OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer Meeting – April 13, 2026

Hillsborough County Archive View PageMonday, April 13, 2026
BodyHillsborough County, Florida
SessionHillsborough County Archive View Page
DateMonday, April 13, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:55:14

Transcript — Verbatim
2:45

Good morning, everyone.

2:46

Welcome to the to this morning's land use hearing officer hearing.

2:50

My name is Steve Lewis, and I'll be this morning's land use hearing officer.

2:55

Before we get started, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

3:15

Thank you all.

3:20

Thank you for that.

3:22

At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Colleen Marshall from Development Services staff, who will introduce other members here at the Dais and go over any changes to this morning's agenda.

3:34

Good morning.

3:35

Good morning, Colleen Marshall Development Services.

3:38

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

3:42

Carmen Mason, a development services staff is joining us virtually.

3:46

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

3:52

We have no changes to the published agenda.

3:55

Very good.

4:00

Just take a few minutes.

5:04

The order of presentation for the variances is development services presents the staff report and findings.

5:10

They have five minutes for that purpose.

5:13

And the applicant presents their case and they have 15 minutes for that purpose.

5:18

Then anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support speaks next.

5:22

Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition, then follows.

5:27

Then development services as an opportunity to provide any additional information.

5:33

Then finally, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

5:37

There's one special use on this morning's agenda, and I'll go over that procedure when we get to that item.

5:44

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

5:50

If the total time is the total time for each category, if there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people, and the 15 minutes will divide it as equally as possible.

6:02

You may wish to designate a single person to more efficiently use the time.

6:08

When you come to the podium to speak, please start by giving your name and address for the record.

6:14

There's a sign in sheet at the end of the day, and if the clerk can raise your hand.

6:20

Right over in that area.

6:22

The meeting is being recorded, and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record.

6:28

When you're done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and application number of the agenda item that you're speaking to.

6:37

At this point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide the legal requirements for appealing a decision made by the land use hearing officer.

6:46

Good morning, Jared Delfino, Assistant County Attorney.

6:48

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

6:53

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

6:56

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

7:04

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

7:08

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

7:19

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

7:29

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

7:41

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

7:47

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

7:59

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

8:08

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

8:16

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

8:28

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

8:35

Thank you.

8:36

Thank you.

8:37

All testimony must be provided under oath.

8:40

Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in.

8:55

Okay.

8:55

Thank you.

8:56

You may be seated.

8:59

All right, this point in time.

9:01

Ms.

9:01

Marshall ready for the first item.

9:04

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

9:14

Item G1, variance 260531.

9:18

The applicant is Laurie Smith, Florida certified sign directors.

9:24

The request is a variance to sign requirements.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████68%
Procedural██████████15%
Public Engagement█████7%
Engineering And Infrastructure██3%
Water And Wastewater Management██3%
Alcoholic Beverage Permits2%
Affordable Housing1%
Alcohol Regulation1%
Summary of Proceedings

Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer Meeting – April 13, 2026

Introductory paragraph: The Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO) meeting, presided by Hearing Officer Steve Lewis, convened at 9:00 AM on April 13, 2026, at the County Center in Tampa. The agenda included one sign variance, eight variance requests, one special use application, and several procedural withdrawals and continuances. All testimony was given under oath, and the Hearing Officer will file recommendations or final decisions by May 4, 2026.

Withdrawals and Continuances

  • VAR 24-1128 (Rolando Santiago) – Withdrawn by Zoning Administrator.
  • SU-SCH 24-1335 (David Wright / TSP Companies, Inc.) – Continued to the May 11, 2026 LUHO hearing.
  • SU-OPF 25-1192 (Daniel McKnight) – Withdrawn by Zoning Administrator.
  • VAR 25-1238 (Maria and Rojelio Mireles) – Withdrawn by Zoning Administrator.
  • VAR 26-0111 (Fakir Hossain) – Withdrawn from the hearing process.
  • VAR 26-0119 (Melanie Dawn & William E. Carr) – Withdrawn from the hearing process.
  • SU-AB 26-0430 (Naidip Foundation Inc.) – Continued by Staff to the May 11, 2026 LUHO hearing.
  • SU-CFW 26-0438 (Crown Castle USA) – Withdrawn from the hearing process.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • G.1 (VAR 26-0531, Sign Variance): No public comments.
  • H.1 (VAR 25-1340, Laritza Lopez): Applicant spoke; no other public.
  • H.2 (VAR 26-0227, Matthew Remson): No public comments.
  • H.3 (VAR 26-0381, Bernadette Rodgers): Applicant spoke extensively about code enforcement and permit issues; no other public.
  • H.4 (VAR 26-0421, Yaimara Gual): Neighbor Marilyn Mandina spoke as translator; applicant (through interpreter) explained situation.
  • H.5 (VAR 26-0467, Todd Scime): Applicant and property owner Leonardo Alleman spoke in support.
  • H.6 (VAR 26-0479, Ambishkumar Patel): Applicant spoke; neighbor Jill Catch Tori spoke in support.
  • H.7 (VAR 26-0493, Charquez Clayton): Applicant spoke, expressed confusion about purpose of variance.
  • H.8 (VAR 26-0539, Jason Fausette): Contractor and homeowner Hunter Glassen spoke in support.
  • H.9 (VAR 26-0567, Affordable Building Products of FL): Applicant Maria Marriage spoke.
  • I.1 (SU-AB 26-0420, 11202 Dewhurst LLC): Attorney Cami Corbett presented; no public comments.

Discussion Items

G.1 – Sign Variance (VAR 26-0531)

  • Applicant: Lori Smith, Florida Certified Sign Erectors.
  • Request: Variance to reduce the required 10-foot front setback for a pole sign to 5 feet at 16235 Lake Magdalene Blvd. (ASC-1 zoning).
  • Staff: Presented by Sam Paul. Noted the property is agriculturally zoned; residential support use requirements do not apply. Staff had not seen a survey identifying the right-of-way line; aerial site plan indicated the line at the edge of the parking lot.
  • Hearing Officer: Questioned the hardship and accuracy of the right-of-way line. Applicant stated property appraiser imagery was used; no formal survey.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending by May 4, 2026.

H.1 – Variance to Accessory Structure Requirements (VAR 25-1340)

  • Applicant: Laritza Lopez, 4525 Tarpon Dr.
  • Request: Variance to allow an existing 618 sq ft accessory structure (office) to occupy 33% of the required rear yard (RSC-6 zoning), exceeding the 20% limit.
  • Staff: Jared Fallon (virtual). Calculated rear yard area as 1,376 sq ft; portion of structure within rear yard is 453.75 sq ft, resulting in 32.9% coverage.
  • Applicant: Explained structure was built August 2024; original permit later flagged for rear yard coverage. Used for home-based notary/insurance work.
  • Hearing Officer: Inquired about electricity, water, sewer (present). Code enforcement involvement stemmed from TECO repairs after a hurricane.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

H.2 – Variance to Lot Development Standards (VAR 26-0227)

  • Applicant: Matthew Remson, 9809 Harold Bedford Rd.
  • Request: Variance to allow a staircase to remain 6 feet from the southwestern side property line (AR zoning requires 25 ft minimum; 3 ft allowed for stairs). This is a 6-foot increase over the allowed 3-foot encroachment.
  • Staff: Sam Paul. Previously continued for measurement. Property has atypical access via easements. A legal non-conforming lot and structure were approved, but the staircase was excluded.
  • Applicant: Stated home built 1988, elevated 16 ft; staircase is essential. No nearby residences within ~1,000 ft.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

H.3 – Variance to Lot Development Standards (VAR 26-0381)

  • Applicant: Bernadette Rodgers Revocable Trust, 5317 Orange Ave.
  • Request: Variance to reduce the required 25-foot front yard setback to 20 feet for a new single-family home (RDC-6 zoning).
  • Staff: Brief presentation; no questions.
  • Applicant: Expressed frustration with county process, cited a survey showing property lines, and disputed the setback calculation based on one-unit vs. duplex zoning. Also raised issues with permits, contractor, and septic system.
  • Hearing Officer: Clarified that the variance request is solely about the front setback.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

H.4 – Variance to Lot Development Standards (VAR 26-0421)

  • Applicant: Yaimara Gual, 7910 N Saint Vincent St.
  • Request: Variance to rear yard setback (25 ft required, requesting 0 ft) and side yard setback (7.5 ft required, requesting 7.3 ft) for an unpermitted addition including a storage room.
  • Staff: Sierra James. Property has a code violation; part of the addition extends 5.3 feet into county right-of-way, which the applicant agreed to remove. The variance is for the portion on the private lot.
  • Applicant/Narrator: Neighbor Marilyn Mandina interpreted. The applicant moved a fence to the property line but a small extension (approximately one foot, but staff said 5.3 ft) sticks out. The house addition (11x12 ft) encroaches into the rear setback.
  • Hearing Officer: Emphasized that the encroachment into right-of-way must be removed regardless of variance. Staff confirmed.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

H.5 – Variance to Minimum Lot Size & Lot Development Standards (VAR 26-0467)

  • Applicant: Todd Scime, 9107 Memorial Hwy (two parcels: 0.24 and 0.29 acres).
  • Request: Variance to the minimum half-acre lot size requirement for septic systems (LDC §6.01.06.03) to allow the existing split parcels (cut after 1989 vesting date). One lot has an existing house on septic.
  • Staff: Michelle Montebano. The split occurred by deed in early 2000s. Public sewer may be nearby but code allows up to 3 lots in urban service area without sewer connection, but each lot must meet half-acre for septic.
  • Applicant: Explained that the owner of the adjacent lot (Ms. Fernandez) also needed to remedy her non-conforming lot. Both owners agreed.
  • Public Support: Leonardo Alleman (owner of the other lot) spoke.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

H.6 – Variance to Lot Development Standards (VAR 26-0479)

  • Applicant: Ambishkumar Patel, 12430 Horseshoe Bend Dr.
  • Request: Variance to allow a generator to be placed with a 1-foot rear yard setback (required 5 ft, LDC §6.01.03.I.3).
  • Staff: Logan McKay. The generator may project up to 5 feet into rear yard; applicant requests 4-foot variance resulting in 1-foot setback.
  • Applicant: Stated that Generac contractor installed the generator; county inspector flagged the setback. No room on other sides due to easements and retention pond.
  • Public Support: Neighbor Jill Catch Tori spoke, approving the location.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

H.7 – Variance to Accessory Dwelling Requirements (VAR 26-0493)

  • Applicant: Charquez Clayton, 4604 N. 72nd St.
  • Request: Variance to the minimum lot size requirement (7,000 sq ft) for an accessory dwelling unit; the lot is 6,000 sq ft.
  • Staff: Jared Fallon (virtual). The variance relates only to lot size; not size or placement of the ADU.
  • Applicant: Bought the property in 2022; an existing ADU (not built by him) was flagged by code enforcement. He has cut power and uses it for storage, does not intend to permit it as a dwelling.
  • Hearing Officer: Offered a continuance to allow the applicant to determine his intent or withdraw. Applicant agreed.
  • Outcome: Continued to the June 15, 2026 LUHO hearing.

H.8 – Variance to Lot Development Standards (VAR 26-0539)

  • Applicant: Jason Fausette, 1014 Eckles Dr.
  • Request: Variance to reduce the required 25-foot front yard setback to 20 feet to accommodate a standard two-car garage addition (RSC-6 zoning).
  • Staff: James Baker. Variance of 5 feet resulting in 20-foot front yard setback.
  • Applicant (Contractor): Explained that the existing garage is inadequate; addition forward is the only feasible location. Both neighbors agreed.
  • Public Support: Homeowner Hunter Glassen spoke.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

H.9 – Variance to Accessory Structure Requirements (VAR 26-0567)

  • Applicant: Affordable Building Products of FL, 8011 Hancock St. (Maria Marriage).
  • Request: Variance of 1.5 feet to the required 25-foot rear yard setback for an existing 20x30 garage; actual setback is 23.93 ft and 24.03 ft from the property line.
  • Staff: Colleen Marshall (presented). Building permit was issued with 25 ft setback shown on plans, but after construction a survey revealed the error.
  • Applicant: Explained the situation; requested accommodation for the shortfall.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

I.1 – Special Use for Alcoholic Beverage Permit with Distance Separation Waivers (SU-AB 26-0420)

  • Applicant: 11202 Dewhurst LLC (Bridges at Sweetwater Grand assisted living facility).
  • Request: Special Use for a 4-COP (restaurant) alcoholic beverage permit with a waiver of the 250-foot separation from residentially zoned properties. The proposed wet zone is 11 feet from residential uses within the same planned development (PD 04-0459).
  • Staff: Tim Lamkin. The community center clubhouse is for residents only. A major modification to the PD was approved by the BOCC on March 10, 2026, allowing a member-only restaurant with alcohol. No objections from review agencies.
  • Applicant (Attorney): Cami Corbett argued the amenity is for the benefit of assisted living and single-family residents within the PD; the clubhouse is buffered by a pond and vegetation.
  • Outcome: Heard. Decision pending.

Key Outcomes

  • Withdrawn Items: VAR 24-1128, SU-OPF 25-1192, VAR 25-1238, VAR 26-0111, VAR 26-0119, SU-CFW 26-0438.
  • Continued Items: SU-SCH 24-1335 and SU-AB 26-0430 continued to May 11, 2026; VAR 26-0493 continued to June 15, 2026.
  • Heard Items (all others): Each case was heard, and the record was closed. The Land Use Hearing Officer will issue a written recommendation or final decision by May 4, 2026, except for the continued items. For variance applications, the decision may be appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board within 30 calendar days of the final decision.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the to this morning's land use hearing officer hearing. My name is Steve Lewis, and I'll be this morning's land use hearing officer. Before we get started, if we could all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you all. Thank you for that. At this point in time, I'd like to introduce Colleen Marshall from Development Services staff, who will introduce other members here at the Dais and go over any changes to this morning's agenda. Good morning. Good morning, Colleen Marshall Development Services. To my left is Mary Dorman and Jared Delphina, the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office. Carmen Mason, a development services staff is joining us virtually. During the course of the hearing, a number of other planners will be presenting their findings for various cases and introduce breach item. We have no changes to the published agenda. Very good. Just take a few minutes. The order of presentation for the variances is development services presents the staff report and findings. They have five minutes for that purpose. And the applicant presents their case and they have 15 minutes for that purpose. Then anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support speaks next. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition, then follows. Then development services as an opportunity to provide any additional information. Then finally, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal. There's one special use on this morning's agenda, and I'll go over that procedure when we get to that item. Regarding the time for proponents and opponents, 15-minute time frame. If the total time is the total time for each category, if there are a number of people to speak, we will add up the total number of people, and the 15 minutes will divide it as equally as possible. You may wish to designate a single person to more efficiently use the time. When you come to the podium to speak, please start by giving your name and address for the record. There's a sign in sheet at the end of the day, and if the clerk can raise your hand. Right over in that area. The meeting is being recorded, and we want to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record. When you're done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name, address, and application number of the agenda item that you're speaking to. At this point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide the legal requirements for appealing a decision made by the land use hearing officer. Good morning, Jared Delfino, Assistant County Attorney. This land use hearing officer public hearing is for variance and special use requests. This is the time for interested parties to present evidence and testimony. Once the land use hearing officer has closed a case, the record of that case is also closed, and no new evidence regarding that case may be submitted thereafter. Any decision by the land use hearing officer may be appealed to the land use appeals board. Should a decision of the land use hearing officer be appealed, the record evidence, including the testimony presented at this public hearing, shall be the only evidence that is subject to review by the land use appeals board. In reaching a final decision on petitions, the land use appeals board will only consider the decision of the land use hearing officer and the record evidence, including evidence any evidence from this public hearing. If an appeal is filed, the land use appeals board hearing shall consist of oral argument by the party appealing the decision, county staff, and any interveners, each of whom may be represented by legal counsel. The following shall have standing to appeal a decision of the land use hearing officer or to intervene in an appeal. One, the applicant, or two, anyone who appeared before the land use hearing officer, presented testimony or other evidence, and is adversely affected by the decision of the land use hearing officer. It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is allowed before the land use appeals board that was not presented to the land use hearing officer at today's hearing. The county attorney will recommend that the land use appeals board disregard evidence or testimony that is outside the record made at today's public hearing. Any evidence presented to the land use appeals board that is outside the record created at today's hearing could jeopardize the legality of the land use appeals board decision, and the presenter of that evidence could hurt their own cause. The safest course of action then is for you to write down any comments you make today and repeat them to the land use appeals board. Thank you. Thank you. All testimony must be provided under oath. Therefore, if you plan to speak, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com