from Miss LeBron.

The fifth criterion is satisfied.

The final criterion, number six, requires us to explain how allowing the variants will result in substantial justice being done, considering both the public benefits intended to be secured by the LDC and the individual hardships that will be suffered by a federal to grant a variance.

This variance will result in substantial justice being done to Miss LeBron by relieving her of the unique and singular hardships imposed by the shape, size, and location of the property.

Without the variants, Miss LeBron will not have any alternative remedy to obtain relief from the setbacks and therefore would be unable to reconstruct her single family residence and keep repair replace the existing shed.

In that case, Miss LeBron would be forced to maintain a 40-plus-year-old shed and dilapidated home that is smaller than the adjacent properties in perpetuity.

This cannot be the intent of the LDC.

In general, setback requirements are typically intended to provide the public benefit of ensuring that development does not encroach too closely upon other development or uses.

Here, the existing single-family residence has been located within the ASC 1 setbacks for over 50 years, and the shed has been located within the ASC 1 setbacks for at least 40 years without any complaint, damage, injury, or negative externalities to any surrounding development or uses.

As such, denying the variants and requiring the setbacks to be applied to the future construction would serve no public benefit.

Conversely, allowing the variants would serve a public benefit to our clients' neighborhood by allowing our client to reconstruct their home and improve the real property in harmony with the existing surrounding community.

In sum, substantial justice will be done if the variance is granted.

The sixth criterion is met.

The shed is hatched in light blue and has encroached into the 30-foot wetland setback since its existence.

This modified exhibit compares the proposed home footprint encroachment to the existing home footprint encroachment.

The proposed building footprint is shaded in yellow and the existing building footprint is shaded in blue.

As you can see, the proposed home footprint in yellow is only a slightly larger area than that of the existing structure, which is also encroached into the 30-foot wetland setback since it's since its existence with no known negative impacts.

The requested variance to a wetland setback complies with all the aforementioned criteria.

With that, I'll conclude my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Just one quick question.

And I wanted to confirm for the record that you're not asking for any waivers of that of those standards.

No, we are not.

And I'll turn it back over to Clay.

We also have an expert drainage engineer with us today, Mr.

Bruce MacArthur, though, so they we can both speak to that.

All right, thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Would it be best for us to wait to respond to that comment on rebuttal if that person's here and wants to testify?

It's your choice.

If you'd like to hear and see if they're here, then absolutely you can address it in a rebuttal.

I can respond to the letter very briefly, and if he's here as well, then we can respond to his comments if they're different from the letter.

Okay.

If that makes sense.

Absolutely.

Um so we got the letter.

We saw an optics from Mr.

Baker.

It says he's a property owner.

I don't know.

Um, it doesn't state his address, so we don't know where he lives.

Um we don't know if he and we I searched the Hills of our County Property Prayers website.

I didn't see a uh I didn't see a property owned nearby.

It was very far away, at least that was owned by this one individual named Melvin Baker.

Um so um he he noted some impacts, potential impacts um that could occur by our construction by our clients' construction of a home.

It's very unclear what those impacts could be.

Um there was no sort of expert report uh submitted with it that would establish competent substantial evidence that the construction of a home would impact him somehow.

I I don't know how it would, um, but that wasn't established by way of the letter.

Um and so I I think it'd be best if I turn it over to our expert Bruce MacArthur to briefly address that.

I mean, is it stormwater engineer, Bruce?

Okay.

You've got about a minute left on your presentation time.

Okay, I'll let Bruce just very quickly touch on why.

And just respond to my question about the waiver if you're asking for a waiver of those standards.

Of environmental standards or what's grain inch stormwater, so forth.

We are not, your honor.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Bruce McArthur, professional engineer with Landis and Evans at 3810 Norkdale, Tampa, Florida.

Uh, as Clay said, we're not asking for any uh change in regulations or the normal normal stormwater.

The site's gonna have to put up silt fence and erosion protection for demolition and for construction to maintain that we don't discharge anything into the wetland system.

That's pretty much it.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

If you could please sign in before you sit back down.

All right.

Uh does that conclude your presentation?

Yes, it does.

And we respectfully request approval of our applications.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right.

We'll ask for uh if there is anyone to speak in support of this application that would like to speak at this time, seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

All right.

Ms.

Marshall, anything further?

Nothing further.

Sir, you have the last word with rebuttal.

You have five minutes if you'd like to take it.

Thank you.

I think we've covered everything other than I'll just briefly note with respect to the opposition letter.

Um again, there was no um that sort of um opposition would require expert testimony to establish that the construction of the demolition, the construction of home would somehow impact the wetland, the lake, which would somehow impact whatever lake or wetland he's on.

Um, but he he didn't submit any competent substantial evidence that would support such impact.

So we would contend that there there is no such negative impact.

I think the only criteria that that would apply to under the variance criteria would be um criterion number three that the variants will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by allowance of the variants.

We think that that individual is not established that um the construction of the home would um injure substantially interfere or injure the rights um of him.

Um so we would respectfully submit again that that criterion is met.

Um and respectful request that um your honor um approved the variants.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Then with that, we'll close variants two six-0397 and go to the next case.

There are no signed variance requests, which brings us to section H variance requests.

Item H1, variants 260291.

The applicants are Pavel and Jessica Stalick.

The request is a variance accessory structure requirements.

Staff findings will be presented by Logan McCay.

Good morning.

Good morning, Logan McKay Development Services.

Uh variants 260291.

The applicant is requesting a variance to accessory structure requirements for the purpose of placing a garage on the property.

First section 61104B.

Accessory structure shall not exceed 15 feet in height, except where the structures meet the primary structure setbacks for the district.

The rear set yard setback is 25 feet, and the side yard setback is seven and a half feet.

The applicant is requesting a 22 foot variance to the rear yard setback and a 4.5 foot variance to the side yard setback resulting in three-foot uh setback on both regards.

Additionally, per section 61104 C3 accessory structures may not may occupy required rear yards, provided such structures do not occupy more than 20% of the required rear yard.

The applicant is requesting a 2% variance resulting in a 22% building coverage within the rear yard.

We have no additional findings and available for any questions.

Just a quick question to confirm uh the zoning.

It looks like the staff report and the agenda to show it as RSC six, but I note there's a mobile home on the property, so I just wanted to confirm that there is the mobile home overlay on that site.

There is not too much a awareness of an overlay.

Um the mobile home was not addressed during the uh report.

All right.

Um could we uh review the zoning map and confirm that please?

Because it did look like perhaps there was, but I just want to double check for the record.

Miss Marshall.

Hi, Kelly Marshall.

Um, there is a mobile home overlay.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right, thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

We have the applicant, please.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Jesse Stellex 777 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, Florida.

Thank you for having me today.

Absolutely.

Go ahead.

I've never done this before, so you are going to be in for a treat because I don't know what you would like for me.

All right, it's not hard.

So you just have to tell us exactly why you're here and what the variance is about.

That's it.

Very simple.

Fantastic.

So basically, what we're requesting is to put a garage on the back of our property.

Um, we have neighbors on either side.

One of the neighbors has a very large garage right next to our fence as well.

We basically want to match that on our side.

There's no current garage or anything that we can put a car in, so we're looking for something that we can put a three-car garage and possibly fit a boat into.

I don't know if we would be able to do that.

Um, but that's basically what we're looking for.

And because of the footprint of the property itself, if we met that 25-foot variance, it would basically we'd have to build the garage on top of the mobile home that is there currently.

All right, just one quick question before you go.

It looked like from your survey where you want to put this garage, there is something there and it's labeled covered.

So what is that?

So our the previous owner built a very cute pergola.

What we believe we can do is just lift it.

It we've had some people come over and they think that they can just lift it and move it.

Um it's just a a uh pergola cover for like a um grill and outdoor seating area.

Okay, so is that have a concrete base currently?

It has tiles.

We had the man that would be able to lay the concrete foundation for the garage come out.

He said he would need to remove the tiles, level the whole area there, and then pour the concrete.

All right, and finally, is uh just roughly that tiled covered area with the pergola.

Is that roughly the same footprint as what you want to put this garage on?

No, no, it's a small area that is just I would say if I had to guess I'm really bad at math, but maybe like five feet by 15 feet for the little covered area.

Um so yeah, it would be a different.

This would be we're hoping to put a three-car garage there.

Understood.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Just sign in with the clerk's office.

Thank you very much.

You did great.

All right.

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

Anyone in favor?

All right, seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, all right, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, ma'am.

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

What do I say?

This is actually beautiful to watch.

Thank you so much for letting us.

All right, no one says that, but thank you.

I really appreciate it.

All right.

Then with that, we'll we'll close variants 26-0291 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H2, variance 260376.

The applicants are Frank and Linda Wise.

The request is a variance to swimming pool requirements.

Staff findings will be presented by Logan McKay.

Good morning again.

Logan McKay Development Services, variance 260376.

The applicant is requesting a variance to setbacks for a pool enclosed by a screen mesh structure without a solid roof.

It may intrude into the required rear and side yard setbacks, provided a minimum of three foot is provided.

The applicant is requesting a two-foot, 2.5 foot variance, resulting in a six-inch side yard setback for the screen meshed pool enclosure.

Let me just ask you a quick question just for my own information.

So it it's very much called out that it does not have a solid roof, and therefore the three-foot uh requirement.

If it had a solid roof, then it would have to meet primary structure setbacks.

Is that correct?

I can't recall at this moment, but I believe so.

Ms.

Marshall, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, just for my own information.

Thank you.

That was my only question.

Appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Go ahead and come forward.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

If you give us your name and address before you start.

I can Linda Wise 4829 Troydale Road.

That's in Tampa, Florida.

Thank you so much.

You would just tell us quickly about your application.

So our existing pool cage is not repairable.

It's you know, economically repairable, I should say.

The aluminum's fine, but all the little screws is just too much labor to replace them.

I wanted to repair it, but it can't be repaired economically.

So it has to be replaced.

You know, the hurricane the the during Helene, there is some subsidence of the land on the other side of our pool facing the canal.

Um we we we want to correct that.

So in order to correct that, we need to you know replay repair the pool cage as well because there's some buckling from where it's connected to the slab.

Okay.

So that's really what it's all about.

Is really just it's it what's there is um I mean it's it's serviceable still, but um not not can't be fixed.

We can't fix that buckling.

All right, it's really the same, we're putting the same, we want the same thing in the same place, the same footprint.

We don't want to change anything, we just want like for like and it's what 40 years old.

So things, you know, this is Florida things break down.

It was built before the requirement.

All right, I understand.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

I appreciate it.

If you could both sign in, please.

All right, is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Yes, sir.

While he's coming forward, is there anybody else that would like to speak in support?

Go ahead.

All right, seeing no one else.

Good morning.

My name is Taylor Hawkins, owner of Exterior Comforts and Designs.

We would be the contractor that uh they want to hire in order to do this repair.

Um essentially, what we want to do is replace the enclosure at a stem wall to correct the uh failing failing pool deck.

Um the existing enclosure does encroach into the side setback by about two feet.

So we're just looking to do exactly what's there, replace what's there.

I just know that the uh the existing, I don't know if it was you know a previous setback was encroached upon or if it was before the the setbacks were in place, but basically just looking to build exactly what was there before, and I know that we're kind of within that setback.

So just looking for the variance for us to be able to replace it.

All right, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

If you could also sign in.

Is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in opposition?

Anyone against this application?

All right, seeing no one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

You have the last word if you'd like it.

Uh the applicant, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it.

I have nothing else to say.

So all right, thank you very much.

Then with that, we'll close variance two six-zero three seven six and go to the next case.

Next item is item H3, variance 260398.

The applicant is Andrea McClennan.

The request of the variance select development standards staff findings will be presented by Sierra James.

Good morning.

Good morning, Sierra James of Development Services.

The applicant is seeking a variance to the front and rear yard setbacks in the AR zoning district.

The required front and rear yard is 50 feet.

The applicant is requesting a variance of 20 feet, resulting in a 30-foot front yard setback and a variance of 30 feet, resulting in a 20-foot rear yard setback in the AR zoning district.

A minimum lot size of five acres is required per NCL 22-1601.

The 1.09 acre lot is legally non-conforming.

Uh no questions at this time.

Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name's Andrea McClellan, and my address is 11306, the Nona Sassa Road, the Nona Sassa, Florida, 33592.

We own our home currently, right now is directly touching this lot.

My in-laws own the lot to the west of the property.

Our neighbors, John Ferris's home burnt down in 2018.

And when his home burnt down, they moved, and he offered the property to us to purchase the property that we're talking about three six zero seven my way.

We would just like to rebuild a home in basically the exact same footprint that Mr.

Ferris's home was in on Lake Thanona Sassa.

And we are requesting some variant setbacks on the north and south end of that to be able to fit and a home that looks like a normal home on the lake.

And there are three other homes on my way that have variances that we have supported for them as well that are just encroaching on those setbacks.

And I can go through the criteria one by one and give our response, but that is included in the variance package.

So if you have any questions, I would love to answer them.

But we're just looking to build a home in almost exactly the same footprint at the home as the home was previously built.

Thank you.

My only question would be if you talk to your neighbors.

I understand they're your family members, but if anyone was concerned about this, we did.

So we've talked to all of our neighbors.

We sent out all of the letters.

We called them and told them to expect the letter because it, you know, it was like you're gonna get a letter from us, which seems weird.

But anyway, so we talked to everyone and everybody is in support.

Um and in fact, are really excited that we hope to rebuild.

Okay, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Yes, ma'am.

If you could please sign in.

Yes.

All right.

Is there anyone?

Sir, did you have anything you wanted to add?

I think the second part of that is the orientation of the lot.

They want the front and back of the house.

The reason we're asking for the setback is they want it to face the Noda Sassa Road, and we want the front and back to face the light.

Understood.

If you could just give us your name and address too.

Daniel McClellan, 3607.

No, sorry.

11306, the Notice ASA Road, the Notice SASA Florida 33592.

Thank you so much.

And if you could also sign in, I appreciate it.

All right, is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition.

All right, no one, Miss Marshall, anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, you all have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Then we'll close variance 26-0398 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H4, variance 260414.

The applicant is Jacob T.

Kramer, Barbus Kramer, PLLC.

The request is a variance to eating establishment drive-through service requirements and variance to landscaping buffering requirements.

Staff findings will be presented by Chris Granlin.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Chris Grell in our development services.

I'm here to present variance uh 26-0414 concerning commercially zoned property located at the southwest corner of Bing Big Bend Road and Simmons Loop.

This request involves two variances related development standards for a proposed drive-thru restaurant.

The specific variance is requested are from uh LDC section 6.11.35B1, which requires a minimum of 200 foot separation between a drive-through order box and any residentially zoned property.

The applicant seeks a reduction of the separation by 99.1 feet to the west and 161.8 feet to the south, resulting in a distance of 100.9 feet west and 38.2 feet south from the residential zoned uh boundary.

Uh from LDC, also the other variance is from LDC section 6.06.06, which requires a 20-foot landscape buffer or a commercial site adjoins a multifamily residential development.

Uh the applicant requests a 14-foot reduction, allowing a six-foot buffer along the southern property line.

Uh the findings noted in the report indicate no other additional findings.

I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.

No questions at this time.

Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning, Nicole McKinnon, Barbara's Kramer Law Firm 2002 West Cleveland Street for the record.

Thank you for your time this morning for this variance request.

The application number is BAR 26-0414.

Property is located at the intersection of Big Ben Ronin Semmons Loop.

Um, it's a.181 acre site.

Um, it's in the UMU 20 future land use and zoned commercial general.

Um we're requesting today to for two variances.

The first one is to reduce the distance of an order box for a fast food establishment from residentially zoned property from 200 feet to 100.9 feet to the west and 38.2 feet to the south.

And then a variance from the code to reduce the minimum landscape buffer along the south side from 20 feet to six feet.

The general justification for many of these variance criteria is the property was zoned commercial general, and so was the adjacent multifamily parcel when this parcel was originally zoned and purchased in 2021.

So they did not create the need for the variance, their neighbor who was originally commercial rezoned, and then that caused the the issue.

Same thing for the buffer, they wouldn't have had any buffering requirements because it would have been commercial to commercial, but when that property was rezoned to multi-family, it then created enhanced landscape requirements.

The order box is going to be 200 feet from the actual multifamily units, just not 200 feet from the multifamily property.

In addition, there are two 20-foot type B buffers that are between the order box and the multifamily units to help muffle any of that noise.

And then the property to the south that is residentially zoned is a dry bile and stormwater management area.

So that's the 38.2 foot distance from the order box, and so there wouldn't be any residential units affected by that.

And with respect to the buffer, the development to the south, which is part of that multifamily parcel, they were required to provide cross-access and did ask for a waiver to reduce their buffer as part of their rezoning from a 20-foot type B to a five-foot type A.

We're asking for a six-foot buffer, so our buffer would actually be a little bit bigger than what they were approved for as a waiver as part of their PD application.

Again, the depot deprivation of rights, we are just asking to be able to put in a commercial general use that is allowed on the property with the notion that the order box is again at least 200 feet from the actual multifamily units, just not the property.

And we are asking for a waiver that is slightly higher than what our neighbor was approved for as part of their rezoning application with respect to the buffer.

This will not substantially interfere with the property rights of others.

I do have a letter that we received late last week from the multifamily owner.

It's a letter of support for the application.

I can provide that into the record.

It's in harmony with the LDC because the order box will be at least 200 feet from any multifamily units to mitigate for that noise, and the buffer that we're providing is slightly higher than what our neighbor is providing.

This is not a self-imposed hardship.

Again, our neighbor's property was rezoned, which then caused the need for this waiver request for both the order box and for the buffering.

And this would result in substantial justice being done because the property is the order box is at least 200 feet for the multifamily units.

The property to the south is the dry vial and stormwater management area, and our buffer would be slightly larger than our neighbors.

And our engineer is here if you have any questions.

I do.

I have several questions.

Let me start with the self-imposed hardship issue.

So it seems that you've just um uh discussed it, that the the assertion is that the hardship is created because the adjacent property owner rezoned their property.

Right.

So this property um was originally rezoned to CG in 2016.

Our property was then rezoned to C to CG in 2017, and then in 2021, the adjacent residential property was rezoned to multifamily, which then caused the need for both of these variance requests because then their property was within 200 feet of uh this property, and then the um the buffer for CG to multifamily is higher between those two uses.

Understood, excuse me, but you would agree that that adjacent property owner has the right to rezone their property to whatever they want, correct?

Absolutely, they do.

All right, and then you would also agree that the uh your client has the ability to develop this property in accordance with the CG regulations, and so in that they have uh chosen this use with the order box and so forth requirements that they are creating this issue.

You it I haven't seen yet that the adjacent property owner is the hardship.

And so if you could uh elaborate on that.

I think just the unique zoning history of this with the original with the properties originally both being zoned for commercial.

This was intended, this is along Big Ben Row, it was intended to be commercial, it was rezoned to multifamily, and so with that, when they went to develop this use, um, it just created an issue with how small this site is to put a use on there, and so um when they went to put in and design this site of fast food restaurant, was the ideal use given the size and the intersection, and so when they went to design it, they tried to put the order box as far as possible, so it is at least 200 feet from an actual multifamily unit, just not from that property.

So it is at least 200 feet from an actual multifamily unit, just not from that property.

So the rule that you're asking the variance from is from residentially zoned property.

I understand your assertion that the building is that.

Understood.

Yeah, I mean, we looked at that.

We didn't feel having the order box on the south side would be um detrimental to the fact that South Sir, could you give us your name and address, please?

Eli Payne, Baysite Engineering 2054 Central Avenue.

All right.

Did you do an analysis of putting the order box further away from the residentially zoned property?

Yes, we we looked at putting the order bots on the north end of the project, um, just with the location of the the driveway being limited to the cross access provided to the south.

Um just didn't just didn't functionally work as a site.

Um we also didn't feel putting on the north end is still pretty much the same distance from the western property line.

Um so we didn't we didn't feel the need to charter.

Oh, I understand that, but the the uh closest point is the 38 feet on the south.

So it stands to reason that you would look at flipping it and going to the north.

I understand that would be the same on the west.

Yeah, so the south, yeah, the south is just the stormwater pond and and uh shared access facility.

Okay, but you don't have any graphics that show that you did that analysis.

No, I mean we have I mean I have old concept plans not with me now, but um yeah, we just didn't really pursue that any further.

Okay we do have the garages to the west that are between us and the the multifamily site, which will also provide a sound buffer and uh site buffer.

All right, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

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

All right, did you have anything else?

That was my only those are my only questions.

Uh nope, nothing further.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Is there anyone in the uh audience that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Yes, sir.

Well, he's coming up.

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

Go ahead.

Good morning.

My name is excuse me, David Dickey, uh property owner uh of the parcel since 2017 when it was rezoned, the Euclidean rezoning.

My address is 1591 Pinellas Bay Way South, and that's St.

Petersburg, Florida 33715.

I asked the folks to just please put the graphic back up where it could be seen.

The reason um the footprint needs to be the way it is, is the access that's only been given to us through the development of the apartment complex is via the the shared access road.

So there is no opportunity to bring the traffic through from Big Ben Road.

We have one and only one ingress egress through the could through the conditioned access point from Simmons loop onto the shared access road.

What the graphic doesn't show is below and to the south, which I believe the engineer pointed out, it's just a stormwater management system, and it's just a pond in its vegetation.

Again, I'll just reiterate what the engineer said about if you could see those garages and there's a vegetation buffer that will we believe absorb the sound that may be um a concern of of the residents.

So I support the uh the request.

I also uh don't believe that we created the hardship ourselves.

The hardship was based on the property owner that decided, not the same property owner.

Uh I just want to clarify that the previous property owner was trying to rezone it and was rezoned commercial 40,000 square feet, where there was cross access to both parcels as well as no concern about the the use.

Um we would just ask you to please understand that this was always been zoned commercially and it was uh fit the footprint originally of that area.

And I believe that since the owners of the apartment complex also do not uh object, I believe they have a letter of support.

We just ask your permission and request to uh please uh review and and approve the uh the bearings requests.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you could before you go, if you could remind me who you represent.

Yes, my name is David Dickey.

I represent Riverview Ventures LLC.

We are the property owners, and we've been the property owners since uh 2007.

Of the of the subject property.

Of the subject property, okay.

That's right.

Forgive me for the not being clear.

Oh, that's all right.

And uh in closing, I guess a second time.

It it's just an ideal corner for uh commercial use.

We um worked, I think, very cooperatively with the apartment complex with and made sure that they could create the ingress egress that they needed uh from both Big Ben Road and Simmons Loop, and I think the owners to the uh to the east were very accommodating uh with regard to giving us a granted easement to place the ingress egress where it belongs.

So um the gentleman who's the engineer, there just really is no option.

There's an analysis, but it just it can't work if if I guess if you'd like us to put that together for you to show you that it's not feasible, we'd glad to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

All right, is there anyone else that would like to speak in support?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, you have five minutes for rebuttal.

Um we have nothing further for rebuttal.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

With that, we'll close variants 26-0414.

And now we will turn to the special use cases, which again the difference is the applicant goes first in the presentation order, otherwise the same.

Ms.

Marshall.

This brings us to section I special uses.

Item I1, special use 260395.

The applicant is Aldi Florida LLC.

The request is a special use 3PS alcoholic beverage permit with separation waivers.

I will provide the staff findings after presentation by the applicant.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Go ahead and come forward.

You give us your name and address, please.

Absolutely.

Uh good morning.

My name is Amanda Hassim with Rutledge CNI PA.

Uh, our address is 119 South Monroe Street, suite 202, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301.

I'm here today on behalf of Aldi Florida LLC for the request for a special use 3PS alcoholic beverage permit with the distance uh waiver and the uh separation waiver from existing alcoholic beverage uses.

Uh the Albi grocery store is currently existing and operating.

Um, it holds a 2 APS alcoholic beverage license, which only authorizes the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption.

This liquor store would be an uh would be an extension of the existing grocery store authorizing a separate liquor store to operate under a 3ps license for the sale of beer, wine, and spirits, as spirits are not currently being sold within the grocery store.

Um there is residentially zoned property, however, there are significant buffers.

Um the resident we're asking for a uh 90-foot uh distance waiver from that property, as well as a waiver from the existing alcoholic beverage uses within the shopping center.

Um, this liquor store is a compatible use with the existing uses in the shopping center.

There's multiple alcoholic beverage uses for restaurants and other types of entertainment.

Um we are strictly only selling alcoholic beverages for consumption off-premises.

There will be no late night activity, there will be no um excessive noise or new generation of traffic.

Um we ask that this request be approved.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign in.

All right, development services.

The applicant stated the request is for uh 3 PS special use alcoholic beverage permit to allow sale of beer, wine, and liquor to be sold in sealed containers only for consumption off the permitted premises.

The proposed wet zoning area is a current two APS alcoholic beverage permit approval.

Proposed 3 PS alcoholic beverage permit will allow for packaged liquor sales in addition to the package beer and wine sales.

The property zone PD, which allows the host use and consideration of the proposed wet zoning.

A waiver of 90 feet to the 250-foot distance requirement to residentially zone property is proposed, resulting in a 200 or a 160-foot distance separation.

The nearest residentially zoned property is located to the north of the proposed premises.

Subject site is separated from the residential area by Neasley Road, a collector roadway, which provides significant physical separation between uses.

In addition, a solid PVC fence exists along the southern boundary of the residential zone property.

Further screening the proposed wet zone area from view of the residential zone property.

The proposed use is oriented towards the south, while the residential dwellings are to the north are oriented away from the site.

A waiver to the requirement that there shall be no more than three approved similar alcoholic beverage permits within 1,000 feet is proposed to allow for approved similar alcoholic beverage permits within a thousand feet.

The proposed wet zone area is within a commercial stopping center separated from residential uses and surrounding and surrounded but primarily by other commercial locations.

Proposed wet zone areas currently in operation as a grocery store.

The addition of alcoholic sales to the location does not introduce a new use to the site, but a natural extension of the existing permitted function.

For this reason, staff finds the proposed zoning does not pose significant impacts on surrounding land uses and the necessity for the specified distance requirements is negated.

Staff finds the proposed 3 PS alcoholic beverage permit to be approvable.

Subject to one condition that upon approval of the SUAB 260395, the portion of SUAB080824 within the same legal description area shall be rescinded.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right.

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.

All right, Miss Marshall, anything else?

Nothing.

Ma'am, if you could come forward, I forgot to ask you one question if you don't mind if you come back to the podium.

It to ask if you had heard from any of your neighbors when you mailed out the adjacent property owner notice.

We have not.

Um and we just received an abundant amount of support in the shopping center, and Aldi is very excited to be a part of this community.

All right, perfect.

Did you have anything you wanted to add before I close?

No, thank you for your time today.

And uh thank you.

All right, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Then we'll close uh special use AB26-0395 and go to the last case.

Next item is item I2 special use 260405.

The applicant is Mark Bentley.

The request is a four C OPX alcoholic beverage permit with distance separation waivers.

James Baker will present staff findings after presentation by the applicant.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Ryan Manassey with Johnson Pope, uh, director of planning 400 North Ashley Drive Suite 3100, Tampa, Florida.

Um, so we're here today regarding the SUA B26 uh 0405, and again, it's for that for C O PX special use alcohol beverage permit with a distance waiver for uh what we call the local drought house, which is a bar and social house within an existing retail strip center at the northwest corner of Causeway Boulevard and South Falconburg Road.

The subject property is an existing retail strip center located at a major commercial intersection.

It is zone PD that file number 98-0164 and designated UMU 20 on the future land use map, which supports mixed use and intensive commercial activity appropriate for this type of establishment.

The request is to allow the sale of beer, wine, and liquor for on-premises consumption only.

Importantly, this approval would eliminate the package cells currently allowed under the existing permit and instead limit alcohol service strictly to on-site consumption.

Again, we we feel this is a key point.

The existing two COP permit allows for that package sales, which means alcohol can be currently sold for off-prem premises consumption.

Approval of this application would actually reduce the potential impacts by eliminated package sales and restricting all alcohol consumption to on-premises only.

Now the retail center contains ample surface parking and multiple access points from Causeway Boulevard, uh, Visconti Boulevard, and Falkenberg Road, allowing traffic to be uh dispersed efficiently within the commercial uh circulation pattern without reliance on the adjacent residential parcels or areas.

The wet zone is limited to approximately 4,547 square feet and is fully contained within the existing commercial strip center building with no expansion toward the residential zone property.

The only waiver requested relates to the separation from residential zoning, which measures at 91 feet, and that's to the RMC 16 zone parcel parcel located west of the wet zoned area.

So although zoned RMC 16, uh the adjacent property is currently undeveloped and situated within a designated commercial node at a major intersection.

Given its location and context, it is likely to be rezoned in the future to commercial or office type uses, further reducing any long-term land use incompatibility concerns.

There is a private roadway, Visconti Boulevard, located between the proposed AB area and the residentially zoned property, creating a functional separation.

Additionally, the building orientation and commercial massing further buffers any potential interaction with that parcel.

The site is part of a mixed use plan development containing retail, office, hotel, and restaurant uses, and this type of establishment is consistent with the planned commercial node envisioned in this major intersection.

The surrounding area is overwhelmingly commercial and transportation orientated.

The only residential zoning is to our west, and that parcel remains undeveloped, further supporting compatibility with the requested use.

Now several unique circumstances justify the waiver in our review of this application.

The adjacent parcel is undeveloped.

It's located within an intense commercial node, and the request reduces potential impacts by eliminating off-site package sales and restricting alcohol consumption to on-premises only.

County staff concluded that the proposed use will not pose significant impacts on the surrounding land use, uh land uses, and the necessity for the distance requirement is negated due to the unique site circumstances.

In summary, the request is consistent with the zoning and future land use located within an established commercial strip center, reduces potential impacts by eliminated package sales, and is physically separated from the adjacent undeveloped residentially zoned parcel by that private roadway, Visconti Boulevard, and the commercial development pattern.

Now, per LDC section 6.11.11 E3, it expressly provides for approval of the separation waivers where special or unique circumstances exist and where the proposed alcohol beverage use does not create significant impacts on the surrounding land uses.

Here we have presented substantial competent evidence demonstrating not only absence of significant adverse effects, but the absence of adverse effects altogether.

Given the surrounding commercial context, existing physical separation features, operational controls, and staff's findings of compatibility.

The applicant has met its burden of proof.

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

Just to ask if you heard from that church property owner.

We haven't heard from any neighbors, and all notices were uh sent out.

Okay, thank you so much.

That was it.

Thank you.

Please sign in with the clerk's office.

All right, development services.

Good morning.

Good morning.

James Baker Development Services.

The proposed web zoning SAR-4 Bar and Social House is in a local strip center at a major arterial intersection.

The property zone plan development PD 98-0164.

There's an existing AB permit that covers the footprint of the proposed A B sales SU-AB-181506.

Approval of this application would resend the existing permit on this site.

The sale and consumption of ACHAR would be limited to on-premises only.

The applicant is requesting a distance separation waiver to residentially zone property.

The current PD zoning permits CG, which is commercial or general usage, which includes drinking establishments on the subject property per RZ 90-0164 as modified by PRS 17086.

While a church owns the RMC zone property 91 feet away from the proposed AB use, this property is vacant while the actual church facility is being located excess of 500 feet of community usage requirement.

The proposed wet zone survey is separated from the RMC 16 zone property by Visconti Boulevard, a private road with 70 feet of road right-of-way area.

No entrances or windows exist on the western portion of the building containing the wed zone area.

And the entrance to the establishment is located on the north side of the building.

For these reasons discussed above, staff finds the proposed wedzoning does not pose significant impacts on surrounding land uses and the necessity for the specified distance requirements is negated.

Is that complete your presentation?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

All right, no one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, Mr.

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

Nothing further, thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Then with that, we'll close special use AB 26-0405 and adjourn the hearing.

Thank you all for your time and testimony.