Good morning and welcome to the March 10th, 2026 regularly scheduled land use meeting of the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners.

Would everyone please rise with a pledge and invocation given by Chaplain Commissioner Gwyn Myers.

Asking and thanking you that you've allowed us to gather again for our land use meeting.

Bless our staff, this board, and all our applicants who have submitted an application that we can discuss and make decisions in your holy name, I pray.

Amen.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

Uh, Mr.

Grady, one of you changes the agenda.

Uh, a revised report has been added to the correct description from a warranty bond in the amount of one eleven thousand seven hundred dollars to a warranty check in the amount of eleven thousand seven hundred dollars.

The other changes there's a commissioner miller item uh regarding a recommended board motion regarding directing staff to take steps needed to initiate the process of for creating a lithium community plan.

Those are the uh changes of the agenda.

I can motion the change.

Motion Commissioner Wells to second Commissioner Myers, please record your vote and changes the agenda.

Motion carried six to zero.

Motion Commissioner Rostal, second commissioner Myers on the consent agenda.

Uh, please record your vote.

Motion carries six to zero.

Okay, so anyone here for a B item.

Your application's been approved.

Uh this time, if you are planning on uh testifying today, would you please stand and raise your right hand so the clerk can swear you in?

All right.

Do you swear or affirm this testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

All right, thank you.

You may be seated.

Okay, well, now on the vacating part of the agenda.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with the Facilities Management and Real Estate Services Department.

Item C1 today is vacate ID V25-0024.

This is a Hillsborough County initiated vacate request by the Parks and Recreation Department to vacate a portion of public right-of-way known as Balmway Mama Road.

The right-of-way consists of approximately 1.582 acres and is generally located south of County Road 672 and west of Baumboyette Road in Balm.

The subject portion of Balm Wai Mama Road was realigned as part of the Balm Grove East development and is no longer used as public right-of-way.

The Parks and Recreation Department has submitted this request in connection with a proposed master plan for the Balm Park and Recreation Center, which will provide expanded recreational amenities and public water and wastewater services.

The vacate area together with the existing 9.3 acre park site and a 5.6 acre park site acquired in connection with the Balm Grove East development will allow for a roughly 16-acre park.

Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request.

Thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions.

Seeing none, commitment of approval.

Motion Commissioner Wilson, sign Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on C1.

Motion carries six to zero.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gray, you introduce first E item.

Next item is agenda item E1 is PRS application 26-0177.

Commissioners, this is a request to modify a 4.4 acre parcel that's located with a plan development that's located uh west of Orient Road between Sly Avenue and Hills East Shells Avenue.

The commission the the request is for this particular parcel to increase the building size for existing uh truck maintenance facility from 10,034 square feet to 13,100 square feet.

Uh staff is recommending approval when we're able for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Applicant for E1.

Good morning, sir.

Mr.

Chair Brian Ox, 65 Port Street, McFarland Ferguson here on behalf of the applicant U.S.

Foods.

Uh we're here to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Any proponent testimony.

Anyone here in opposition?

Seeing none, can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion, Commissioner Wilson, second commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on E1.

Motion carried 6 to 0.

E2.

Next agenda item is E2, PRIS application 26-0182.

The request is for a minor modification of the portion of the plan development located on the east side of U.S.

uh 301 east of uh Duncan Road.

Uh the request is to uh modify overall entire increasing entitlements uh from 77,800 square feet to 81,690 square feet, uh increase uh storage units from 60 to 75 units, remove a car wash, and then allow for a uh modified mix of entitlements to allow for uh more non-retail commercial uses on the site.

Uh staff is recommending approval and we'll up for any questions.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here good morning?

Hi, good morning.

Ann Pollock uh with Trentum Law 200 Central St.

Petersburg representing the applicant.

Um I just wanted to uh give a little information about the purpose of the request.

This project was approved originally in 2005 to be a flex-based condominium uh development, and two of the four buildings were constructed uh way back in the mid-2000s.

Nothing has happened since, and uh the owner of these two properties is looking to finally get these developed.

We'll probably be back for a little extra uh entitlements.

We were hoping to uh at least be able to get um one of the buildings started by going through the PRS process, but it should provide some additional uh space for businesses in the area to develop.

Thank you.

Here for questions.

All right, thank you.

Uh anyone uh in support of the application.

Anyone in opposition seeing none, commitment motion.

So moved.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wolstool, uh second commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on E2.

Motion carries six to zero.

E three.

Commissioner's next agenda item is E3, PRIS application 26-0300.

Uh this is a request for uh uh minor modification of 3.56 acre parcel uh within a PD.

It's located at the on the uh corner, northeast corner of Providence Road and Providence uh Road Ridge Boulevard.

Uh the request is the parcel is currently developed with the uh six uh with a uh with a community residential home.

Uh the app is is requesting to increase the overall units within the PWI6 units to be able to increase the uh bed count from 70 to 100.

Uh staff is recommending approval and vote for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Good morning.

Hi, good morning.

Uh for the record, my name is Patricia Ortiz.

My address is excuse me, uh 2810 North Central Avenue, Tampa, 33602.

And um the request is as stated.

Um there is currently an a type C community residential home on site.

It's allowed 70 beds.

We're trying to increase that to 100 beds, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Okay, not seeing any right now, but thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone in support of the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Can we have a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion, Commissioner Myers, second.

Uh Commissioner Wolstool, please record your vote on E3.

Motion carries six to zero.

E4.

Commissioner's the next item is agenda item E4, Pierce application 26-0387.

This is a request to modify a PD located uh at the south northwest corner of Bloomingdo Avenue, Bell Shells Boulevard.

Uh the request is to remove a requirement regarding issue requiring issuance as a certificate of occupancy for one single family residence prior to the development approval for additional mini warehouse entitlements within the PD.

Uh this requirement was uh imposed as part of the meeting mixed use requirements in the comprehensive plan to have two uses.

Uh there are other uh provisions within that policy that allows for a compliance of the mixed use criteria, one of those being uh having the second use uh within a quarter mile uh connected to this to the site through a continuous sidewalk.

Uh this project is meeting that uh policy standard, so it's still meeting the requirements of the comprehensive plan.

Therefore, staff has no objection to removal of their this specific condition, and we are recommending approval.

Is the applicant here morning, sir?

Good morning, sir.

Chris McNeill, McNeil Engineering 15957, North Florida Avenue, Lutes Florida on behalf of the applicant.

Uh good morning, everyone.

The uh just uh staff did a great job on the intro for that request.

Just to give you a little bit of context here on the Elmo for the location, uh the three residential properties here on the uh north side relative to the storage.

Uh there they are highlighted for you.

Uh these are the uses that are uh in the proximity within that quarter mile meeting policy 4.2.1, uh which states that they can be uh within the area of that quarter mile.

So uh with that uh we respectfully request your approval and are available for any questions.

All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition?

All right, commitment motion.

So moved.

Second.

Motion, Commissioner Rolstall, second commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on E4.

Motion carries six to zero.

All right, Mr.

Grady introduced first F item.

Commissioner, the next item is Gen item F1 rezoning PD 25-0809.

Uh this is request for uh for rezoning of a of a 10.15 acre parcel located on the west side of Cluis Avenue, uh south of US 92.

Uh the parcels currently zoned ASO4 and PD.

Uh the PD portions developed with the mobile home park.

This request is provide for uh two options to develop the site with a mix of uh 93 mole home units and or uh park models.

Uh park models are considered a type of RV, although they're different than your standard RV because they're they more permanent, they stay permanently on the site and do not move in and out like your other RVs you would expect.

Uh nonetheless it is subject to is the uh length of stay requirements that are in the land development code and the conditions are the recommended conditions include provisions to ensure uh compliance of those standards for that type of RV.

Uh based on the surrounding development pattern, staff is recommending approval.

Uh planning mission also found consistent with the comprehensive plan the hearing officer also recommended approval, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Good morning, sir.

Uh good morning, Commission.

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

Petersburg.

Uh we're in the East Lake Orient Park area.

Proper appraiser has his 10.15 acres.

Um as the staff has indicated, this would be a fixed unit park mobile perk trailer site, which is basically a fixed non-movable RV short-term resort park as indicated in the code with two different options, 93 units or 80 units, planning commissions consistent, development services approval, and ZHM supports.

Um so I'll keep this brief.

Uh development services note uh that the area consists of single-family neighborhood commercial.

Uh comp plan is very uniform.

This would be the 93-unit plan.

Uh, they have a lot of mediations respecting the 30-foot wetland uh buffer, providing a central green space and type A buffers.

This ain't plan under the 80-unit, but the mobile homes on the south would remain.

Planning commission notes would complement the area.

Uh it would be an affordable housing option.

Uh DSD notes it's compatible and uh mitigates uh the site well with preservation of natural resources.

Uh there were two individuals who did speak at the uh hearing.

We did notice 23.

Um all the items that were raised had to do with a type of improvement at the park, which is what's involved with the PD, uh, which includes a lot of improvements as I show you, uh, which staff responded to at the hearing.

Thank you, Ms.

Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioners.

All right, thank you.

Uh anyone uh in support of the application.

Anyone in opposition?

Please come forward.

You have a total of 10 minutes.

Um hi Rebecca York, 5002 Cluis Avenue.

My property, about it, and on some of their drawings, it shows a bunch of man-made uh ponds, which I'm not sure that I understand why, but nonetheless, they have the 25-foot easement.

I assume that will um border the property, so it'll be 25 feet away from my property line, but they show some of their proposed man-made ponds going all the way to my property line.

So that I'd like a tad of a clarification on that.

And the park models that they speak of, park model is a brand name for a tiny house, which is a 400 square foot house.

I don't know how you can build a community with 400 square feet to consist of families and what have you to make this a resort, and that you can only stay in for 120 days at a time.

I don't know who governs that.

I wish someone could answer that because thus far I've not gotten an answer for that.

And do they move from point A and in 120 days they go to point B and just keep going?

Because in the area, yes, there are a lot of mobile home parks.

Some should not be there at all, and this is one of them, but now we're gonna turn it into a pretty much for a better case of the word, a RB park.

And nothing in the area is going to be an RB park.

And never, I don't think would anybody have an RB park there.

And I don't know how that consists of you know, affordable housing for people, once again.

And um, I don't know.

Is it going to be 80?

Is it going to be 90?

Nobody's answered that.

Some of the stuff they're leaving there, which is already an eyesore, but we're gonna leave it.

I don't know how we're gonna build around that.

And once again, how it appears as though they are right on top of my property line, and I'm sure that the setback is a 25-foot, so even a man-made pond can't come up any closer than a 25 feet, is what I'm hoping to achieve here.

Thank you, ma'am.

Anyone else?

Good morning.

My name is Michael Blake.

I live 5102 Cluis Avenue, Tampa, Florida, um, north of the property um that Mr.

Preston is um presenting to you.

My issue is that he we he has an own about six parks in the neighborhood.

And all six parts, one on River Breeze, the one he's um butting up to to make this other um piece of property.

You have 20, he has 20 mobile homes in that.

Only six of them have people in them.

The rest of them, you cannot, they're unlivable.

Down the street, he has 30 mobile homes just a block away.

A total of eight of those are occupied.

The rest of them are unlivable.

These are not, if he can um upgrade what he already has, because if you put a finger on any of those mobile homes that he has now, they will all fall to the ground.

So now we're gonna bring in, trying to bring in what he called an upgraded RV parkslash units.

120 days, he's gonna allow someone to stay there and then they gotta move.

And you cannot put a resort in the same sentence as affordable living.

When you think about affordable living, you're just making it basic, basic, and if they don't pay the rent, the government don't give them money within a month, he already has this problem.

You have to kick them out.

Listen to me now.

You cannot live in half of them.

He owns a lot of properties down highway 92, just a block away.

And I got all Duncan, Hilltop, River Breeze, um, Ogre to Oga, Cluis Park, the one on Baptist Road.

He owned all of these parts, but half of them you can't even live in because they're unlivable.

Why should we applaud him, give him something that all he's gonna do is bring his mess over to the other area?

We don't deserve this in our neighborhood.

Half of my that he owned now is boarded up.

The windows that no one can live in.

You walk in, you fall through the floor.

Time is up.

But he wanna make a community, want to put 90 homes in 10 acres, sitting, sitting junk on top of junk.

Whenever you're talking about a tiny home, that's what RV Park, whenever you look it up, it says tiny homes.

120 days, you gotta move.

He wanna bring trashy trailers in.

They're not new.

Who's gonna who's gonna monitor this?

Who's gonna make sure that people only stay 120 days?

Think about that.

120 days, you gotta leave.

And if you if the government, the uh affordable housing, if you can't afford it, guess what?

You gotta go.

That's what he already has.

If you go right down the street, that's what he got now.

You can't live in them.

Fix up what you already have.

Don't try to bring additional mess in our neighborhood.

We got enough junk down our street.

His trailers now, yellow, green, blue, a 1927 trailers.

It's nothing new with the trailers that he got there now.

They're 1945 trailers boarded up, don't have AC.

But he wants to put this next to that.

He's not gonna improve it.

He's just making it sound good.

It sounds good, yes.

But reality, he wants people to come in and stay 30 days.

Uh I'm sorry, 120 days, and then you're out.

That's not permanent.

This is not what we need in our neighborhood.

His house now, the houses that he calls an office.

It's full of old stoves, couches, boarded up, but it's his house, it's his check-in points.

It doesn't make sense.

If you go out there, you will see what I'm talking about.

If you go to all of his communities within two miles, you will see exactly what think about your neighborhood.

Oh, mobile home.

You put a finger on it, it's about to fall down.

They all board it up.

No one can live in it.

But he wants to bring this to his of the other property.

He wants to rezone it.

He already have mobile homes and houses on these own this uh product.

Um this property that he's talking about.

Guess what?

You can't live in it.

It's unlivable.

It's trash.

Straight out trash.

Need a bulldozer.

So what I'm saying and asking you, please do not award him to bring other mess to what he already has.

You don't bring miss to the mess.

You try to clean it up.

He's he's presenting this as an RV slash mobile home park.

Don't believe it.

Please don't believe it.

All he's gonna do is that old houses and mobile homes that he already bought.

All he's gonna do is put it in these spaces.

I'm gonna leave this with you.

A hundred and twenty days.

You're out.

That's trash.

If the government don't send him money, you're out.

He already has that problem.

But he wants to bring it more.

RV Park.

That's all it is.

You out.

Please do not award.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

Applicant has an opportunity for a five-minute rebuttal.

Oh, sir, your glasses.

Thank you, Ms.

Chairman.

Thank you, board members, and for the comments from the audience.

Um, those comments are the express reason why homes of America is ownership of this park and about 60 others because the park is in bad condition.

They are expressly improving the park, removing and will be removing all the units, uh, hooking up the water and sewer.

Uh the pond uh per the site plan is only on this property.

Uh so this is a site with many others under a very large company that's making an investment, and the issues on the site, which by the way, there's no code enforcement citations of any kind on the site, will be for improvement to bring the site up to a higher standard.

The water and sewer connection alone is very expensive.

Uh, that's a project that will be occurring along with removing the units that have been in the process of being taken out and being closed up as we're moving through the rezoning.

So the express reasons or purposes or concerns raised by two of the neighbors of 23 that we noticed are expressly for the purpose of improving this park and bringing it to a standard that the code recognizes for the type of use proposed.

So that we appreciate your attention and consideration.

All right, thank you.

Planning commission.

Thank you for the record, Melissa Linehard Planning Commission staff.

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

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

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

The existing land uses on the site include single family residential and mobile home park uses.

Um near the site, which is consistent with policy direction that relates to compatibility and neighborhood protection.

In the housing section of the comprehensive plan, objective 1.1 supports a range of housing options to affordably meet the needs of current and future residents.

Policy 1.1.8 encourages a variety of housing types, including single family, multifamily, and missing middle housing to diversify the housing stock and provide Hillsborough County residents with more housing options across a range of income levels.

Policy 1.2.9 specifically states that manufactured housing and mobile homes shall be acknowledged as a viable means to provide affordable housing.

The request is therefore consistent with this policy direction of the housing section of the comprehensive plan.

The East Lake Orient Park Community Plan calls for the Tampa Bypass Canal to maintain public access to be able to be enjoyed by all.

The proposed rezoning is consistent with this policy direction as there is an access via the roadway and a multi-use trail to the Tampa Bypass Canal.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master found the rezoning request, the plan development for the development of a park model in Mobile Home Park to be consistent with the land development code and with the comprehensive plan and the zoning hearing master recommended approval.

Okay, we'll go into board discussion.

Commissioner Wilson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I had originally cued just to make a joke that um surprisingly he received all yeses, which is a rare feat for him.

But um I I since we've received some passionate comments, I'll just um can you clarify?

I I don't know.

I see the stormwater pond.

That's what um she was referring to on the northwest section of the property is what her concern is.

Um it doesn't look like we forwent any setback requirements though, right?

They they have what they're required to do.

They have what, yes, sir, they do have what they're required to do.

Uh stormwater ponds are permitted to be in buffers, they're considered to be open space, um, that will need to be designed to not have a negative hydrological impact to adjacent properties.

Right, so it'll hydraulic hide am I gonna say it again, but it'll be functioned to drain down towards the canal or or wherever the natural flow is away from her property.

It will it will not increase any flow to their properties.

Okay, and um the I I remembered you um covering this in the in our briefing, but the 120 day consecutive day rule, um, you explained that these are more of even though it's an RV, these are more of like a fixed that they they might roll in, but then what they probably get elevated off their wills.

Yes, they can be rolled in or or yeah, they they look more like mobile homes and RVs, but they are technically RVs, and that's why there's a hundred and twenty-day uh residency limitation.

Okay.

What I would say is that on many of the comments that were received, it sounds I mean land use.

This is a this is a judicial proceeding, so we're not we can't um we can't take into account all of the other issues that you brought up, but it sounds like we might have some serious code enforcement um concerns that need to be looked at in that area.

That that would be the proper channel for you to address all of the um mentioned comments about dilapidated buildings that might be structurally compromised and unsafe.

So um, with that being said, um I've I've pointed this out to the board.

I'm I'm not ashamed of it.

Um I grew up exactly in the type of trailer parks that the gentleman was describing.

Um my dad would flexil in our um portable AC units into windows.

Um it was real shoddy work, but um we were proud, and and we had a house, and this unfortunately is the type of means that some folks um have to go and and live in to provide shelter.

So um I bearing the fact that they did receive all marks of approval.

While I would encourage that if there's any other um units in the area that need to be reported to code, I know our code enforcement officers do an excellent job, and that should be handled through that channel.

And I'm I'd be happy to follow up with you to make sure that people are not forced into unsafe conditions.

But with that being said, for this application, it does have all marks of approval, and this is a type of unit that some people do need um and can only afford to live in, so I'll move for approval.

Second.

So I can commissioner Myers, Commissioner Cameron Cepeda.

Yes, um, I appreciate all the comments today.

However, uh, the applicant uh stated that they will be removing all of the old units, and also that it was expressly for improvements and for those reasons that I will be supporting it.

Otherwise, I would not, but um, for those reasons I will support it.

Commissioner Cohen.

No, I I just wanted to um reiterate what Commissioner Wastel said because this it's very important when we have the the three legs of approval of our staff and the planning commission and the hearing master.

Um, and and we recognize that we're in a zoning hearing.

We're not in a hearing to uh to deal with the conditions on the property, but code enforcement I'm sure watches these meetings.

And the public comment today was clearly the equivalent of a report of a code enforcement violation, and I would expect that they would act accordingly.

So uh I'm also gonna be supporting the uh the motion.

Okay, Commissioner Myers.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I echo all the um comments that have been made.

I'm going to contact uh Joe Gross to follow up on this particular item that is located in District 3.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I've got a motion by Commissioner Worldstool second.

Uh Commissioner Myers, and again, I don't want to repeat what uh Commissioner Willstore or Cohen stated, but uh we appreciate the passionate pleas and concerns, but unfortunately they're they're just they're not a basis for denial.

Um okay, I've got a motion, a second.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay, next item.

Commissioner, the next item is general item F2 major minor application 25-0810.

Uh this is a request uh for a major modification to the PD located uh south of State Road 60 between Dover and Turkey Creek Road.

Uh the main uh the focus of this uh modifications and metap amending Pocket E, which is located on this uh southwest of the CSX rail line that runs through the property.

Uh they're requesting to add the option for up to 1,200 residential uh units in that facility.

They're also making a various amendments to the uh to the to the site planning conditions regarding buffering screening and access related to that amendment.

They're also adding the ability within pocket A when the northern portion of the PD to add hotel uses, uh which is along State Road 60.

It's part of this uh uh request and is as uh implemented through condition 38 of the recommended zoning conditions approval.

The comp comprehensive plan requires that at such time as the EIP zoning is modified to include residential uses, it shall include conditions regarding appropriate environmental testing for the areas proposed for resident uses considering the former use of much of all uh or all of the of the EP EIP land as a former phosphate mine to that to that as part of that at or before the time of preliminary plat, uh the project will be required to establish a numerical numerical baseline for naturally occurring backgrounds or levels of gamma emissions and non-mine impacted locations and working with Florida Department of Health establish a threshold level for gamma emissions.

They should then are required to conduct a gamma survey for the area proposed for residential uses and establish for any areas where the survey levels exceed the threshold levels that were established.

The developer shell is required to complete site-specific mitigation measures and conduct an additional gamma survey demonstrating that the gamma emissions do not exceed the threshold levels.

In addition, there will be required to install radion mitigation vapor barriers under every structure slab and confirm radon levels are below EPA established thresholds prior to issuance of any certificate of accuracy.

Additionally, uh no change in the existing land usage is permitted within the area south of the CSS rail track until EPA and the county establish and implement an ongoing testing program to delineate the extent of the 1-4 dioxin contamination associated with existing superfund site.

Approval for residences shall be contingent upon demonstrated stability of the 14 dioxide contamination.

Uh EPA and the Cali have EPA and the county have established a testing program and delineated the extent of the I 14 dioxin related to the Sydney Mines Sledge Pond Superfund site.

Testing must demonstrate stability of the 1-4 docs and plume based on groundwater trend results from four consecutive sampling events that current covering more than one cycle of seasonal act for changes and no subdivisions construction plan permits for residential development shall be issued until demonstrated stability based on those provisions in condition eight and evaluation of the surrounding development pattern with respect to compatibility.

Staff did find this request approval.

Uh the planning mission also found it consistent in hearing also the recommended approval, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Good morning, Commissioners Jay Kramer with Barbara Scramer.

Uh Commissioners, uh we'll run through an abbreviated version of our presentation.

It is a rather complicated project.

Uh if you if you remember uh about roughly a year ago, you all approved us in concept at a policy level.

You approved our comprehensive plan amendment allowing uh the potential for consideration of residential on this land.

And so the purpose of this application is is to do two things.

Uh the first is um essentially a modernization of this land use category in the energy innovation park uh because this is the largest undeveloped developable property within the urban service boundary.

So we modernize that category and this implements that again the second thing it does is allow the option of residential for a portion of the property.

So just to uh reorient you, I know most of you are familiar with this property, but there's two landowners.

I represent University Energy Park on the west side of the property.

It's uh UEP over EIP overall is roughly 3,000 acres.

And again, this shows that this is a very unique land use category.

This these types of this mix of uses is uh including energy generation is only allowed on this site in Hillsborough County right now.

And again, as you know, we talked about this about a year ago.

Uh this this property is is such a good potential for residential because it's it's smack dab in the middle of this identified growth corridor.

So uh again, we're within the urban service boundary, um, and we're we're uh almost adjacent to plant city's future growth plans, as you can see.

So this is sort of the bridge between the urbanized land in the county and the future land to be urbanized by uh plant city as it grows.

So this is just a short summary to remind you of what we did a year ago.

We modernized EIP, uh, we cut down on the regulations because the property has sat vacant uh for many, many years in order to try to get that economic growth and get a true mixed use community over time in this area.

So we have industrial, commercial, and uh hopefully today residential as well.

And this just again helps show uh in the big picture where this property fits in again as the this is the the the uh really the largest developable property in in the urban service area today.

And and from this perspective, it also acts as a bridge between the lands you're considering, adding and urbanizing over time in the I4 corridor, um, as you can see, and it sort of acts as that bridge going down towards South County.

Uh so with that, I'm gonna have our our land use planner David Smith walk you through uh some of the details of what this proposed community is gonna look like.

Good morning, Commissioner.

David Smith, the director of development and zoning for Stern's Weaver Miller.

Um keeping with the theme of keeping this shorter than normal presentation, but trying to hit the points.

Currently, this is an improved PD that includes uh the two property owners that have been identified.

The focus of this is the amendment is really pocket-y.

Um the proposed plan does update all the zoning conditions related to uh the comprehensive plan changes that were made uh relative to uh the use mix and then allows for an option for residential up to 1200 units.

Um the only thing that's occurring in pocket B is that we've um just made it clear where the uses are to be identified and separating them out in pockets of entitlements with pocket A, uh adding hotel motel uses, which were only excluded because of the DRI thresholds that existed when it was originally approved.

Um again, we're talking about pocket E.

Um the pocket E residential option plan uh provides for access to Dover Road uh through three access points to be accommodated through with roundabouts, um, and also provides for future connections to the south to uh as staff anticipates over time there may be additional uh growth and changes in this area.

And then there is one emergency access uh at the very uh eastern corner of the property at roughly at Kenson Road.

So Pockety uh maximum of 1200 residential units with the uh or it could have the renewable energy uses.

Uh, we're keeping the renewable energy options, but only for those things like solar and wind power, so that uh the HOA-owned properties or the community centers could have solar power and wind elements, keeping with the theme of the overall development.

Maximum density, three dwelling units per acre.

Um that provides for a transition between the lesser density properties to the south, uh the higher density properties to the west and provides a very good transition.

Um we have an enhanced buffer with uh along what is in pocket eye.

Um this pocket eye is uh right now is the buffer of 200 feet.

We're incorporating that into the pockety option and providing a new set of buffers in keeping with FDEP's uh determination that the berms need to be addressed.

So southern and western berms will be removed to accommodate planned roundabouts, project access, and trails.

We'll have a new six-foot berm that will be constructed along the southern property line within a hundred foot buffer, and it will include landscaping, solar and wind elements, trails, amenities, and stormwater areas.

Uh, the southern boundary is our largest uh boundary of buddy and adjacent residential development.

Uh we'll also have access to provided South Dover Road via the roundabouts, and there will be an eight-acre community gathering space.

Uh Pocket I, the modification I talked about currently, it's a 200 foot buffer, and it it goes all along Dover Road, all along the southern property boundary, and actually goes uh below the Turkey Creek uh portion of the property as well.

Um, this pocket is going to be uh revised in the residential option to be included in the buffers uh that I talked about previously.

So pocket J, the only other change here is it was kind of an orphan property that just happened to be in the ownership.

Um that is being designated open space because it really doesn't provide a buffer to anything, so it's gonna be an open space property.

Umprehensive plan consistency.

Obviously, we're doing this really in reaction to the comprehensive plan change, and um planning commission has found is consistent from a compatibility standpoint.

Um residential against residential is traditionally uh recognized as compatible development.

There's no real buffer requirement between residential uses that are single family in nature.

Uh however, we're providing enhanced buffers.

We'll have a hundred foot buffer along the southern property line, and we'll have a 50-foot um buffer along uh Dover Road.

With that, I'll turn it over to Jen Kramer unless you have any questions.

Uh good morning, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I have been sworn.

Um, just uh I'll go through the transportation really briefly.

Uh we have worked with staff so that uh the Turkey Creek Preserve and the University Energy Park will not increase any traffic for any of the non-residential components.

So all that will remain as it was originally approved.

The only increase in traffic would be if parcel E is developed, and that has been fully evaluated from the transportation perspective.

Um then I wanted to show this is the roundabouts David Smith had referred to.

Um as for the project access, uh, when we did uh the neighborhood meetings on the project, uh one of the comments we got from the residents uh to the west of Dover was that they did not want the project accesses to align with their existing driveways.

So we have moved the roundabouts to be offset from their existing driveways and meet the access connection spacing standards uh along Dover Road.

Um, and then the last part is that there is a CIP project at the intersection of Dover and Durant, and we are working with the county on a MUFASA agreement uh that uh Jake Kramer will describe in a little more detail.

You've got one minute left.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioners, if we could uh cut to the overhead.

We've heard a couple of concerns since uh ZHM, so we wanted to just go ahead and address those up front.

And the the purpose of these two additional conditions that we're prepared to propose, and this is in addition to the roughly 19 pages of conditions we have here.

Uh one of them is a commitment to Mafasa, which will make sure that our uh uh mobility fee dollars get in reinvested back into this community.

Uh and the second one is uh is we heard a concern about the railroad tracks, and so we're committing to a fencing condition as the residential gets built to make sure that there's an additional level of safety there.

Um so with that, we're uh we're here for any questions.

Um there are roughly four pages of environmental conditions, and our entire team is here if you have any questions on those.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone here in support?

Okay, those in opposition.

You have a total of 10 minutes, please come forward.

Morning.

Daniel Kimbrell, 1215 West Risk Street, Plant City.

At the master hearing meeting that I had stood up at.

I stood because they had spoken, uh, Jake Kramer had spoken about how Plant City is growing, and that is an absolute fact.

That same morning I had just been to a county city meeting that rolled out the community survey that was given out in October.

And these were the results that I spoke about.

And this development.

The community does not want.

We are already going at an incredibly fast rate that we can't keep up with.

We understand that a lot of money is going to other areas of the county.

And our roads, the county are taking care of the roads in Plant City, the city of Plant City, because we are growing so fast.

Our roads can't handle this many cars, not just on Dover Road, but in the entire area.

So just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

Good morning, event name in Dover.

The applicant wants to build residential and mixed use of a 475 acres on the southwest corner of the EIP.

All of the land they're proposing to build on is part of the 90% of the EIP that's never been tested for anything.

Keep that in mind.

That's not part of this.

We're dealing with the unknown because no one knows how much contamination and radon is in the other 90% of the 3,000 acres that they're desperately hoping to build on.

And in the residential portion, they want to build mixed use.

They've included daycare centers in their proposal.

That's pretty insane.

They've admitted that their radon testing has revealed problems, and yet they want to put children in daycare centers on this property.

Also, they're claiming that the berms are unsafe.

Yet we see every day that they're riding heavy construction on the very berms they say must come down because they're unstable.

All of this makes no sense, and there's no logic being applied.

This commission needs to apply some logic, some common sense, and some care before it's too late, and the majority of Hillsborough residents have to suffer.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Existing private wells, the air around us, and the Florida and Aquifer are at risk.

Sorry.

Testing through six different agencies is supposed to be done for our protection.

The applicant stated under oath that the results from the cleanup process would be released to us.

Now he says he will not release the results until a building permit is requested.

We have a 35-year tenured expert who has experience with sites just like these to review these reports for us.

We would we would uh we demand we'd be given all the results as soon as they get them.

When planning presented their evaluations of this development, they changed the capacity numbers for school districts.

Um they would pick ones that were farther away to get approved.

Traffic reports, anywhere from five to fifty years ago were used to get approval.

We have been told that instead of using contaminated water, they would use county water.

Our water supply is exhausted now.

They are also requesting the right to build hotels and motels.

This is not compatible with our area.

Homes are long-term residential stays.

Why hotels and motels are short-term?

A long list of consistencies with the comp plan were identified by the public, but there was no response from the county.

Why not?

Traffic is severely congested now, adding 1,200 homes on this site plus the 92 other approved homes and the commercial development cause safety issues for our residents.

Around this property on three sides are two-lane roads.

How will first responders get through?

This is also 3,000 acres of habitat for gopher tortoises, sandhill cranes, bobcats, and deer who live here.

Their homes will be gone.

Removal of the berms will cause more runoff water to adjacent homes who have private wells.

Radioactive contaminants of radon gas from the berms will also be inhaled by residents in the surrounding area if a leak occurs.

How will the public know if this happens?

What is being done to protect existing residents?

There are still tailings in the ground from the phosphate mine.

The Forever Chemical 14 dioxide spreads when disturbed.

The plume has already expanded twice.

I read commissioners have the right to deny development based upon safety concerns if it constitutes a peril to public health safety or welfare.

You have the right to reject projects that violate environmental, water quality or safety standards.

Development of this site has the potential to contaminate our water, threaten our human health and the environment.

Raise your hands if you would like any of your family to be late be living on this site or be in this area while they're developing this site.

Mr.

Chair, we do have a penny marion online in opposition.

Okay.

If we get if we have enough time remaining after those that are here, we'll we'll get to her.

Please continue.

We've got four minutes and seventeen seconds.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

George Neiman.

I live in Dover next to ground zero.

I urge you to deny this major modification.

The process of approving a zoning application before we know whether developing residential and commercial will put people's health at risk, defies common sense and logic.

The entire 3,000 acres has potential problems of chemical and radiologic contamination in the soil.

Everyone knows this, including the applicant, who started testing and told us that their tests have gotten problem readings.

And we're not talking about superfund site.

We have to keep saying that because that's a topic that keeps coming up, and it's a distraction.

The extensive development and the shifting of earth that will occur if this development is approved, will spread the contaminants downward to the Florida's water supply and outward toward the existing adjacent residents.

Area constituents are already living on contaminated soil like we are.

We don't want any more of it.

We want to see the test results now, not at the end of the process, as they're breaking ground.

It will be too late to exercise any caution.

Watch this board, take a look at how they vote today, because you see what this board does is vote most of the time to appease applicants that are investors making money.

But when the community is totally opposed to it, as this community is, where we've handed in thousand uh hundreds almost a thousand petitions.

When our community is against it, listen to them and vote for the community.

And to the voters, if they vote yes, you know what you have to do the next election because they're well funded by the development interest.

The development lobby supports all of them in their in their campaigns.

Take a look at what they receive from all businesses connected to land development.

Thank you.

I think anyone else that's present.

Okay.

Um individual that's online.

Do you have a minute, 27 seconds?

Go ahead, Miss Martin.

Penny Martin, ground zero.

I'm asking you to vote no today.

I'm aware that environmental evaluation is going to take place in step five, but that's this does not make it okay to put the children and families on top of this site.

Testing must be transparent.

We are aware that there are already problem areas being identified.

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

Remember, this is located on a man-made radon corridor.

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

In addition, the land is comprised of primarily wetland, a natural waterway called Turkey Creek runs right through here to the river and ocean.

As you know, the phosphate mining has occurred for decades.

And the sludge ponds where the proposed homes are going were unlined during mining and are contaminated as shared by the EPC.

The railroad track runs right through there, transporting mining material daily.

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

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

It's a major undertaking.

You get heavy equipment in there to move dirt and reshape the land without proper testing of all 3,000 acres.

It all gets untouched.

Extensive testing over the entire acreage must be completed.

Also be aware that the tailing sands and clay waste from the gyps stacks that was dispersed all over this property.

That's how those 30-foot berms came to fruition.

Thank you, contaminated spoiled just.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair, this is the clerk's office.

I need confirmation from the county attorney.

We received additional evidence.

Is that okay?

Unless the material was distributed in the zoning hearing master record, it's not able to be distributed.

Okay.

Then I'm going to need confirmation from the opposition on that.

Okay.

Um if you're referring to the conditions that were distributed by the applicant, not the conditions.

I was given uh packets by the opposition.

Okay.

Well, that material cannot be distributed because it is not part of the zoning hearing master record.

And I haven't had a chance to review it to make sure that it is, so I'd recommend that it not be distributed.

All right.

Thank you.

Applicant.

Can we go back to my presentation, please?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Jake Framer again.

Um I just wanted to touch on the points that several folks in the opposition have raised.

Uh the first is that this is this property is not going to remain undeveloped forever.

As you all know, there are over seven million square feet of industrial entitlements alone on this property as a whole.

That doesn't even count the commercial, that doesn't count all of the accessory uses.

That doesn't count the uh the solar towers that could be built several hundred feet in the air directly adjacent to these communities.

It is our view and that that residential is much much more compatible next to a neighborhood than these uses.

I don't know the you know exactly what the thinking was on how the how we got here and why those uses are approved adjacent to residential, but they are, and we think resid residential is a better fit.

So, with that context, um we're we're also in a situation where uh I understand there's concerns about growth, but again, our comprehensive plan directs growth into the urban service boundary, and this is the largest opportunity in the entire county to bring growth into the urban service boundary.

Uh you know, uh there was uh several comments about there's a there are lots of unknowns on this property, and commissioners, that that's the entire reason we spent a year working with your staff to develop these extensive conditions.

I I can tell you I have never worked on a project in my career where we had 19 pages of conditions and four of those lay out in great, great detail uh all of the testing protocol for how we can proceed.

And and in many cases, the answer could be no, but we have to go through that process.

And so that's why we've set up this entire environmental testing protocol with our experts and with your staff.

We had over a dozen meetings with your staff to be able to get to this point with what those conditions look like, and they follow uh what you all directed us a year ago in in the comprehensive plan.

So we're establishing the testing.

We have what we call the three-legged stool where we have to actually go out and test, then we have to determine what mitigation is needed, then we're adding physical uh protections in the form of vapor barriers to every home and every sh every residential structure.

Then we have a post-construction phase where we do further testing on top of all of that.

And commissioners, I would suggest to you that we don't have everyone in the community on board, but if you recall, we had a room full of people here for the comprehensive plan phase.

We had very robust community engagement as you all directed us to after that, and and we resolved a lot of concerns because people realized the the vast scale of the entitlements that are already on this property.

And and look, this it feels like this has been a long time that we've been in this process for more than two years now, but but this is only uh this is only the beginning of all of the engagement that we have to do.

So every environmental agency under you know within the Alphabet soup is going to be involved, and every one of them in their permitting process has a an opportunity for public engagement as those test results get submitted to the agencies for the public to go in and comment on those.

So again, every step you see here along the way, there's going to be further opportunities for engagement and and public comment.

So with that, I'll close and I'm happy to answer any questions you all have.

All right, thank you, sir.

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the energy innovation park future land use category.

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

Consistent with future land use section policy 4.16.5 number six.

The energy innovation park property south of the existing railroad tracks and development pocket E is limited to single family residential at a density not exceeding 1,200 units and may include agricultural uses as well as solar support uses and facilities.

This community is planned to provide a transition in density from the surrounding residential one future land use category areas located to the east and south of the subject site to the more intensive uses north of the railroad tracks and the denser future land use categories of residential four and residential six located to the west.

The main access to the residential component of the site would be located on South Dover Road, which interfaces with lands located within the urban service area with the future land use designations of residential four and residential six, which is consistent with policy direction regarding transition of uses and neighborhood compatibility.

Modifications to berms are proposed to support potential residential development in Pocket E.

A six-foot berm will be constructed along the southern property line with what a 100-foot buffer and will include landscaping, solar and wind elements, multi-purpose trails, recreation amenities, and stormwater management facilities.

Existing berms along South Dover Road will be removed to accommodate planned roundabouts, project access and trails, and consistent with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Directives.

Access for the residential portion, sorry, the residential option and parcel E is specified, providing direct connections to South Dover Road via roundabouts in accordance with policy 4.16.5 number two.

One of the proposed conditions of approval addresses environmental considerations and permitting requirements for pocket E residential uses.

At the time of zoning, I'm sorry, the time zoning is modified to include residential uses.

Condition will require conditions will require appropriate environmental testing for areas proposed for residential development, taking into account the site's former use as a phosphate mine.

The developer must coordinate with environmental oversight agencies and if required conduct pre-construction radiation sampling to determine if mitigation systems or specialized construction techniques are necessary.

Any required systems or techniques must be installed prior to issuance of residential certificates of occupancy.

At the public hearing for Hillsborough County Plan Amendment 24-06, which was a text amendment to the energy innovation park policies of the future land use section, the Board of County Commissioners added policies 4.16.2 number 5 and 4.16.3 number 5 to ensure that any future residential development option within this designation adequately addresses potential environmental hazards associated with the overall site's history as a former phosphate mine and superfund area.

These policies require comprehensive environmental testing, coordination with federal, state, regional, and local agencies, and compliance with all applicable restrictions before residential development may proceed.

In support of these requirements, the development services department drafted detailed conditions of approval to further address and mitigate these environmental concerns.

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

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master considered the proposed major modification to plan development 10692, which is currently approved for the primary use of a resource recovery facility.

The zoning hearing master found that this proposed modification is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and the zoning hearing master recommended approval subject to the conditions provided by development services.

Okay, we'll go into board discussion.

Uh Commissioner Woolstool.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'm I'm not going to relitigate everything that we did to the comp plan amendment for this.

It was a lot.

So I'll just cover a couple of the highlights that I don't think were um articulated well enough.

And one of the applicants, excuse me, one of the opposition said that something needs to be done before the dirt is disturbed.

But the reality is is that in the the most major part of this land, this was approved in 2001, long before this board.

And those entitlements, they can go in there right now, up to seven million square feet of heavy industrial and commercial, and they can apply for permits without these additional requirements that we added to the housing portion.

Is that correct, Mr.

Gormley?

That's correct.

Does Mr.

And um Mr.

Kramer could I'm just gonna ask you one quick question?

We we went through this for a long time, and when this was brought up, so the public can hear it on the public record.

Essentially, I leveraged your ask to put in these environmental, extensive environmental protections.

Is that correct?

Absolutely.

We added conditions that we would not have otherwise needed to comply with.

And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but just for the people to be more informed.

That that was my only question.

Mr.

Gormley, do you know of any other piece of land in Hillsborough County outside of a super fund site that has this regret, this rigorous of environmental protections placed on it?

No, sir.

And and I just I I that's the extreme benefit that I think that even people in the audience, that's why no one is here.

We had opposition on on the first hearings turn on themselves when they were informed of those heavy industrial entitlements that are pre-existing and could happen today no matter what.

Their their own neighbors started turning in support of this application, if you recall when it happened.

I think one of them was a former Marine that lives right out there.

Another one is my own friend who is a former Air Force officer and a former chair of the REC came in here to berate me, and then afterwards he said, Oh, I just didn't understand all of that.

Thank you for doing it.

And I'm like, well, you know, ask me before next time, please.

And and I I just land use is very complicated.

These protections are way more extensive than we could ever get if they choose to not enact the 1200 single family homes on this property.

Um so I I just and and for the for everyone that's curious, there's over a thousand super fund sites in the continental U.S.

Several of them are here for in Hillsborough County that are already redeveloped.

It's the gold standard for the EPA.

You can go to EPA.gov slash superfund dash redevelopment.

You can look all of them up.

They put playgrounds on some of these things, they put a myriad of uses on these superfund sites, and the EPA considers that a good standard because the ex that extensive cleanup would not happen if somebody didn't come in and pay for it to be cleaned up to that extent.

So for all of those very good reasons, this protects the community just like the opposition said that they wanted.

If we do not approve this, then we are exposing the community to potential harm.

And since um Commissioner Bowles is not here for for his piece of the EPA protections, I do want to reaffirm that his one four testing to make sure the plume doesn't exp um expand, it it's all still included in there, right?

Yes, sir.

It's part of the conditions.

So I see other people, so I won't make a motion yet to hear what they have to say, but there's there's there's zero reason to oppose this.

They already have extensive entitlements that they can disturb all of these plumes and everything that you're articulating that you're worried about.

It's gonna happen with protections or without protections.

I'll yield, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Cameron Sopeda.

Um, yes, so I know there was some talk of existing um mitigation, but mitigation design for undisturbed land is not the same as mitigation for active construction.

When excavation grading and utility trenching begins across many acres, it can re-expose buried radioactive materials and toxic chemicals to the surface.

Rupture groundwater containment systems built over decades of re remediation and release radioactive airborne particulates into surrounding communities and undo years of remediation in a matter of a day, a matter of days, with really no way to reverse it.

So also I believe that um not only you know the future residents would be at risk, but also the existing communities are at risk as well.

And so um and it's really concerning to me that one of the opponents uh had mentioned that they will not release the results of uh at this time, and that was very concerning to me.

And so um for those reasons and others uh will not be supporting this.

Commissioner Myers.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Commissioner Watson, I appreciate your comments.

I do remember the round arounds of talking about this.

So I'm gonna go ahead and move for approval.

Okay, we've got a motion to approve.

Commissioner Myers, you have a second.

Second.

Second, Commissioner Wolstool.

Uh Commissioner Willstool.

Thank you.

Just because those comments were said, which are untrue, because I'm I'm gonna just read this.

This was exactly the language that I worked extensively to make sure we're put in here, which are in this on page 113 out of 17.

That at the time that the zoning is modified to include residential uses, it shall include conditions regarding appropriate environmental testing for the areas proposed for residential uses, considering the former use of much or all of the EIP land as a former phosphate mine.

These conditions shall require the developer to coordinate with the appropriate environmental oversight agencies, and that prior to residential development, prior to residential development, the developer will, if required, by best industry practices and appropriate agency guidance, conduct a pre-construction radiation sampling to determine if mitigation systems or specialized construction techniques are needed, and if needed, such since systems and or techniques will be installed prior to issuance of any residential certificates of occupancy and other appropriate environmental assessments, which depending on the results may require the developer to employ appropriate remediation techniques, engineering controls, and or institutional controls, and all of these must comply with all five environmental agencies that we're that were listed on this application.

There is no disturbing of dirt all over that's going to compromise the remediation techniques.

The super fund site is still required to go through a five-year review of the um 1.4 dioxane controls that are in place right now, etc.

etc.

All of these controls are put in place before they can do anything.

Is that correct, Mr.

Gormley?

Yes, sir.

That's correct, and just for clarity, we have memorialized that in the PD conditions specifically.

The radon condition is 38.2.

Thank you.

Apologize, Mr.

Chair.

I just wanted to clearly articulate that for the public after the previous comments.

Thank you.

No, I think that was that was certainly necessary.

Commissioner Miller, then we'll vote.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I will not repeat what uh Commissioner Wistel just addressed, but I will just restate one of his earlier comments that this land is already entitled.

They can already disturb the land.

The fact that they're going to be putting residential on there allows for all of these conditions that the client has extensively provided for us today.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, we've got a motion to approve uh by Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Wolstool, and I'll just say that I was proud to support this project in 2010 and believe with the additional safeguards and protections, um, many of which that Commissioner uh Wolstall stated uh the concerns are unfounded, so I'm proud to once again support this project.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried five to one Commissioner Cameron Cepeda voted no.

Okay, thank you.

Next item.

Commissioner, the next item of the agenda item F3, major mod application 25-0849.

Uh the commission is a request for a major modification of the PD that's located on the east side of Duncan Road, South and Bloomingdale north of US 301.

Uh the request is to provide for second development option to allow for 60-unit mobile home park.

Uh currently is approved for a mix of commercial office and daycare uses and residential uh staff is recommending approval.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Is the applicant for F3 here?

Good morning again, Mr.

Chair.

Brian Unc, 65 Court Street, uh McFarley and Ferguson McMullan here on behalf of the applicant, Miss D Moon Properties LLC.

Uh, this is an application to uh modify an existing PD to add a second development option.

Uh it is recommended for approval by the zoning hearing master uh by the planning commission uh found it consistent, and we do not have any public opposition.

I'm here to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Uh anyone here in support the application.

Anyone in opposition?

Seeing none, uh, planning commission.

Thank you.

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

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

Per objective 2.2, future land use categories outline the maximum level of intensity or density and range of permitted land use is allowed in each category.

The community community mixed use 12 future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial, and clustered residential and mixed use projects.

The request to allow a 60-unit mobile home park is consistent with this policy direction.

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

In this case, the surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of mixed uses with residential and commercial uses in the immediate area.

Policy 4.4.1 states that any density or intensity increases shall be compatible with existing, proposed or planned surrounding development.

The development and redevelopment shall be integrated with adjacent land uses through the creation of like uses, mitigation of adverse impacts, transportation and pedestrian connections, as well as the gradual transition of intensity.

The proposed residential development would complement the surrounding area and meet the intent of that policy direction.

Goal two of the Riverview Community Plan reflects the vision of the river view using the Riverview District concept map.

The subject site is located in the Highway 301 corridor district, which is noted under the plan to provide a safe, attractive, and efficient corridor system that contributes to the character and economic well-being of the community and provides for a sense of arrival.

The request meets the intent of this policy direction as outlined in the livable communities element of the comprehensive plan.

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

Thank you.

Hearing master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed major modification to plan development 06491 and found the request to be compatible with the surrounding development pattern as well as consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommended approval.

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Second motion from everybody.

Second, Commissioner Myers, uh please record your vote.

Motion carried.

Five to zero.

Next item.

Commissioner's next line of agenda item F4, major model application 25-1247.

Uh this is a request for a modification to a PD located at the northeast corner of Patison Road and Blue Blue Middle Avenue.

The requested to modify the PD to uh transfer units from uh the this is a PD approved for various residentials, including including a community residential home and the transcendent transferring residential units uh to increase community residential beds from 101 to 121, and then also adding uh additional uses, including a restaurant and and and personal services to the uh community uh center that supports the uh uh community residential home staff is a recommending approval.

Uh planning commission found a consistent in the hearing officer.

Also recommended approval.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning, Cami Corbett with a law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

Um, this is actually an existing ALF out in Brandon.

This is the photo of the existing uh facility, and this is the club house where we're uh adding the uses, so we're not proposing any external new construction, these are gonna be internal within the community residential home.

We just have some undeveloped property owned by someone else in the PD in this app joint application transfers the density between the two.

We did have one letter of objection in the record, but it was relating to flooding north of the site and relating to construction, new construction causing flooding, but again, there's no new external construction going on here, and we're here to answer any questions should you have any.

All right, thank you.

Uh anyone uh in support the application.

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the residential 12 and residential six future land use categories.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Brandon Community Plan.

Overall, the surrounding development pattern of the site reflects predominantly residential uses, including the use of the site itself.

Although light commercial uses are located to the south, they are largely separated by West Bloomingdale Avenue.

Additionally, the subject site has already long functioned as an institutional residential use, and the proposed modification would not have any significant impact on surrounding areas.

Future land use section objective 4.6 states that certain non-residential land uses, including but not limited to residential support uses and public facilities, shall be allowed within residential neighborhoods to directly serve the population.

These uses shall be located and designed in a manner to be compatible with the surrounding residential development pattern.

Policy 4.6.1 identifies the residential support uses such as child care centers, adult care centers, and churches as allowable land uses in any of the residential, commercial, and industrial future land use categories.

The policy requires that these facilities be appropriately designed in terms of scale, intensity, and function to serve the surrounding neighborhood or the non-residential development in which it occurs, while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding land uses and zoning.

The proposed change of the site meets the intent of this policy direction by allowing the modification of an assisted living facility which functions as a residential support use.

The request moderate modestly increases the number of assisted living facility beds within an existing facility designed to serve the surrounding neighborhood and community.

The facility will remain in scale design and intensity with the surrounding residential and light commercial uses and complies with the intent of the future land use policies that I mentioned.

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

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed modification to Plan Development 04 459 and found the proposed modification to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code and recommended approval.

Move approval.

Motion carried six to zero.

Five commissioners, the next item is general item F5, rezoning standard 25-1350.

The request is rezoned a 2.5 acre parcel that's located on the west side of Lithia Pinecrest, north of Brooker, south of Lumpston.

The request is resonant from ASC 1, the business professional office with restriction.

The restrictions are included and enhanced buffer width along the northern boundary, uh restrictions on building size, overall square footage.

I mean the restriction on overall square footage is 15,000 square free limitations of the of the building to a single story and extensive architectural design requirements to ensure uh residential appearance of the structure based on based on uh these restrictions and in consideration of the status of lithia pinecrest road, which is planned to be widened to four lanes.

Uh staff did find this uh request approvable.

Uh planning mission, however, did find this uh inconsistent with the plan and the hearing officer also recommended a nile.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Applicant here.

Thank you, Ms.

Chairman.

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

Petersburg.

Uh this is uh a rezoning from ASC 1 to business professional office.

Locating the Brandon area, located on Lithia Pinecrest, and looking closer per the property pricer south of East Lumston and has staff has indicated Lithia Pinecrest is under planning for four lanes.

Uh 2.58 acres uh zoning department supports.

Uh we have no neighborhood opposition.

We have neighborhood support documented for you, and no opposition that's appeared.

We've noticed 29 individuals and three HOAs.

So as the staff has indicated to you, uh, we've added uh some very good conditions here to provide a buffer on the north.

Uh a maximum size of structure, a maximum height, and residential appearance, which the residential appearances covered in quite a number of circumstances and restrictions.

So the zoning department does tell you that these restrictions also provide for a scale and design that would be comparable to the other non-single family institutional uses in the vicinity on Lithia Pinecrest Road.

So this is the site is shown by the property appraiser.

We would be providing a 30-foot B buffer along the north.

20-foot B is required.

And then there's a list of specific items for residential appearance in terms of the roofing, windows, facades, different wall finishes, paint not to be constituted as a finish, building entrances, glass block and elements of architecture as well.

And as noted, Lithia Pinecrest is designated as a future four-lane enhancement per Hillsburg County Corridor Preservation Plan.

Zoning is ASC1, but you'll see to the north, there's been quite a number of changes, just to stone's throw to the north, including a car wash, office residential, BPOs, a lot of BPOs, as you can see, particularly along uh Lithia Pinecrest south of Lumsden approaching the site.

Also under the future land use, it's a.20 floor area ratio, which is the lowest in the comp plan.

So when you start to look other than the zoning plans, you see the site here, and what you begin to see is that there's a lot of non-residential institutional uses.

So there's a vacant home to the north, which again we're providing the 30-foot buffer.

We've made quite a number of contacts, both to the mail and at site, but it's been vacant.

We've not been able to get a hold of anyone there.

We have some other neighbors in support, I'll show you.

But to the south is a cabinet company, church across the street, temple, children's celter.

So you can see this vicinity has significantly changed.

Planning commission does recognize some of these.

They note that to the east there are public quasi pulp uses, including a church, multifamily use operating as a children's center.

It's quite a large children's center, I'll show you.

Further north across the Pinecrest, there's an additional public quasi-serv public use serving another church.

So this is to the south, which is a uh cabinet uh use, cabinet um uh creator builder.

Across the street, you can see the lineup of the uh institutional uses which are directly across the street.

And this is a kids' place named after Dottie Burger McKinnon.

Um it's really quite frankly, it's more like a campus.

Uh this is the church as well.

This is the kids' place, which is really more like a campus.

They're just doing great work there.

Uh Lithia Pinecrest currently, or the uh most current uh uh full count that I had was in 2017, which is 20,731 vehicles.

And we have reached out, we did reach out to the community.

Uh we were able to get a hold of and get documented support for these individuals, which bought the site to the to the west uh and a couple to the south as well.

And these are the petitions as presented.

Planning commission uh does not support, and I think it's important to look at why they're not supporting, they they primarily look at the site being located in the Garden Estates character district, which is the green area, which they know consists of predominantly single-family homes.

But our site is located just barely in the gateway branded area on Lithia Pinecrest, which is a much different characterization of homes and uses than you would see elsewhere in the broad gateway branded community district.

Uh and this is specifically the gateway community district as we're located in, which you can see is just barely in the district, and again, along with the Pinecrest, which is designated as a four-lane uh or to be a four-lane roadway, let alone a major arterial roadway, does not fit into, and we feel with great respect to the planning commission, their opinion of it being a residential district, which I've shown you the immediate uses are not.

We do have a location waiver, and the support is the changing already changed morphing area, the abutting adjacent properties are compatible by use or by documented support and by your zoning department, and does not, in our opinion, apply to the section of the brand and community plan.

When you look at the planning commission recommendation, I do note the recoster zone of the property BPO would introduce use that is inconsistent with the existing single-family residential pattern, but yet I've shown you, I think we've shown you very well that in this particular vicinity that is not the case in our opinion.

Zoning department again notes of the restrictions provide for scale and design that would be comparable.

ZHM findings, ZHM was also uh not supportive, but when you look at the ZHM finding conclusions and summary, it does not include any consideration for the zero opposition.

No one came forward with the uh mailed notices and the large L assign, which no one could possibly miss.

ZHM findings conclusions and summary does not include consideration of the abutting neighbor support.

And the ZHM findings conclusion summary does not agree that the other residential non-reuse does not agree that the other non-residential uses supports the BPO.

We think that's a great element of support.

That's a big difference of opinion from the ZHM, not recognizing or accepting that all those other uses I've shown you in the media vicinity should be a reason for support.

So with that, Ms.

Chairman and board members, we appreciate your consideration.

Hope they have your support.

All right, thank you.

Anyone here in support of the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Seeing none, planning commission.

Thank you.

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

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Brandon Community Plan.

The proposal to rezone the property from ASC 1 to BPO would not be consistent with the intent of future land use section policy 3.1.3, which requires new development, be compatible with existing development.

Given the site is surrounded primarily by single family residential development, the introduction of the zoning district would not be considered compatible with the existing residential character of the area.

The introduction of the BPO zoning district in this location would establish non-residential uses immediately adjacent to established single family homes, which would create a sharp contrast and use and character of the area.

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

In the absence of such mitigation features between the existing residential and the proposed office use, this request conflicts with the intent of comprehensive plan policy direction that ensures that new development is compatible with and maintains the character of existing development.

The subject site does not meet commercial locational criteria as established by Objective 4.7 and its associated policies of the future land use section.

The closest qualifying intersection is approximately 2,400 feet from the subject site at Lithia Pinecrest Road and Bell Shoals Road.

The applicant submitted a waiver request for review.

However, staff finds that the majority of the surrounding area remains primarily primarily residential in nature.

And given the compatibility concerns of the subject site with the adjacent single family residential uses, staff concludes that the proposed development is not suitable for this location and recommends a waiver not be granted.

The subject site is located within the Garden Estates character district of the Brandon Community Plan, which consists predominantly of single family homes with lot sizes of at least one half acre.

In this district, demand for neighborhood serving uses like child care and adult day care is minimal.

And as a result, the community plan states that special uses should be located at intersections and would not be deemed compatible unless they meet locational criteria for a neighborhood serving commercial use.

The applicant's request to rezone the property to BPO would introduce a use that is inconsistent with the existing single family residential pattern of the Garden States character district.

Approval of this request would conflict with the intent and policies of the Brandon Community Plan, which prioritizes compatibility in neighborhood preservation.

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

Thank you.

And consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan and the zoning hearing master recommended denial.

Okay, going to board uh comment, Commissioner Wilson.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Since these denials were just hovering around the community plans, and Mr.

Chair, you've been doing this longer than hopefully I ever will.

Um the community plans under Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes are non-regulatory.

They're only a basis for vision and policy.

They don't have official regulatory powers, isn't that correct?

The community plan is uh part of the comprehensive plan.

It is uh but couldn't the the compan under state law is is only acknowledged as the regulatory power.

The community plans are only acknowledged as visions and policies, but not as the actual regulatory controls.

So maybe this will require a further conversation because I'm pretty sure that my understanding of that is correct, and I would just find it odd that we're making legal rulings of inconsistency based off of something that's only supposed to be a vision, but not the actual regulatory components of the comp plan.

So I'm I'm going to have to maybe put forward some items on that because I found that strange for those to be the rulings of inconsistency or denial.

And I don't know if that's something that is a is even a sustainable legal path.

So I want to have that conversation at a later date.

What I would say is that this is future res four, and I understand some of the objections, but the reality is Lithia Pinecrest is the worst road in the county, and if it was going for residential four, this room would probably be packed with opposition because people don't want the homes on that road.

Um so for those reasons, I'm going to support the development services rulings of approvable.

And I'll move for approval.

Okay, got a motion uh to approve by Commissioner Wolstone, second commissioner Cameron Cepeda.

Uh Commissioner Cohen.

Um I'm gonna support the motion.

I I and I'm uh not acting, I'm not acting as a lawyer when I'm sitting here, but I am thinking when I'm listening to what you're saying, that the planning commission is making a recommendation to us, but that is not binding in any way.

We are the ones that make the decision, and I think because of that, I I think it it's all really advisory.

At least that's the way I would see it.

Commissioner Miller Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um because this is in my district, and we have many of these that are coming before us in the future related to community plans, and you'll see I have a motion here to have a community plan.

I would like further discussion around it because I think that the folks that work hard to have the visioning and and spend you know a year, 18 months working on a vision for their community.

Um I would like further clarification on whether it's regulatory or what that looks like coming to us um because we have so many that are gonna be challenging, you know, in this particular case.

Like I will be supporting this one because I'm very familiar with this road, but I don't want it to be understood like oh, we're you know, it comes to us with conditions of denial, and we're always going to be moving forward because that's not necessarily the case.

That's why we have individual um autonomy to make decisions here.

So I would like further clarification on the legalities of it as well.

I don't know what we need to do to make that happen, but I would support it.

Commissioner Wilson.

Thanks.

Sorry, this is the only time we get to talk, you know, because sunshine's ridiculous.

But um, I would um it's just that when the community who doesn't eat, drink, and sleep this like we do, and they see oh rulings of inconsistent.

Well, is it you know, should it really be on the comp plan side on the regulatory side, we're ruling of consistent, but there is a finding of inconsistency with the policy of your community plan, so that way it doesn't create the some type of false pretense like, oh, we're we're overriding our own laws just for for each individual person, because that can be a very dangerous thing to promote to the community if that's not really what it is.

So um I look forward to the future conversation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioner Cohen.

Yeah, let me just be clear.

I I think it's a good conversation to have.

Because the truth is people should know whether or not it's it's it carries any weight or not.

They should know exactly how much weight it does carry.

I think that's a very important expectation people can have before they come in here to plead their case.

I don't want to get off track here, but but Commissioner uh Wolstone makes an excellent point on one of the many reasons why I've never been a proponent of community plans.

All right, we've got a motion of second.

Please record your vote.

Motion carries six to zero.

F six.

Commissioner's ex items, general item F6 major modification 25 1354.

This is a request for a major modification of a 0.77 acre parcel located on the uh west side of Sheldon Road, north of uh Moore Road.

Uh the request is to modify the parcel that's currently approved for office for 15 unit multifamily uh unit uh based on the surrounding development pattern with consist of existing multifamilies to immediately adjacent the north and west and south of the site in the res 20 plan category.

Uh staff did find this approval.

The planning commission found a consistent in the hearing officer recommended approval, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Applicant here.

Good morning.

Uh good morning, Patricia Ortiz, 2810 North Central Avenue.

This modification seeks to change the approved use from a medical office of 6300 square feet to a total of 15 apartment units.

Or three stories.

A tight buffer with an opaque fence will be provided along the north, west, and south boundaries.

Residential developments surround the site.

Multifamily exists to the north, south, and west.

Across Sheldon Road, there is some single family development.

Sheldon Road will be widened to a six-lane road as it's listed on the corridor preservation plan.

And the developer has agreed to preserve right-of-way in accordance with the transportation division's findings.

We received uh recommendations of or excuse me, favorable reviews from the planning commission, transportation development services, and the zoning hearing master.

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

All right, thank you very much.

Uh anyone here in support the application.

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the residential 20 future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the town and country and the northwest area community plans.

The subject site is largely surrounded by the higher density future land use categories of specifically residential nine, residential 12, and residential 20, and with predominantly single family and multifamily zoning districts.

The areas currently developed with higher density multifamily uses along the west side of Sheldon Road, and there are some light commercial and business professional office uses within the surrounding area.

The subject site is directly adjacent to existing multifamily on the northwest and south sides with direct frontage on Sheldon Road on the eastern property line.

Additionally, the requested density does not exceed the maximum allowable density under the current residential 20 future land use category, and the applicants are not seeking any density bonuses, which are prohibited in the coastal high hazard area under policy 2.3.5 of the future land use section.

Therefore, the rezoning is consistent with the urban service area and the coastal hazard area objectives and policies.

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

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

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 rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood character and would not negatively impact the adjacent residential communities.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed major modification and found the modification to be compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code.

The zoning hearing master's recommendation was approval.

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wolstool sign Commissioner Myers, please record your vote on F6.

Motion carried five to zero.

All right, Mr.

Grady, next item.

Commissioner's next item is uh staff item I one.

This is the step the monthly staff report on an update on Live Local Act Development Projects.

Uh we had one additional application for zoning verification filed since the last monthly update and as outlined in the staff report, and we're available for any questions.

Right, Commissioner Woolstool.

Um the lawsuit is filed.

I'm extremely excited.

And um, I would uh reinforce my invitation that I will be getting my bulldozer license in the instance that we prevail to bulldoze any properties that proceed.

Um of the applicants for um live local that we received recently.

I just want to point back out to the board was exactly on one of the lots that um Commissioner Cohn and I joined forces to say no to, and it's just one of the many reasons that I hope that Miss Mandel um prevails in this lawsuit.

Thank you very much.

Can we have a motion to accept the report move to accept Commissioner Wills to sign Commissioner Myers, please record your vote?

Motion carries six to zero.

Okay, next item.

Commissioners, the next item is I2, which is the mobile mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement for improvements for the Mukmon Road and Macintosh Road intersection to Adam McGormic to speak of this item.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Item I2 is a as Brian noted, a mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement for a project located at the southwest corner of Muck Pond Road and Macintosh Road.

This mobility fee agreement will provide for the improvement of Muck Pond Road and Macintosh Road intersection.

Specifically, it provides for a northbound left-turn lane on Macintosh Road and an eastbound northbound lane and an eastbound southbound lane on Muck Pond Road.

The developer will build these improvements and be required to have it completed prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the warehouse use, and the cost of the improvement will be uh offset against the mobility fee obligations for the project.

In the event that the uh project cost exceed the mobility fee obligation, there would be no reimbursement to the developer or transferable credits.

Uh we're recommending approval of of this uh uh item all right, thank you.

Um the public has an opportunity to comment on this.

Does anyone want to speak to the item?

Seeing none, premier motion.

Move approval.

Second motion, Commissioner Wolstell, second, Commissioner Miller.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay, last item.

The last item is Commissioners Miller items regarding uh directing staff to uh proceed with creating a lithium community plan for the lithia community.

Uh uh Commissioner Miller.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Lithia is one of the fastest growing areas in our county.

Um and with that comes growth that needs uh for thoughtful planning that reflects the community's vision for its future for its future.

Today I'm asking that we begin the process of developing the lithia community plan.

Um community plans are an important tool that allows residents, local stakeholders, and county staff to work together to identify priorities related to land use, transportation, environmental preservation, infrastructure, and the community character.

Lithia is unique rural identity and its strong sense of place, and it's important that the future planning efforts respect and preserve those qualities with responsibly managing growth.

This request simply directs staff to begin the engagement and planning process so that the voices of Lithia residents can help shape the long-term vision for their community.

I appreciate the staff's work and effort towards this and look forward to collaborating with the community and at least most of my colleagues on the community plan as we move this process forward.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Second, second commissioner Myers, please record your vote.

Motion carried five to one.

Commissioner Hagen voted no.

Okay.

Um Adam, any other items?

Sir, that concludes our agenda.

We're adjourned.