Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer Meeting - March 9, 2026
Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer Meeting - March 9, 2026
The Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO) convened on Monday, March 9, 2026, at 9:00 AM at the County Center, 2nd Floor, to conduct a public hearing on variances, special use permits, and administrative items. The hearing was presided over by Hearing Officer Susan Finch, with staff from Development Services and the County Attorney's Office present. The meeting addressed a total of 15 agenda items, including 10 continuances/withdrawals and 5 items that were heard on the merits. No final decisions were rendered; the Hearing Officer will file recommendations or final decisions by March 30, 2026.
Consent Calendar (Withdrawals and Continuances)
- VAR 24-1128 (Rolando Santiago): Continued to April 13, 2026.
- SU-SCH 24-1238 (Todd Pressman): Continued by applicant to June 15, 2026.
- SU-SCH 24-1335 (David Wright / TSP Companies, Inc.): Continued to April 13, 2026.
- SU-AB 25-1115 (Damia Investments LLC): Withdrawn by Zoning Administrator per LDC Sec 10.03.02.C.2.
- SU-OPF 25-1192 (Daniel McKnight): Continued to April 13, 2026.
- VAR 25-1238 (Maria and Rojelio Mireles): Continued to April 13, 2026.
- VAR 25-1340 (Laritza Lopez): Continued to April 13, 2026.
- SU-SCH 26-0219 (Pressman Todd, Pressman & Assoc, Inc): Continued by applicant to May 11, 2026.
- VAR 26-0381 (Bernadette Rodgers Revocable Trust): Continued to April 13, 2026.
- SU-AB 26-0420 (11202 Dewhurst LLC): Continued by Staff to April 13, 2026.
Discussion Items
F.1 – VAR-WS 26-0397: Dalia Figueroa Lebron – Variance to encroach into the 30-foot wetland setback and variance to lot development standards at 17021 Crawley Rd. (0.96 acres, R-1/ASC-1). The applicant sought to demolish an existing dilapidated home and shed and reconstruct a new home in essentially the same footprint, with encroachments of up to 24.02 feet into the wetland setback and reductions in front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Staff presented findings. The applicant’s attorney (Clay Matthews) and expert planner (Maggie Perez) argued that the property’s unique shape (narrow upland parallelogram between road and lake) meets all six variance criteria. A letter of opposition from Melvin Baker was noted but not supported by expert testimony. No public speakers in support or opposition. The case was heard and pending determination.
H.1 – VAR 26-0291: Pavel & Jessica Stehlik – Variance to accessory structure requirements at 2407 E 148th Ave. (0.34 acres, R-6/RSC-6). The applicants requested to place a three-car garage in the rear yard, requiring a 22-foot variance to the rear yard setback (resulting in 3 feet) and a 4.5-foot variance to the side yard setback (also resulting in 3 feet), plus a 2% variance to the 20% rear yard coverage limit. Staff noted the property has a mobile home overlay. The applicant explained the existing mobile home and yard constraints. No public speakers. The case was heard and pending determination.
H.2 – VAR 26-0376: Frank & Linda Wise – Variance to swimming pool requirements at 4829 Troydale Rd. (0.61 acres, R-6/RSC-4). The applicants sought to replace an existing 40-year-old pool cage that is structurally failing and encroaches approximately 2.5 feet into the side yard setback (resulting in a 6-inch side setback). The cage has no solid roof, so the code allows a minimum 3-foot side setback. The applicants and their contractor testified that the replacement would be in the same footprint. No public speakers in opposition. The case was heard and pending determination.
H.3 – VAR 26-0398: Andrea McClellan – Variance to lot development standards at 3607 My Way (1.09 acres, R-1/AR). The applicant requested a 20-foot front yard setback variance (resulting in 30 feet) and a 30-foot rear yard setback variance (resulting in 20 feet) to rebuild a home on a non-conforming lot (minimum lot size is 5 acres). The home would be in the same footprint as a previous home that burned down. The applicant stated all neighbors support the request. No public speakers. The case was heard and pending determination.
H.4 – VAR 26-0414: Jacob T. Cremer-Barbas Cremer, PLLC – Variance to eating establishment drive-through service requirements and landscaping/buffering requirements at the SW corner of Big Bend Rd & Simmons Loop (0.81 acres, UMU-20/CG). The applicant proposed a fast-food restaurant and requested a 99.1-foot (west) and 161.8-foot (south) reduction from the 200-foot separation between an order box and residentially zoned property, resulting in distances of 100.9 feet west and 38.2 feet south; and a 14-foot reduction from the 20-foot landscape buffer along the south property line (resulting in 6 feet). Staff and applicant (attorney Nicole McKinnon, engineer Eli Payne, property owner David Dickey) argued that the hardship was not self-imposed because the adjacent property was rezoned to multifamily after the subject property was zoned CG. The order box is at least 200 feet from actual multifamily units, and a letter of support from the multifamily owner was submitted. No public opposition. The case was heard and pending determination.
I.1 – SU-AB 26-0395: ALDI (Florida) LLC – Special Use 3-PS Alcoholic Beverage Permit with distance separation waivers at 252 Harbor Village Ln. (13.55 acres, R-6/PD). The applicant sought to add a liquor store (for off-premises consumption only) to an existing ALDI grocery store that currently sells beer and wine. A 90-foot waiver from the 250-foot distance to residentially zoned property was requested (resulting in 160 feet), along with a waiver allowing more than three similar permits within 1,000 feet. Staff found the use compatible and recommended approval subject to rescinding an existing permit. The applicant received no neighbor objections. No public speakers. The case was heard and pending determination.
I.2 – SU-AB 26-0405: Mark Bentley, Esq., B.C.S, AICP – Special Use 4-COP-X Alcoholic Beverage Permit with distance separation waivers at 10284 Causeway Blvd. (6.59 acres, UMU-20/CG/PD/RMC-16). The applicant proposed a bar and social house (on-premises consumption only) in an existing retail strip center, which would replace the existing 2-COP permit that allows package sales. A distance waiver of 91 feet to the nearest RMC-16 zoned property (currently vacant, owned by a church) was requested. Staff noted the site is in a commercial node, with a private road (Visconti Blvd) separating the proposed use from the residential zoning. No public speakers. The case was heard and pending determination.
Key Outcomes
- Ten applications were either withdrawn or continued to future LUHO hearings (April 13, May 11, or June 15, 2026).
- Five applications (VAR-WS 26-0397, VAR 26-0291, VAR 26-0376, VAR 26-0398, VAR 26-0414, SU-AB 26-0395, SU-AB 26-0405) were heard in full with testimony and evidence presented. The Hearing Officer did not announce decisions; all are pending determination, with a final decision deadline of March 30, 2026.
- The hearing was adjourned after all items were heard. No further procedural actions were taken.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com