Good evening.

Could you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

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

Thank you.

Please have a seat.

Good evening, everyone.

I want to welcome you to the April 27th, 2026 zoning hearing master hearing.

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

Let me start by introducing Miss Michelle Heinrich.

She is with the Development Services Department.

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

Ms.

Heinrich.

Good evening, Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

Um the other staff we have with the site with the county attorney's office, we have Mary Dorman in Geraldino, and with the Planning Commission, we have Lily Leinhard.

And also with Development Services, in addition to myself, we have James Bratley for Transportation Review.

And we do not have any off agenda changes or withdrawals to announce.

We have people in the room, but we also have people participating virtually.

So we will get a count in total of how many people want to speak in support or against an application, and then we will divide that 15 minutes as equally as possible to make sure everybody has a fair shot.

All right.

When you come up to the podium or you are online when you begin to speak, if you could give us your name and address for the record.

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

If you're in the room and you're done at the podium with your uh uh words, then if you could see Alison and Jermaine, they are at the end of the dais.

If you guys can raise your hand, there they are.

And sign in.

Um they are keeping a written log on top of the dais, so please sign in with your name, address, and the application number to which you spoke.

All right.

Now, with that, let me turn to the county attorney's office who will provide you the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Good evening.

This is Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office.

Tonight's public hearing is the first step of a two-step rezoning process.

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

Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application, and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of each application.

The second step of the rezoning process is a public meeting before the board of county commissioners where the board will make a decision on each application heard tonight.

Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the board at its June 9th, 2026 land use meeting, unless a different date is stated by staff.

When considering applications, the board will only review the record and the recommendation made by the land use hearing officer for each application.

The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on May 18th, 2026.

The Board of County Commissioners has established a policy that directs which rezoning and major modification applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the board's land use meeting.

The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda.

Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area, applications on roadways with the failing level of service, applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval, and applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-applicant parties of record, either prior to or at tonight's public hearing.

The board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the land use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda.

Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with section 10.03.04D of the land development code.

A party of record is an individual who fits into at least one of the following four categories.

First, someone who's present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence.

Second, someone who's been certified by the U.S.

Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing.

Third, someone who submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing, or fourth, someone who submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing.

The content of oral argument before the board shall be limited to the content of the testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the land use hearing officer.

It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that only individuals who have met these requirements are allowed to speak before the board and to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is introduced or allowed at the board's public meeting.

For these reasons, please make sure that all information you wish the board to consider at its public meeting is entered into tonight's record.

Thank you, Ms.

Dorman.

I appreciate it.

As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath.

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

Thank you so much.

Please have a seat.

All right.

Then with that, Miss Heinrich, we're ready to call the first case.

Our first item is item C1, standard rezoning 26-0310.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RC six to CNR.

Michelle Montebono with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Is the applicant oh the applicant is online?

Is that right?

Good evening, David Wright.

Yes, we're addressed 8956 Westroom drive.

I don't like 34637.

Review of the staff reports.

We agreement with them.

Don't really have anything to add to the record.

But well, it's not already covered in there, so I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Uh none at this time, but thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Development services.

Good evening.

Services.

Um the applicants request into a zone two parts from RSE 6 to CNR.

Uh the applicant has proposed restrictions to limit the allowable uses in the CN district and utilize residential building style.

Uh the properties in the East Lake Orient Park area along East MLK Boulevard.

Um, it abuts a equipment storage site to the east and a commercially zoned uh PD to the west.

Um due to the surrounding zoning pattern and the development pattern around East MLK Boulevard and subject to the restrictions proposed by the applicant.

Uh staff finds the request affordable.

I'm available if you have any questions.

Uh none at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Lily Van Ham Planning Commission.

The subject site is in the community mixed use 12 feature land use category, and it's in the urban service area within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan with the proposed rezoning from uh RSE six to commercial neighborhood restricted.

The applicant has voluntary voluntarily limited the range of permitted uses to a defined set of low-intensity neighborhoods serving commercial and office uses.

These restrictions are intended to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and to minimize potential impacts typically associated with more intensive commercial uses.

Additionally, the existing development pattern in the immediate immediate vicinity reflects a mixes of uses.

The subject property itself vacant land single and single family residential structures.

To the east are heavy industrial uses along State Road 574 to the west are commercial uses, and to the north of the subject site are established single family residential neighborhoods.

Given this mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial uses, the proposed commercial neighborhood zoning with the restricted uses serves as an appropriate transitional use.

The limited intensity and neighborhood serving nature of the proposed use provides a buffer between the more intensive industrial activities and nearby residential properties.

It's also consistent with the economic development goal of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan as it provides opportunities for small scale business growth and job creation through the introduction of neighborhoods serving commercial and office uses on an underutilized site.

The proposal supports the plan's broader strategy of encouraging appropriate commercial development while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding uses.

Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

All right, Miss Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

All right, Mr.

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

No, thank you.

All right.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning 26-0310 and go to the next case.

Our next item is agenda item C2, standard rezoning 26-0541.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from ASC1 to manufacturing restricted.

Sierra James has reviewed this for development services, and I'll provide staff findings on her behalf tonight after the applicant.

All right.

Good evening.

Good evening, Ryan Manassi with Johnson Pope, Director of Planning.

Um again, we're here tonight requesting the rezone the property from ASC 1 to manage manufacturing restricted for the property located at 6106 Hartford Street.

This is a pretty straightforward standard rezoning to align the zoning with light industrial future land use.

There's no waivers or variations being requested, obviously.

The only condition is the transportation-driven shared access restriction with flexibility through an A V or D if approved at time of permitting.

The subject property is approximate approximately 2.3 acres, and it's within the urban service area where industrial development is anticipated.

It has frontage along Hartford Street, which is the county collector roadway.

It can achieve an industrial type use development, which is consistent with the LI designation.

The subject property carries a light industrial future land use category, uh, which is specifically intended to accommodate manufacturing, warehousing, storage, and other employment generating uses.

There are no incidental uses.

Specifically under flu objective 2.2 and policy 2.2.1.

The future land use map establishes both the range of permitted uses and intensity framework for each category.

The requested MR zoning falls squarely within that framework, allowing the site to develop consistent with the character and intent of the LI designation.

This ensures that the development remains uh within the adopted comprehensive plan limits.

And I know your staff was going to present, but planning commission found the request consistent.

As well as development services, found it approvable, subject to the transportation related access condition or restriction.

Regarding the surrounding area, when evaluating compatibility, it's critical to look at the actual development pattern on the ground, not just the zoning labels.

In this case, the surrounding area is predominantly characterized by industrial commercial and open storage uses, including truck parking and similar operations immediately adjacent to the site.

This establishes a clearer and prevailing industrial corridor along Hartford Street.

While there is residential to the north, the condition is typical of transitional edges in the county.

And the land development code specifically addresses those interfaces through required buffering, screening, and site design controls.

As such, the rezoning does not introduce a new use pattern.

It reinforces and continues the established pattern already present in the area.

Now regarding compatibility is one of the central considerations in any rezoning.

And the comprehensive plan provides very clear direction to how it's to be evaluated.

Under flu objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 compatibility is not defined as the same as.

It's defined as ability of different uses to coexist in a manner that maintains the character of the surrounding area.

Here, the character of the surrounding area is already industrial in nature with manufacturing, open storage, and commercial uses located to the south, east, and west.

The proposed rezoning rezoning simply extends the established pattern onto a property that is currently underutilized relative to its future land use designation.

Policy 3.1.2 further emphasizes the importance of transitions between uses which are achieved through professional site planning, buffering, and screening, not through preventing appropriate uses altogether.

That is exactly what will occur here.

The land development code will require buffering and screening along the northern property line to ensure a proper transition to the existing horse arena.

Finally, flu objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 reinforced that new development should be integrated with surrounding uses through complementary land uses and mitigation of impacts.

Given that the proposed uses are already present in the immediate vicinity, and that all the applicable buffering and site design standards will be met.

This request meets and exceeds the comprehensive plans compatibility requirements.

Now back to the transportation restriction.

Due to the limited frontage and space and requirements, transportation requires shared access.

Importantly, the condition allows flexibility through administrative variants or design exception, ensuring that a workable solution at permitting can be made.

Code compliance.

This is not a P uh negotiated PD.

There again, there's no waivers.

The project will be required to meet all land development codes and site design uh permitting economic development.

In addition to the land uh use consistency and compatibility, this request directly advances the county's economic development objectives.

Under flu objective 7.1, the county is directed to promote target industries and support employment generating uses that enhance economic competitiveness.

Industrial land is a finite and increasingly limited resource in Hillsborough County.

This rezoning preserves and activates a land designated for industrial use, ensuring it can be utilized for job-producing activities rather than remaining a constrained or remaining constrained by an outdated zoning district.

The proposal also supports jobs, jobs, and housing balance by placing employment opportunities in proximity to existing residential areas, which is a key component of the comprehensive plan's long-term growth strategy.

Now, in conclusion, this request is not asking for an exception to the comprehensive plan or land development codes.

It's implementing it.

The rezoning aligns directly with the light industrial future land use designation, is consistent with all applicable goals, objectives, and policies, and maintains compatibility through established code requirements and is supported by both the planning commission and development services staff.

This is a logical orderly extension of the existing development pattern and represents appropriate use of land within the urban service area.

For these reasons, we respectfully request a recommendation of approval.

Thank you, and I'm available for any questions.

Just one for the record to um clarify that restriction that there are opportunities to work out the access issue, but it's a it's a requirement for a shared access if no other alternative is available.

That's my understanding, yes.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign in.

Development services.

Michelle Hiring Development Services.

Staff reviewed a rezoning request from ASC 1 to manufacturing restricted.

Located on the north side of Hartford Street.

The site is 2.3 acres in size, located within the LI future land use category and located in the urban service area.

Industrial uses are found to the west, east, and south.

Property to the north is zone ASC 1.

And uh with the M zoning district development standards, um, will provide compatibility measures such as setbacks, height, and buffering and screening.

The applicant has offered one restriction, which relates to access due to the location of nearby existing access points.

Unless there is an administrative variance approved at site development, the will have to be a shared access facility for this parcel.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and recommends approval subject to the proposed restriction.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Lily Lennihan Planning Commission.

The subject site is in the light industrial feature land use category.

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

The proposed rezoning is from ASC1 to manufacturing to allow for truck parking, manufacturing, open storage, and warehousing uses.

The site is currently designated as a single family use surrounding their site.

There are single family to the north, heavy industrial to the east and south, and heavy commercial, light industrial, and light commercial to the west.

The heavy commercial parcel to the west is currently operating as an area for semi-truck parking.

Given that the predominant land uses in the vicinity are commercial and industrial in nature.

The proposed rezoning is consistent and compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

Additionally, the proposed rezoning supports the county's economic development development objectives by facilitating industrial and manufacturing uses that contribute to job growth and enhance the county's economic competitiveness while remaining proximate to the local workforce.

The proposed rezoning supports the intent of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan Goals 2 and 5 by reinforcing existing industrial land use patterns, promoting employment and generating uses and providing a compatible intensity of development at the proposed location.

Based upon the above considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed standard rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

Yes, ma'am.

Why you're coming forward?

Is there any go ahead and come up?

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

All right.

Seeing no one, if you give us your name and address, please.

Yes.

Um my name is Susan Swift, AICP.

Swift and Golden, LLC 3621 South Hesperdy Street, Tampa.

Uh, and I'm here representing Levi Equine Holdings, LLC, who on the property to the north.

Um subject property is uh highlighted.

Uh I'll start with our ask since I typically overstate my uh three minutes.

Um we oppose the manufacturing rezoning, the district for the M or M R, which our ask is we prefer uh CI rezoning or a PD and a 50-foot type C buffer.

We have reached out to the applicant to their representatives.

Uh they were not inclined to change the their request for either of these things.

So I'll give you my reasons, our reasons.

Our clients have nearly seven acres with horses, stables, and a manager's residence.

They're concerned about the noise impacts of the uses in the M district, and the visual, which is the reason for the request of the buffer is for noise and visual circumstances and this is the subject property as of yesterday, so it looks now looks a lot different than the aerial that you saw that are already use being used uh not according to the ASC one.

Uh we realize that there's light industrial land use on it.

That doesn't mean it's there's a guarantee for the highest rezoning.

There's still transition policies that you heard about that I think could be interpreted differently, um, and compatibility issues.

Um as I said, in addition, uh the owners are already using it differently.

This is the property to the north, which is located on 36 South 36th Avenue, and this is the front of the stables and my clients' property.

They do board horses there and have horses of their own.

Um again, the noise is a big issue, and you can see the back of the property has uh trailers and semis already there.

There's also thank you.

You can see here, I'll show you some better pictures, but uh this is an active uh stable and horse use, and they're very concerned about these uses.

Some of which in the M district could be a firing range manufacturing, which is very broadly uh defined, junkyard slaughterhouse, community disposal center, assembly, which is also not defined.

Um this is looking from my client's property where you can see they have a lot of investment in this property, and they've tried to put their own buffer in for the cargo trailers and other things, and it also looks like there's quite a bit of fill that's been done.

I tried to find permits for these, and again, this is from the back of their property.

So there is a concern with additional heavy uses in addition to what's it's being used for now in the ASC one district that it currently has.

So we respectfully request that either the client the applicant change to a CI use, which we're not trying to proh prevent them from having commercial uses on their property, but these are um more acceptable and more compatible with the seven acres uh to the north and the uses that are on there and and a 50-foot buffer to allow some distance and again noise uh in addition to the visual, it's really the noise that would bother the horses and the people who live there.

Um and I would also ask the hearing master to other people you're interested in that too.

Look at some of the uh really the again the light industrial, there's a line there, but it really only exists for two more lots.

Um so the area is definitely transitioned, and I think the policies and how they the transition policies apply to this really need to be looked at as well.

Thank you.

Let me ask you, Miss Swift, um don't leave yet.

Let me ask you a couple questions.

Um so if you could put your aerial back up that you started with the black and white aerial that showed uh the subject property and then your client's property, I believe to the north.

There we go.

All right.

What is do you approximately what is the date of this aerial?

It's a couple of years old.

Okay.

So um these photos are current or very recent.

Okay, yes.

Your photographs of the site, yes, understood.

The um the future land use map, and and we can have the planning commission put that back up or or development services, either one.

It's a significant amount of light industrial the plan category to the south of your client.

And then according to the staff report, the um zoning to the let me flip back there to the uh west of the subject property is already M.

Yes, right.

Um and to the east is a PD, which the staff has it labeled as being used for open storage.

How long has your client been there?

Um I believe since 2017.

But I'm not exactly sure.

And I do have a uh follow-up on the PD.

Sure.

The PD uh has a number of 89, so that predates your client according to that use of the property, and then further uh south of this subject property is already zoned M.

So I'm I'm not sure what you're trying to get to by getting to go ask them to go to CI.

Well, there is a CI, I believe one of these lots is CI, and um I would ask you to look at the wording of the PD because it did say um it did have a condition that looked like it would no longer take effect, but it looked like that was more of the open space on the site, not the use of the property.

So it again that that was my interpretation, but yeah, I think it's important to actually read the conditions of that PD.

I certainly will.

I just want to emphasize that that property was zoned well before your client came into operation.

Agreed, and I would presume, and we can ask the planning commission, but I would presume that was already light industrial in the plan, probably.

That I I didn't check.

All right, we'll we'll ferret that out.

So is that the end of your comments?

That's it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much.

If you could please sign in, appreciate your comments.

All right, so seeing no one in uh else in opposition, we'll close that section of the testimony.

We'll go back to development services.

Ms.

Heinrich, can you tell me uh just give me a little if you could put back the zoning map perhaps, or we'll go back to the planning commission and ask about the uh extent of that uh LI plan category if you want to do the zoning piece or if you have it readily available that we could put up, that would be helpful.

You wanted to know about the PD to the east.

Yes, if uh let's just start with that, and if you could tell me what uses are permitted in that PD.

Sure, I can look that up if um we'll go to the planning commission and come back.

Perfect.

Ms.

Line Hand, if you could tell me uh if you have any information, the extent of that um light industrial and how long it's been there.

Um currently from the current maps I have that light industrial all the way to the heavy industrial areas to the south has been existing.

There haven't been any comprehensive plan amendments um within the area to change that, so it's been existing with our plan.

So back to the inception of the plan in 1989.

I believe so, unless there was something in this area that changed it in a recent update, but it does usually those would come up as comprehensive property.

All right, perfect.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

That didn't give you much time, Miss Heinrich, but we have to go into the archives for that.

So just no problem, no problem.

All right.

Um, but did you have any other comments you wanted to make before I move on?

No, ma'am.

All right.

Then we will go back to the applicant who has time for rebuttal and understand I just want to take a look at that zoning map.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Ryan Manassey for the record.

Um just I guess to correct the record as far as the current owner and appeared from my research that they uh purchased the property in 2020.

And one of the comments made by the opposition talked about us providing or us having fill on the property.

Now I don't know the outcome of this code enforcement violation, but on the overhead projection in 2020, the their property was cited for bringing in 100 loads of dirt and flooding the neighbor's property.

Again, I don't know the what remedy came out of this, but it's just something I found in the record for the property, and it had pictures and EPC findings and such.

So just interesting.

There was a comment made about fill being brought in.

Regarding noise, Hillsborough County ordinances as well as EPC govern the noise in Hillsborough County.

So there's I either decibel or it's unreasonable.

It's addressed through our existing codes and ordinances.

So and that would relate to anybody along this corridor, I would imagine as well.

I mean, there's some heavy industrial uses just to our west.

It looks like a some type of recycling or dump facility, et cetera.

Um as far as the buffering, you know, um the 50 feet seemed unreasonable.

There's a few factors in that.

One, we're gonna have to provide the shared access at the front, which eats up some of our lot, as well as the additional 20 feet.

There's no evidence submitted that that would actually help with noise.

Again, noise is already regulated, right?

Um that additional 20 feet is just a random request.

There's nothing to says that that would provide any more noise mitigation or et cetera.

We're already providing the 30-foot type C the by code that we have to do.

And that's the most uh strict buffering requirement the county has against uses, right?

And by that means, again, back to my presentation, that almost addresses the compatibility concerns.

R LDC has already addressed that in the buffering standards, right?

And you know, here again, the the property to the north could change ownerships tomorrow and they could change their use.

You know, right now it's for horses and they're worried about noise, but that whole corridor of Hartford is more or less industrial in nature.

Um again, I don't I don't believe there's any code violations on our property.

I'm not fully aware of the client's operation status, but again, even if there if there was or there wasn't a future, this rezoning would be the remedy for that.

Um so with that again, we just respectfully request your approval.

All right, I will note that in the staff report there is a section that the staff has recently added to address code enforcement violations, and it says none under um their research.

So and and also for the record, just to state that you're not asking for a waiver of any buffering or screening standards that are required by code.

That is correct.

All right, no variations waivers.

All right, if you could just hang tight one second while I confirm that information with Ms.

Heinrich.

Sure.

Um for which the the eight the 89 PD.

Right.

I pulled that up and it says here and looking through that it's limited to um the open an open storage yard of materials and equipment only.

No major repair or sales materials um is permitted, but major repair can occur if it's inside an enclosed structure.

And the site plane in the conditions, it requires a 20-foot buffer along the north, but the site plane shows more than 20 feet, but it doesn't give me a dimension.

I see.

So Miss Wick may be correct.

It could be 50 if she you know measured it out, but right.

I'm not able to do that.

Understood.

On this one, all right.

Thank you so much.

Uh believe and Mr.

Manasy, unless you had anything else, I'll give I'll always give you the last word.

Ryan Manassey, nothing further.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning 26-0541 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item C3, uh standard rezoning 26-0609.

The applicant is requesting a rezone property from BPO to CG.

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

All right.

Is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Good evening, Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive with the law firm of Gardner Brewer Hudson.

I just have a very brief presentation this evening.

Um the subject property here is located just east of the Waters Avenue and Manhattan intersection, and it's just over an acre in size.

Currently, it's zoned BPO.

We are proposing a rezoning to CG to kind of just broaden that menu of commercial uses that would be allowed on the site.

As you can see in the surrounding vicinity, um, there's a variety of commercial uses here, a couple different retail strip centers, a tire store, a warehouse, a fitness center, an auto repair establishment.

Um, and in fact, all of the uses that are surrounding the subject's property as it exists today are for commercial uses.

So, as you can see, that precedents already there along um this portion of the Waters Avenue corridor.

Um, planning commission and development services both found the application consistent and approvable, and we didn't receive any objections from any other department.

So that's all I have, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

No questions at this time, but thank you so much.

Uh development services.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Logan McKay Development Services, uh, application 260609.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from BPO to CG.

The property in question exists along West Waters Avenue, surrounded to the east and west by other commercial uses in varying uh varying intensity.

Excuse me.

Uh staff finds that potential uses that can be exercised under the requested commercial general zoning district, does not deviate from the existing character of the immediate area.

Site will be developed in accordance with Hillsborough County Land Development Code, addressing any potential conflicts with surrounding residential properties or wetlands uh to the south.

Staff finds proposed rezoning available and available for any questions.

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Lily Lenahan Planning Commission.

The subject site is in the residential nine and residential twelve feature land use designations.

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

The proposed rezoning is from business professional office to commercial general.

The surrounding development pattern reflects a missive mix of commercial uses of varying intensity.

The subject site is situated within an established commercial corridor characterized by a range of intensities.

The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surrounding development pattern, and therefore the proposal satisfies the intent of FLU's objective 4.4 and Flu's policy 4.4.1, which require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The subject site also satisfies the commercial locational criteria set forth in Flu's Objective 4.7.

The subject site fronts West Waters Avenue, which is classified as a county arterial and designated as a servant suburban town on the context classification map.

More than 50% of the site's frontage lies along this roadway.

Additionally, the closest qualifying intersection is West Waters Avenue and North Manhattan Avenue, a county collector roadway, which is about 500 feet from the subject site.

Based upon the above considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

No, ma'am.

You have the last word.

The applicant, if you'd like it.

Nothing further.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

With that, we'll close rezoning 26-0609 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D1, PD rezoning 25-1061.

The applicant is requesting uh to rezone property from PDO51783 and RC2 MH to Plan Development.

Chris Graham Lenard with Development Services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening, hearing officer staff.

Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South No.

451 in St.

Petersburg.

This is PD 25-1061, uh 15.6 acres in the Gibson South Shore area.

DSD supports planning commission supports no agency objections compatible with the community plan per the planning commission findings.

Located on map as shown here in South County.

Located on Sims Road at a significant Tico Easy Easement as you can see running on the mapping here.

Composed of two parcels.

You can see the Tico Easement and Sims Road.

Current appear excuse me, current approved PD is 36 single family homes.

What's at issue is a 74 space upscale, luxury RV resort, lodging use and amenities, but have high amenity uses, clubhouse, pool, pick a ball, full exercise facility, social activities, dog park, business center, billiards library, and other uses.

Just to give you a rough idea how the RV parks work and how they look, there's a few photos, a few pictures which would uh be analogous to what's proposed here.

One element that stands out is the Tico easement, which contains the large areas you can see here.

The project site is in the two parcels, one and two shown here.

There'll be no development in the TICO easement.

Uh towards the front on Sims Road is a U-Hall uh facility.

Just to give the idea of the intensity of the TICO site.

This is the TICO site looking from Sims Road.

So it's a major component of not the project, but in terms of what's involved with the project and what's driving the project.

So this is the PD plan showing the TICO easement, three areas of RVs with the amenities shown as well.

25 foot five foot type A setback along with a six-foot fence.

And amended area buffering would include a five-foot type A buffer as well.

The uh county transportation report notes a reduction of trips of 58 trips per day, 28 trip reduction in the AM33 trip reduction in the PM with this project.

The zoning you'll see is mostly residential surrounding RSC2, RC6, and AR, PD to the south.

Future land use category is R6, which by the way would allow a maximum density of 187 units.

It's commercial and TICO easement and single family to the east is single family and to the west is TICO.

Planning Commission notes areas predominantly characterized by single family area transitions to commercial uses on the south.

RV resort is residential in nature and shares similar characteristics with surrounding mobile home uses and is compatible and complementary.

Planning commission notes this would uh the site at 15.6 acres would typically allow up to 93 dwelling units.

Uh the proposed 74 RV spaces remain well below maximum potential.

And they note it is consistent, would improve the neighborhoods.

Uh it would introduce a broader range of housing, which is a major uh direction of the comprehensive plan.

DSD notes that uh it is consistent with the existing zoning development panel in the area, similar in scale intensity to surrounding single-story residential and low intensity uses, RV units being single story in nature are consistent with the height and scale of the nearby homes.

We did notice 39 persons several times, so we had a total of 156 notices, including two HOAs.

And we did do a community meeting out at the community where we had uh uh a fair amount of residents come uh come by, which is uh quite a few months ago.

So with that, we're happy to answer any questions or concerns you might have.

I just want to verify for the record that access point through the Tico easement appears to be your only opportunity for access based on the property configuration, but I just want to make sure on the record that that is permissible.

We'll have Jeremy come up and answer the question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Don't forget to sign in.

Good evening.

Good evening, hearing officer Finch, Jeremy Couch with Tampa Civil, 17937 Hunting Bow Circle.

Um, yes, ma'am.

That is our only access is through the easement.

All right, and that is permissible.

Yes, there was a subdivision that was previously fully entitled, permitted for construction.

Uh we did have uh a full approval from TICO for that access after the zoning when we redesigned for the RV park.

We'll go back and update that access with the new design.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate your testimony.

All right, then with that, we will go to development services.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Chris Grainard, uh planner with development services.

Here to present PD 25-1061.

Request to rezone approximately 15.6 acres along uh Sims Road from the existing PD and RSC2 districts to a new planned development, allowing a 74-space RV resort with associated amenities.

Uh the site currently is approved for 36 single family lots.

The applicant is requesting uh rezoning to change the existing entitlements and replace the current residential approval with a 74 space RV resort use.

The existing on-site wetland area is shown to remain undisturbed as part of the submitted plan.

The surrounding area includes single family residential zoning to the north and the east, TICO easement to the west, and a combination of commercial and residential uses to the south along Sims Road.

The plan includes 25 foot building setbacks along the north and east boundaries, along with a five-foot type A buffer, a TICO easement along the west property line and provides additional separation.

No impacts are proposed on the on-site wetlands.

Staff has determined the rezoning request to be compatible and found it approvable, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Any questions you might have?

None at this time.

Thank you, Speaker.

Thank you.

Planning Commission.

Lily Lennihan Planning Commission.

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

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the Gibson Ton Community Plan and South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

The proposed rezoning is a plan development for 74 spaces of recreational vehicle resort.

The existing development pattern surrounding the subject site is predominantly characterized by single family mobile home uses, which are located to the north, east, and west, including areas adjacent to the public communication center.

The proposed RV resort is residential in nature and shares similar characteristics with the surrounding mobile home uses, particularly in particularly in terms of scale, intensity, and occupancy patterns to further ensure compatibility and minimize potential impacts to adjacent residential properties.

The site design incorporates buffering between the amenity area and the surrounding residential residential uses.

Specifically, a five-foot type A buffer is provided along the south and west property boundaries, and a 20-foot type B buffer is provided along north and eastern property boundaries.

These buffering measures enhance visual screening and provide separation, there boy, thereby reinforcing compatibility with the established development pattern.

The proposed plan development is consistent with goal two of the Gibson Ton Community Plan, which seeks to improve and enhance neighborhoods through revitalization and the introduction of a broader range of housing options.

The development of an RV resort contributes to the diversification of housing types by providing a form of residential use that can accommodate both short-term and longer term occupants, thereby supporting the plan's objective of incorporating new rental and alternative housing opportunities.

Based upon the above considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request?

No one.

No, ma'am.

Mr.

Pressman.

Anything further?

No.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning 25-1061 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D2, major mod 25-1415.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 00-0533.

Tim Limkin with Development Services has reviewed this for development services and will provide staff findings.

This is MN 25-1415.

Just a note that the companion companies has been working its way through and was approved by the Planning Commission.

DSD supports planning commission sports, meets locational criteria.

No agency objections.

Planning commission notes as compatible with the community plan.

This is for 2.3 acres.

Uh uses proposed is 25 residential multifamily units, 5,000 square foot feet of commercial general with some restrictions, and a 100 square foot leasing office.

Restricted uses, primarily a car wash.

I'll come back and explain why that's highlighted.

Major minor vehicle repair, adult uses, use with drive-through services and lanes, bus terminals, gas stations, bars, and taverns.

So we're located in the Greater Palm River Progress Village area.

And Causeway Boulevard is running east-west, 78th is running north-south.

You can see the parcel indicated by the property appraiser.

Again, 2.3 acres of two parcels.

The vicinity uses to the north is a sea store, uh, single family church, uh, and church across the street.

And you'll see I'm noting in the smaller parcel of the project uh was a car was a car wash use.

And looking uh to the north is zone for business office zoning.

Uh there's a good buffer in the rear and a church and single family to the south.

And that's reflected, of course, in the zoning BPO to the north, CN, which is the C store, and ASC1 uses to the south and to the west.

So the current entitlement of 000533 is a car wash with four bays and ancillary S CN and BPO at two stories.

So existing PDPD has the BPO laid out and a car wash to the south, which critically abuts a residential use.

And that's why I highlighted, I think one of the most important things of the zoning is that we are removing their car wash use, which would be a butting the residential units.

And this is just to show you the positioning between the two.

You can see it's quite impacting to the residential on the south.

The proposed PD plan is laid out here and highlighted CG uses to the front, residential, and office space in the middle, and residential to the rear, and a pond in the far rear.

A butting to the rear is a 30-foot right-of-way.

Under the county transportation report, it shows a reduction of 103 trips on the 24 hour and reduction of 21 or an increase of 21 in the AM and a reduction of 5 on the PM.

The request does relief, uh does ask relief of the additional setback of a two-foot for every two-foot over 20 feet to allow proposed 40-foot multifamily building height.

Single family to the southwest is not impacted.

Additional setback is compatible with the church uses.

Also to reduce the 20-foot-wide type B buffer along the northern property line to five-foot buffer.

BPO is located to the north as a less active parking area, and is a vacant forested area currently, additionally there to northwest adjacent.

The commercial pocket does not require buffer.

And to not provide an internal 20-foot wide buffer with B-type screening between the commercial use and the multifamily.

That would be an internal buffer between the owner himself.

And also notes that there's probably 60 feet, approximately 60 feet between the proposed uses, anyways.

This is the existing car wash use.

This is some of the remaining elements that'll be cleaned up.

This is the abutting store, C store to the north that abuts.

Planning commission staff notes uh it would be similar and compatible to the surrounding areas.

Density is compatible.

We did notice 41 persons and one HOA.

So that we appreciate your attention and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

No questions at this time.

Development services.

Good evening.

Good evening, Jim Lampkin.

Development Services.

And as the applicant stated, they're proposing to develop an approximately 2.3 acre property located on the east side of South 78th Street, approximately 230 feet north of the intersection of 24th Avenue South and South 78th Street.

And the subject property is surrounded by a mix of uses, including commercial to the northwest, uh vacant business, uh professional office uh predominates to the immediate north of the subject site adjacent to the proposed uh multifamily residential pocket.

Uh the applicant does uh propose request uh relief from the additional uh setback of two feet for every foot over 20 feet to allow the proposed uh 40-foot multifamily structure.

The applicant's justification includes that the single family to the southwest is not impacted, as the commercial uh pocket building maximum is uh only 20 feet.

So therefore not uh subjected to the two for one.

As the applicant went over, they are requesting two variations uh to uh 6.06.06 buffering and screening.

The first one is the 20-foot-wide buffer with type B required along the northern property, and they're requesting to reduce it to a five-foot buffer with type A screening.

And the second is to not provide the internal 20-foot-wide buffer with type B screening between the commercial multifamily pocket.

Staff has reviewed the justification and um submitted and uh finds that they meet the general criteria.

And uh to further mitigate uh potential impacts, the applicant proposes a condition requiring an enhanced 20-foot buffer with type B screening along the southern property boundary adjacent to the single family home in the southwest of the property.

Um type B screening requires a row of evergreen shade trees, which are not less than 10 feet high at the uh time of planting, and uh so it's a slightly above the LDC would require uh nine shade trees, whereas the applicant's providing uh 12 shade trees in that location, and uh the applicant is not requesting any other variations of the land development code, and uh based upon the above staff uh finds the request supportable.

Thank you so much.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Planning commission.

Lily Lenahan with planning commission.

The subject site is located in the residential 16 feature land use category.

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

The request is a major modification to plan a plan development to allow to change the uses, allowable uses from car wash and office to residential, multifamily, office and CG uses.

The applicant has agreed to restrict the following uses from the site car wash, major and minor vehicle repair, adult uses, uses of drive-through services and lanes, bus terminal, gas stations, and bars and taverns.

The applicant has also agreed to increase the screening beyond the required land development code, uh, abutting the property line on the residential home to the south.

And given the current development pattern that consists mainly of residential with later commercial and office uses, the applicant's restriction of uses and the orientation of the commercial uses to front along 78th Street with appropriate buffering and screening from the existing residential uses.

The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood character.

Additionally, the subject site meets commercial locational criteria as the site has more than 50 percent frontage along 78th Street, which is a roadway, has a roadway classification of urban general, and the major modification to allow for mixed use development with multifamily uses, provides additional housing types in a compatible manner and a largely single family residential area.

This will provide for additional housing types as encouraged by goal two strategy 16 of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan.

Based upon the above considerations, planning commission staffs find the finds the proposed major modification consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsboro County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

No, ma'am.

All right, Mr.

Pressman.

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

Mr.

Pressman.

Yeah.

You're good.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

And with that, we'll close major modification 25-1415.

And go to the next case.

Our next application is item D3, major mod 26-0215.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 18-0296.

Chris Greenlinard has reviewed this for development services and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right.

Good evening.

Good evening, thank you.

Isabel Albert with High 1000 North Ashley Drive.

Um, so this is as you heard is a major modification uh to an existing school site.

This was originally approved in 2014 when they apply for special special use, and then in 2018 they uh rezoned it to a plan of development.

And we are today um expanding the school.

Parcel A was for 650 students, and parcel B was for an ALF for approximately 330 um beds.

When there's overall five accesses uh that were currently approved.

Now we're going through the rezoning, and the request is to replace the A left with the expansion of the school.

Obviously, we're eliminating some of those accesses.

So basically, it was just the request simple is just to the expansion of the school.

And that really kind of concludes.

We also have uh the queuing uh that we worked with staff uh and they recommended approval, so development services recommended approval, planning commission staff found consistent, and uh there's no objections from uh reviewing agencies.

So this concludes my presentation unless you have any questions.

Um I do have some questions here.

Yeah, as you know, you're aware there are a number of five uh letters in the file in opposition to this, mainly mainly pertaining to the traffic signal request.

Um, but my questions are more pointed to county staff or your transportation expert if that becomes appropriate.

Um Mr.

Henry, Steve Henry is here um as well.

I don't think I have any questions at this point, but I may in the future.

So we didn't look at that.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Development services.

Chris Grahamard, applying with development services.

Present here to present uh major modification 26-0215.

A major modification uh to a PD for a 42.8 force acre site located uh eight five five eight five East County Line Road.

The request seeks to eliminate the former parcel A and parcel B structure and consolidate the entire property into a single unified private school campus under the current approval.

Uh parcel A permit is permitted a K through 12 school with 650 students and 125,000 square feet.

Will parcel B allowed up to 200,000 square feet of nursing home, middle school office, and adult care uses.

The modification proposes to increase the maximum school building area from 125,000 to 135,000 square feet, and increase enrollment from 650 to 1,100 students, including 250 child care, 375 elementary, 200 middle, and 275 high school students.

The surrounding area is primarily composed of single family and multifamily residential neighborhoods with PD approved office zoning to the north and uh Tampa Bay water utility land to the east.

The school uh has long been established at this location, and the proposed expansion represents a natural continuation of that uh educational use.

Um solidating the site under the approved school program maintains the established development pattern and continues to serve the community's educational needs.

Um staff finds the proposed modification compatible with the surrounding development pattern as the use is longstanding.

The school serves nearby neighborhoods, and the expansion does not introduce uh newer more intensive use types beyond the existing educational uh program.

Uh staff finds the request approvable, sub to the subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Be glad to answer any questions you might have.

Um none from uh development services staff, but I do have some questions for Mr.

Ratliff if it would be appropriate at this time to go over that before we go to the planning commission.

Okay, all right, Mr.

Ratliff.

Um, as you heard then, and I'm sure you've seen there's a number of file uh letters filed in the opposition.

And the gist of them that one seemed to be the same letter many times over, um, asking about a traffic light at Royal Hampton.

And I see that on the proposed conditions, I believe it's 4.2, talks about analysis in the future if this were to be approved for a uh to determine if a signal boat would be warranted at the project access and not it doesn't call out Royal Hampton, it would be the project access for the subject property.

And so tell me for the record how that works if this were to be approved, when would that analysis take place?

Sure, for the record, James Ratliff.

Um how that works is if you know when this comes in for site subdivision, we're gonna take a look at it that and see, ask them to to likely do a what we call mini warrant analysis just to see if it's approaching the threshold where it could be warranted, and then if so, you know, do the full warrant analysis and see if the signal is warranted at their project signal.

Um but that you're correct, that is for their access and not for any other access connections.

And so if uh, and I'm just getting ahead of uh perhaps people that would speak in opposition to ask you the question if they were interested, if the citizens were interested in getting uh the analysis done for a signal at Royal Hampton, how would that occur?

Yes, actually, and I put that in my staff report.

There's a link to our ServiceNow website.

So it um and I spoke with somebody on the phone.

It does sound like um the citizens are expressing concern with an existing condition there, regardless of whether this project moves forward or not.

So we would encourage them to submit that so that that can be evaluated, you know, independent from this project to take a look at whether conditions have changed from uh when that had been previously looked at at that particular intersection.

When their project was reviewed for approval.

Correct.

Understood.

Uh, and so um, you know, again, the the current system that we had that the the old system many years ago where we would look up to five miles out and look at intersections, and that is no longer our current system uh due to you know certain changes that have been made.

So um uh we reviewed that under the you know the current regime and the rules that we have in effect today.

Thank you for that clarification.

I appreciate it.

All right, we'll turn back to the planning commission.

Lily Lennihan Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is located in the neighborhood, mixed use for future land use designation and is in the urban service area and not within the limits of any community plan.

The request is a major major modification to a plan development to increase the approved school square footage to 135,000 square feet with a maximum of 1,100 students from pre-K to 12th grade.

The existing use on the site is currently a K through 12 private school designated as public quasi public land.

The Hillsborough County border with Pasco County is to the north of the subject site across East County Line Road.

There are additional public quasi-public uses surrounding the site to the west, south, and east.

Also to the east is the Lake Bridge water treatment plant, and to the south and east, the properties owned by the Grand Hampton Community Development District.

There are also single-family residential homes and HOA/slash common property surrounding the site with multifamily uses further east.

According to Flu's policy 2.3.9, the environmentally sensitive land density calculation, density and FAR calculations for properties that include more than 25% of wetlands will comply with the calculations and requirements for determining density and intensity.

The site having a total of 27% wetlands and a total of 31.09 upland acres.

The total non-residential square footage permitted on the site is 592,497 square feet.

The total square footage proposed for this development with the expansion is 135,000 square feet, which is well within the maximum permitted intensity for the site.

Flu's objective 4.2 states that all development in the mixed use categories shall be integrated and interconnected to each other.

Specifically, flu's policy 4.2.1 declares that projects proposed in all mixed-use plan categories are required to develop with a minimum of two land uses within a single building or within single project in separate buildings.

Requirements for two land uses will apply to properties 20 acres or greater in the SMU6 and NMU4 land use categories.

While the request is eliminating the original secondary uses on the site, a mix of uses is being satisfied by proposing the K through 12 school as well as the child's daycare center, and is therefore meeting this requirement for the mixed use policy.

On the subject site, there are wetlands and significant wildlife habitats.

It's also within the well head resource protection area zone two, as well as partially within the surface water resource protection area.

The requested major modification has been reviewed by multiple agencies, including the natural resources department, the environmental services division, and the environmental protection commission.

After several of the agencies' comments were addressed by the applicant, there were no objections to the request.

Based upon the above considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, is there anyone in opposition that would like to speak to this?

I believe we do have one person online.

Okay.

I only I don't see anyone in the room, so we'll take uh is that Mr.

Berkman?

Yes, that is correct.

Can I perfect?

Yes, if you could uh give us your name and address, please.

Sure.

My name is Samuel Berkman.

I live at 20478 Beetle Tree Drive.

Mr.

Bergman, if you could activate your camera as well.

Yes, sure.

So we're going to get this woman.

Okay, I'm gonna know if you can see me.

All right, we see you.

Go ahead.

Great.

Okay.

Everyone can still see me.

I can, yes.

Okay, great.

Uh good evening, everyone.

I'm here to um express my opposition to this development um without the specified pedestrian improvements that I'm gonna so um use improvements would be pedestrian facilities along the project frontage and a pedestrian sidewalk between Royal Hampton and Northwood Lakes, and pedestrian facilities at the signal at Northwood Lakes.

So we'll go through the reasoning, and then I'll go back to my so the Hillsborough County Land Development Code, Section 60302 requires sidewalks where necessary to provide safe pedestrian circulation.

It also requires sidewalks to be constructed along the entire frontage of the development.

Um requires that they be continuous and located within the right of way within a dedicated easement.

Um the existing conditions along counting line roads are somewhat concerning.

Um there currently exists the gap in sidewalk between Royal Hampton and Northwood Lakes.

Um there is pedestrian activity present along there as shown in the traffic counts in the traffic study.

In the last five years, there have been two pedestrian crashes in the area where there is currently no sidewalk, including one incapacitating pedestrian crash that resulted in a coma, I believe.

Um there's also one bicycle crash.

Uh these were all pedestrians or bicycles on the southern side of the roads where the sidewalk is being requested.

Um, the bicycle crash actually was a person struck by the mirror of a vehicle.

So they're riding along the shoulder where they have to because there's no pedestrian facilities struck by a vehicle.

These crashes are consistent with a roadway that lacks proper pedestrian facilities and circulation.

The development will generate additional trips, including pedestrian activity.

One thing I did notice in the traffic impact studies there's no multimodal trip generation, which was very surprising to see.

I'm not sure how that was accepted without that.

The TIS also does not account for pedestrian improvements, as far as I can tell, um, or discuss any additional multimodal access concerns.

Um not the pedestrian traffic.

As an aside, the traffic impact study analysis for the queue length is extremely poor.

It doesn't account for any actual real world analysis, it just takes the number of vehicles and divides it by estimated cycle length of 120 seconds and assumes that all the vehicles will clear in that.

It doesn't account for any random arrival from the West at all.

I would request that an actual HCM analysis or a micro simulation analysis, like some traffic be done for that, because that is very concerning when you have vehicles that are stopped in the left turn lane and can't get through trying to get through.

Additionally, the code requires sidewalks where needed for pedestrian safety.

The crash history clearly demonstrates the need for that improvement in this area.

The code requires continuous sidewalk along the frontage.

I think that is that's a really not really a way to argue against that.

Um it's very clearly in the codes.

Um and also I see the county has made comments in support of filling these sidewalk apps.

I'm not sure what is become of that.

I haven't seen the most recent submittal comments.

That was the submitable comments back in earlier in the code also requires safe and accessible connections for pedestrian circulation, which in this case I would view as connections between Royal Hampton Northwood Lakes and a signalized crossing for pedestrians from the southern side of county line to the northern side.

Given the right of way on the southern side of the or on county line roads, approximately 120 feet.

This provides ample room for construction of a sidewalk.

Also, City of Tampa owns the southern sides of that road, so I'm sure they'd be willing to help out if it came to keeping pedestrians safe along.

So in summary, this development is producing significant pedestrian traffic, or is probably going to produce pedestrian traffic.

And some of those pedestrians may be coming from the east.

There already are kids that walk to and from the school from the east, and I think we should be looking to keep those kids safe when they get to school.

As I see it, this current development does not meet the requirements of the codes, and for that reason, I'm an opposition to this development, unless there are pedestrian improvements made.

Mr.

Bergman, does that complete your comments?

Yes.

All right, let me ask you a couple of questions just real quick before you go.

Do you have some sort of uh educational or um professional background in transportation?

Yes in the transportation field.

Yes, I'm a traffic study reviewer for the DO2.

Can you say that again?

I'm sorry.

I'm a traffic impact study reviewer for the DO2.

Okay, all right, thank you.

And it seems just to just to summarize your comments.

Your your main concern is the pedestrian impact of this project and the lack of the gaps of sidewalks in the area.

Correct.

And you pointed to gaps between Royal Hampton and Northward Palms Boulevard.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yes.

And the frontage of the property, um, which I believe they'll have to include sidewalks on, and a signalized pedestrian crossing at Northwood Lakes Blue.

Okay, perfect.

All right, those are my only questions.

Thank you for uh logging in.

I appreciate it.

All right.

Seeing no one else in opposition, just want to make sure that there's no one else to speak in opposition before I move on.

I don't see anyone.

We'll close that portion of the hearing.

Uh we'll go back to development services.

Mr.

Ratliff, do you have any comments based on uh Mr.

Berkman's presentation?

Sure.

Yeah, he um spoke about the lack of a multimodal trip generation in our study.

That is not a part of our methodology.

We we don't routinely study for that.

So you know this study was prepared in accordance with the requirements that's our in the development review procedures manual.

Um there was a condition that I put in there to address the sidewalk um gap along the project's frontage that will need to be filled in either with the sidewalk or boardwalk, depending on you know how the environmental review uh shakes out and what the county's willing to approve, but there will need to be some kind of a pedestrian um facility there along their front edge.

The code is very clear though that uh a developer's requirement to install sidewalk is only along their project front edge.

Um that's not to say that there aren't gaps and that you know those gaps shouldn't be filled in at that point, but the the substandard road does not you know, based on how we interpret the code, substandard road refers to other elements of the roadway, the ability to accommodate sidewalks, certainly, but not the developer's requirement to do them except along their front edge.

So in this case, the road was considered substandard, um, but the county engineer found an administrative variance approvable.

Um, and so again, but just to make it clear, the lack of sidewalks is not something in and of itself that would make a road substandard because that's addressed elsewhere in the code.

So that's how we look at that.

Thank you.

And and just to further that point, uh your question or your response to it, rather, is they have the the property owner has control over their property, but not off-site in terms of the installation of sidewalks and so forth.

Correct.

And even if there was sufficient right-of-way to install that, the code is is clear about where the developer's responsibility lies.

So somebody can, you know, if anybody wants to build more sidewalk, we're always happy to take that, but in terms of what we can require, um, you know, we go by what the land development code says, which is boundary to boundary along the front end job.

On their property front.

Correct.

And then just uh last but not least, I would say I think um the speaker had uh you know discussed about the queue length that that formula that's in place is in the land development code, and that was developed.

We do apply that to all schools in the the same manner for for private or charter schools uh in the land development code.

So I wasn't exactly sure what the concern with the Q formula was, but um you know I would just point out that that's how we we consistently apply that formula to all schools.

And the the queuing uh study that's been submitted is in accordance with that formula.

Correct.

All right, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

All right, Miss Heinrich, do you have any other comments?

No, ma'am.

All right, thank you so much.

Then uh we will go back to the applicant for rebuttal.

Thank you.

This is the model uh basically Mr.

Ratliff answered all the questions that needed to be answered.

Um, that we are going to be responsible for uh building our sidewalk on our property per the code.

And um, so thank you for uh answering that.

Uh again, I have uh Mr.

Steve Henry with me if you have any further questions.

I don't think so.

Uh with your testimony that that that can uh sidewalk on your property will be continuous.

All right.

All right, that was it.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right, then with that, we will close major modification 26-0215 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D4, PD rezoning 26-0328.

The applicant is requesting a rezone property from CN to play development.

Sam Ball with development services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

All right, is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Good evening.

Zoning Master Finch.

My name is Akoy Morgan, uh representing Roxala Construction and Development in regards to uh property that is on the south side of Dr.

Marlowe Keene Boulevard between North 58th Street and Caraway.

Could you give us your address, please too, for the record?

The address in specific is 5600 and 5602 East Dr.

Marlowe King Boulevard.

Thank you so much.

So this property sits in a uh, if you would, uh a delicious gumbo of uh elements, which is comprised of churches, single family homes, duplexes, McDonald's, crab hoot, seafood, smoke mullet, industrial as well as an actual tire shop.

This community has been absent of development of new family homes for underserved community.

This property represents an opportunity for us to develop on these two parcels, which comprise of 0.514 acres, three beautiful town homes on each side, which would total a total of six units, which is desperately needed in this community that has been blighted and underserved for quite a long time.

Our goal is to take this opportunity to change from a CN use to a plan development, which would give us of this opportunity to create this for this well-deserved community.

All right.

It does.

Thank you so much.

I don't have any questions at this time.

Don't forget to sign in with the clerk's office.

Thank you.

Development services.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services.

The applicant is requesting to rezone a 0.1514 acres from a commercial neighborhood to plan development to accommodate.

The development of two triplex buildings, which would consist of six uh multifamily units.

Uh the Board of County Commissioners approved a right-of-way petition B 26004 on April 7th, which eliminated an internal alley within the site.

The subject property is located approximately 2,000 feet west of uh East Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and the I-4 intersection along the southern side of Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Um the properties to the north of uh East Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard are developed for Union Hall and auto sales repair and customization business and a single family residence with open storage.

Uh the properties in the middle immediate vicinity to the east west and south are primarily developed for single family use.

However, the adjoining properties to the south include vacant land for open storage and a in a duplex.

Uh other uses in the area include warehouse and distribution centers to the east and west, a 9.4 acre cemetery, a religious institution, a hotel, and a quick service restaurant with um drive-through facilities.

Staff finds that the proposed residential use is less intense than the permitted commercial neighborhood uh zoning district, and that the multifamily use provides a transition between commercial uses to the north of Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

and the existing residential immediately to the south east and west.

Uh the proposed proposal does not exceed the future land use category and land development code required buffering and screening will be uh provided along the south side.

Uh if approved, the PDE would allow up to six multifamily dwellings at a density of 11.67 units per acre.

The maximum building height of 30 feet is lower than uh permitted in single family and two family and multi-uh family districts permitting a density of 12 units or less, and the project will comply with the two to one setback uh requirement for buildings that were 20 feet tall.

Uh, based on the zoning and development pattern in the area staff finds proposed, and fill use and design standards compatible with single family and duplex development in the area and recommends approval as subject to conditions.

Um that concludes my presentation if you have any questions.

I just have a quick question to confirm the height.

There's just a a quick um discrepancy.

The conditions that I see say 35, but the staff your staff report narrative and the site plan say 30.

So I just want to clarify that.

30 feet for the height, the maximum height.

Um believe the site plan has 30 feet on the height.

It does.

It does, but the conditions that I'm looking at on page nine of 13, say 35.

Okay.

Yeah, that it that should be 30.

It should be 30.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

All right.

Then that was my only question.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Lily Lennihan with Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is located in the residential 12 future land use category.

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

The request is for a plan development to develop six dwelling units.

The character of the existing development in the area is a mix of residential and commercial with single family residential being heavily prominent.

The request to develop six multifamily town homes on this site would maintain the residential pattern that currently exists within the vicinity of the site.

The site is surrounded on all sides by the residential 12 future land use category and only abuts residential uses and roadways.

The roadway segment between North 50th Street and the I-4 Exchange, located south of East Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard, is especially residential in nature.

Given the site's location within within this established residential area, the proposed development of six town home units aligns with and complements the surrounding land use pattern.

The East Lake Orient Park Community Plan has a goal that focuses on creating housing opportunities.

The plan supports affordable housing opportunities that accommodate a diverse population and income levels and promote home ownership.

While the residential dwelling units being proposed on this site are not designated officially as affordable housing, they still bring opportunities for a diversity of home options for the people within the community.

Based upon the above considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition.

No one.

All right, Miss Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

All right.

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

All right, thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Then we'll close rezoning uh PD 26-0328 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D5, PD 26-0349.

The applicant is requesting rezoning from ARPD 250371 to a new plan development.

Jared Folen with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening, Cammy Corbett with a law firm of Hill Ward in Henderson, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3700.

Um, this PD is, although it's a new PD because we're adding property.

Um it is actually a PD you've probably seen several times before.

It's known as the Council Growers uh PD, or that's what it was called previously, and so we've kept that name.

Essentially, it's located in Waiwama.

It was formerly WVR2 and was rezoned under that land use category, subsequently changed to residential four, and now uh rezoned uh based on the residential four.

Again, this is originally approved in September 2025.

We've amended again in November, and we're amending now to add property.

As you can see on this slide, we're adding two parcels that were in what was kind of a notch that was there before that was out always outside of the WVR2, and so it didn't get included in any of our applications, and because it was never W VR2, it didn't get included in the county's application.

So we had to file for a comprehensive plan amendment to change those parcels to res for and then actually the county has undertaken a publicly initiated amendment to get the other parcels into the urban service boundary and make them res four.

But we are not increasing the entitlements or changing the density as a result.

And then you can see this is the future land use map.

It's kind of what I went up, just went over.

Um, this is the general development plan.

We still have the multi-use trail, we still have the 10-foot sidewalk, we still have the 14-acre elementary school, still doing the roundabouts and still doing the regional improvements.

This is an exhibit that we show based on the transportation improvements that are required for this particular development.

And uh we are revising some of the conditions, and essentially they're all just clarification conditions.

They don't materially change what was previously approved.

And Steve Henry's here if you have any questions regarding any of those changes and conditions related to transportation.

Uh we have no objections from any reviewing agencies, and everyone has found us consistent and compatible.

And I'm here to answer any questions, should you have any.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Planning uh development services.

Good evening.

Good evening, Jared Fallon with development services.

This is a request to rezone approximately six six hundred and forty-eight point eight acres from PD and AR to a new PD to add an additional 13.1 acres of land to an existing PD zoning.

The conditions previously approved in PRS 251373 will be transferred to this new PD, but with amendments to transportation conditions.

The edit area includes two residential lots adjacent to the south and a long narrow strip located in the middle of the site.

The addition of land to the PD allows the northern and southern development areas to be joined together.

As a result, the configuration of internal roadways of the site have been modified.

These changes include a new north-south collector road, which directly connects Saffold Road to the Barrie Grove Boulevard extension.

And a roundabout has been added to this at this intersection point intersection point.

Other changes include an additional access connection along the western PD boundary.

Additionally, new and revised design exceptions requests have been submitted.

And lastly, given the proposed combination of the northern and southern development areas, the applicant is proposing to modify certain phasing requirements which govern when certain improvements are required to be completed.

More information on these changes can be found in transportation staff report.

Staff does not have any compatibility concerns with the proposal and finds the proposal approval.

Subject conditions.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Planning Commission.

Lily Lennihan, Planning Commission staff.

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

It is in the urban service area and within the limits of the South Shore Airwide Systems Plan and Wymama Village Community Plan.

The request is a plan development to add an additional 13.1 acres to an existing plan development with no changes to the previously approved options and no increase in density or intensity.

The current area is largely residential with natural and agricultural uses to the east, west, and south of the site.

The residential uses are all single family developments.

The proposed plan development will provide single-family housing within a predominantly residential and agricultural area.

The addition of homes within the area and the placement of the townhome style homes north away from the edge of the urban service area and existing agricultural uses provides a gradual transition of density and intensity within the proposed development area.

Additionally, the proposed road provides additional connectivity in the area while also preserving the existing wetlands and natural surface waters located on the site.

The proposed rezoning increases the type of housing allowed on the subject site as well as allows for housing on a smaller lot size, which can be more affordable for the residents in the Wimala Village area and clusters residential development on land suitable for economic development without impacting the existing natural and agricultural uses in the area.

This proposed amendment uh this proposed rezoning meets the intent of the South Shore Airwide Systems Community Plan Goal 1 and Y Mama Village Plan Goal 5 based upon the above considerations.

Planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition.

No one.

Miss Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

Ms.

Corbett.

Last word.

All right.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning PD 26-0349 and go to the next case.

Our next application is um item D6, PD 26-0431.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from PD 20-0102 and RDC 12 to a new plan development.

Jared Follen with development services will provide staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Good evening.

Ann Pollock with Trentum Law 200 Central Avenue representing the applicant tonight.

Tonight we are requesting a uh small mixed-use development of 16 multifamily dwelling units and 3,500 square feet of business professional office.

The property is a two and a quarter acre vacant uh parcel in Seffner south of Martin Luther King, west of Lemon Avenue.

Uh combined uh PD and RDC 12 zoning currently and in the Res9 future land use.

Would you have a concurrent PRS running with this that will be heard before the board when this goes, and I'll explain about that.

So just to give a little background, initially the subject property and the properties to the north were owned by the same owner.

The owner sold the parcels to the north for retail development in 2018-2021 for a Wawa and an Aldi store.

And the seller retained the subject property.

For some reason, I don't really know the history.

The seller allowed the Aldi developer to use about half an acre portion of the subject property for access, and that piece of property was included in the 2020 zoning that was done for the grocery store.

The access rights, which were memorialized in private cross-access agreements, were also put into the PD.

The Aldi developer constructed the roadway between the two properties as part of their development.

They didn't actually put any sidewalks to the west side, which is something we're doing now.

But when the seller sold the subject property to my client, we realized kind of the difficulty created by the situation.

Although we were going to be required to maintain the access so that everyone could use it.

So fortunately, the acreage of the yellow area did not affect the Aldi development.

They didn't need that for their FAR.

So they were agreeable to us moving it out of the PD.

So we have a simultaneous PRS running that is going to move the property from that PD to this PD.

And this PD now provides conditions to ensure that that access continues.

But it allows the two properties to continue to develop on their own in compliance with the code while sharing the benefit of the access and the buffering.

Again, there are multiple existing access easements and other easements between the property and this PD will add a sidewalk along the north side of this property to the west.

And the sidewalk itself is a kind of a tricky issue due to the site conditions.

So we are requesting a variation to allow a five-foot sidewalk within that 20-foot northern buffer that was approved as part of the other PD and would be included in this one.

Again, there is no existing pedestrian connectivity to the west, but because of the terrain there, there is no real other option for the sidewalk.

If you look at that aerial, you can see the road, and basically on all sides of it are deep depressions, steep slopes for stormwater ponds.

And because the road was built where it was, and there's really no extra room other than in that landscape buffer, that's where we need to put it.

Fortunately, no negative impacts.

We're gonna put the required landscaping in it anyway, and the county has asked for a minimum 10-foot area to ensure that there is sufficient room to put that landscaping in, and that's a condition of the approval, which we're agreeable to.

Compatible with the surrounding area, it really is like a small mixed-use development that meets the infill intent of the comp plan.

It's tucked in between a multifamily uh development to the south and the office and retail to the north.

Um agrees that it's compatible, and in fact uh is one of the best planning commission staff reports I think I've ever gotten, so I'm very happy with it.

Um so to the north is the Aldi and the Wawa, um, and we have that cross access.

The northwest is a office development zone BPO, to the south is the apartments.

Uh and really this will provide like a step down in intensity between the apartments and the commercial to the north because we've put the residential closer to the apartments and the offices closer to the commercial.

Lemon Avenue dead ends at our property, so um traffic from our development will not continue further towards those apartments or the single family that you can see in the southeast side.

Uh, there is a single family parcel to the east, but we will be providing buffering to code.

No environmentally sensitive areas or wetlands, um, and we think this really provides a good residential and neighborhood office use that will benefit everybody in the area.

Um, it is consistent with the comp plan.

As I said, the planning commission agrees meets uh commercial location criteria, it meets the Sephner Mango community plan requirements, neighborhood protection policies, um, and is ensuring pedestrian connectivity with the sidewalks.

Um lastly, transportation uh really shouldn't be a large trip increase with this development.

We have the access via the Lemon Avenue uh driveway.

Cross access to the north parcels will remain as part of the conditions, um, the new sidewalk which I mentioned, and um an administrative variance given that the existing road that we are not changing is too close to the small residential driveway across the street on Lemon.

Uh but county has found it approvable to uh that administrative variance.

So uh with that um we would respectfully request your recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just have a couple of questions.

What what in in my reviewing this uh in anticipation of the hearing, what would seem like a pretty straightforward request is very complicated by this access, this shared access easement and so forth.

So I appreciate the background of going through the property to the north.

Um and so let me just confirm, let me go through the steps.

So let me confirm the variation.

The variation is to put a sidewalk in a buffer.

That's what you're asking.

That's correct.

Okay.

And I think what what took me a while to figure out was that the the buffer isn't labeled on your site plan that I could tell.

And so it took me a minute to find the shared access facility, obviously that's there.

And then these easements are labeled by numbers.

It looks like 303 and 301, and that the sidewalk will actually go through 303.

So that's a landscape easement.

It's all within the same uh document.

It's all within the same easement that's been recorded.

Um, and there is a legend on the site plan.

But the the that number is a landscape easement that was required because as part of the 2020 zoning, they were required to put in um the landscaping, and so therefore there needed to be an easement to ensure that the owner of our property would maintain the existence of that landscape easement.

So that is something that we're gonna have to adjust on the private side once this gets approved.

But that's what it's for.

But the genesis of that is the the PD from the north.

That's how this all started.

Okay.

And I do see note 23 on your plan that talks about the five-foot sidewalk and so forth.

So I believe with that, that's the end of my question.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Don't forget to sign in.

Development services.

Good evening again.

Jared Vaughn with Development Services.

So this is a request to rezone a site from RDC 12 and plan development to a new plan development to allow 16 multifamily dwellings at nine dwelling units per acre and 3,500 square feet of professional office uses, according to a floor area ratio of 0.14.

The subject site is located in an area between non-residential and residential uses and is adjacent to a grocery store and convenience store to the north and a multifamily apartment to the south.

A single family residential neighborhood also exists to the southwest across Lemon Avenue.

I'm sorry, that's southeast.

The site plan depicts the multifamily to the south portion of the property and the office uses the north portion.

The max height of the development will be 30 feet and has been and it has been requested the two to one step requirement not be applied.

Staff finds no issues with this request as the multifamily development to the south built at a higher is built at a higher density and is allowed a height of 35 feet that also is not required to abide by the two to one setback.

Required buffer and screening is provided on the site.

This includes a 20-foot type B buffer, which will run along the south of the existing shared access drive, which runs along the northern portion of the property.

The applicant is proposed a variation to allow five-foot sidewalk to be built parallel with this buffer area.

Staff supports this variation as it will allow sidewalks to be built along the shared access drive.

And additionally, a condition is concluded to require at least 10 feet of the buffer area to be uninterrupted for required plantings.

Overall, we find this proposal to be appropriate for the site and find an approval.

Happy answering questions.

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Request is for plan development to allow six type 16 multifamily units and approximately 3,500 square feet of business professional office uses.

The subject site is located within the urban service area.

We're pursuing to objective 1.1 of the future land use section.

A minimum of 80% of the county's population growth is intended to be directed.

The purpose purpose of concentrating growth within the urban service area is to promote efficient pro efficient provision of public facilities and services, encourage compact development patterns, and discourage urban sprawl.

The proposed development is consistent with this growth management objective and represents an efficient use of existing infrastructure and services.

And the Safner Mango community plan promotes redevelopment and the enhancement of community character while maintaining a hometown atmosphere.

Goal three of the Software Mango community plan directs commercial and office development to major corridors such as U.S.

92 and Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard.

The subject is located along Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard within the targeted corridor between Interstate 75 and County Road 579, also known as Mango Road, where office and limited commercial uses are encouraged.

Based on upon the above considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

No, ma'am.

All right, Miss Pollock, you have the last word?

Okay.

All right.

Then with that, we'll close rezoning PD 26-0431.

Um we have several cases to go.

I'm going to take a break just a little bit early, so kind of split this up.

So if you can by the clock on the wall, we'll just take five minutes.

If you could be back at um 750, we'll say to some round number.

We'll adjourn for five minutes.

Thank you.

Don't be camera side, right?

All right, welcome back, everyone.

We are ready to resume the April 27th, 2026 zoning hearing, master hearing.

So we left off with agenda item D7.

So Ms.

Heinrich, if you could call the next case.

Sure.

Next application is item D7, Major Mod 26-0432.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 21-0701.

James Baker with Development Services has reviewed this and will provide staff findings.

All right, thank you.

Before you start, I neglected to say it appears that a number of people have walked into the room.

And so let me, if you have not been sworn in and you plan to speak tonight, if you could please stand and raise your right hand.

And let me swear you in your for this case or the rest of the agenda.

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

Thank you so much.

I apologize.

Please continue.

Good evening.

Justina Gale with Forward Planning and Design.

And my address is 514 Howell Street, Dunedin, Florida.

The project site is approximately 2.53 acres, located on the southwest corner of Walker Road and U.S.

Highway 301.

The future land use category is residential four, and it is currently zoned as planned development with the most recently modified modification done in 2023.

The current approval is PD, and the modification allowed for two options.

Option one was 8,500 square feet for a health practitioner's office, and option two was 12,002 square feet for health practitioner office or um and uh 6,300 square feet for a daycare.

The proposed request is to modify the existing PD.

Um the proposed use is to accommodate development consisting of 17,650 square feet of business professional office uses, which will include up to a maximum of 10,000 square feet of medical office clinic.

There is AR located to the east and west, and to the north is business professional office.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in with the clerk's office.

Development services.

Highway 301 is business professional office, also known as BPO.

Previously approved conditions regarding compatibility as hours of operation, enhanced screening, and drive throughs will remain.

Also, the applicant has proposed to restrict certain uses permitted in the BPO district based on the adjacent zonings and uses identified above in the report.

Staff finds the proposed PD zoning district compatible with existing zoning districts and development pattern in the area.

Based upon the considerations, staff finds the conditions approval and subject to conditions.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Planning commission.

Billy Lennihan with Planning Commission staff.

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

It is in the urban service area within the limits of the Tenot Community Plan.

The request is for a major modification to a plan development to modify the proposed uses to accommodate development consisting of up to 17,650 square feet of business professional office uses, including up to a maximum of 10,000 square feet of medical office or clinic with restrictions.

The surrounding land uses exhibit a mix of residential and non-residential development.

To the north are vacant parcels like commercial uses and single family residences.

To the east are vacant lands, single family residential uses with two family and multifamily residential development located to the southeast.

Additional single family residential uses are located to the south and west of the site.

Mobile home parks are present to the west to the north and further east across Williams Road.

This mix of land use demonstrates an established pattern of varied but complementary development in the surrounding area.

The subject site satisfies the commercial locational criteria set forth in Flu's Objective 4.7.

The subject site fronts U.S.

Highway 301, which is classified as a state principal arterial and um designated as a suburban commercial roadway on the contacts classification map.

More than 50% of the site's frontage lies along this roadway.

Objective 4.4 and its associated policies require new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and that development or redevelopment should be integrated with adjacent land uses.

The project includes a proposed 20-foot type B buffer along the western and southern boundaries and an eight-foot buffer along the northern and eastern boundaries.

In addition, the plan provides for building setbacks of 30 feet along the northern and eastern sides and 20 feet along the western and southern side.

The subject site lies within the boundaries of the Tenot community plan.

However, the plan does not contain any specific goals, objectives, or policies that are applicable to this proposed request.

Based upon the above considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

All right.

Ms.

Heinrich, anything else?

No, ma'am.

Go back to the applicant.

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

Okay, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close major modification 26-0432 and go to the next case.

Our next application is item D8, PD 26-0431.

The applicant is requesting a rezoning from AIM plane development and RSC6 MH to a new plane development.

CM Ball has reviewed this for development services and provide staff findings.

And also to note this is a companion traveling with a companion CPA.

We were notified today that that CPA date may be changed.

So we just wanted to let anyone in the audience know about that.

And of course, the clerk will send out required notices for that hearing to all parties of record.

So they will be aware of it.

Okay, thank you.

Are you aware of that revised date?

I I have not been told yet.

No.

Okay.

But that doesn't affect the date of my recommendation for this zoning matter.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

All right, is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Good evening, hearing Master Finch.

Um, Vanette Gadelia with strings we for Miller, 401 East Jackson Street, attorney for the applicant, the Muse Company.

Um, a couple of housekeeping items.

We tried to file some documents on Friday, missed the deadline Thursday.

So we do have a project narrative updated just to reflect the accurate um acreage alliance with what staff has in its um its staff report, and then I also will put the resumes in for experts who are gonna hear from tonight.

We have three experts.

Uh we think we have about 20 minutes of presentation if you don't mind.

The application is uh for a significant area, but I want to make sure we get a little bit of context, so we're asking for 20 minutes if that works.

I'll allow additional time.

If you can keep it to 15, that would be bonus points.

All right, thank you.

Um, okay.

There we go.

So the request is for a rezoning of uh 14 12 acres to plan development.

We are in fact already a planned development.

Um we are adding a total of I think um 129.7 acres to the boundary of the existing PD, but because of the scope of that, this requires us to do a new PD application.

Um, approximately 50 acres of that 129.7 acres are burden sunken islands that you will see here in the bay uh to the west there of the project site, the ESTAC extension site and the E stack are east of US 41 on the figure that's in front of you.

As mentioned by development services, there are several applications traveling with us we zoning requests, and you're gonna hear some from our experts on these.

So I want to make sure I just point this out.

It's in development services application, it's in the planning commission staff report, but we have amendments to two DRIs also traveling with us.

DRI 242, which applies to that ESTAC extension and the rest of the property east of 41, is important because the first condition, PD condition, is for strict compliance with the requirement of that GRI, and so you'll have some discussion from one of our experts on that point.

Also, a common plan amendment for burden sunken islands to go to natural preservation is traveling with this.

Development services just referenced to that.

There'll be a date identified for that hearing.

We also have right of way vacations being proposed for Jensen and Burt's Road that are being incorporated into the PD.

No changes are proposed to site access, no changes to traffic, but as properties being incorporated into the PD, we're taking care of those vacation issues.

You're going to be hearing from three experts tonight.

Uh, Shelley Thornton, Mosaic Director of Land Use Permitting, Tina Provenzano, who's Mosaic Senior Director of Environmental, and finally from Tinablad, who is our AICP planner expert.

And with that, I will allow Shelley to come on up.

We have several other folks here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening, here you master finch.

My name is Shelley Thornton.

I'm the director of Lane Use Permitting for Mosaic, and my business address is 13830 Circa Crossing Drive, Lithia, Florida 33547.

So Mosaic is a Fortune 500 company that's headquartered in Tampa.

And in 2025, uh phosphate was declared a decritical mineral.

The critical minerals list identified the uh identifies minerals that are essential for national security, economic stability, and supply chain resilience.

And phosphate was specifically listed due to the importance for food security, and mosaic is the United States' largest supplier of phosphate crop nutrients, supplied approximately 48% of the country's annual requirements.

Phosphorate crop nutrients are critical to achieving the crop yields necessary to meet national and global demands, and Riverview alone produces approximately 18% of phosphate fertilizer used in the North America market.

Our riverview facility employs approximately 350 employees and approximately 300 in the state of Florida.

3,000, excuse me.

So the review facility opened in 1924 and shown here on the map.

Thank you.

The review plant is shown in blue.

Our uh closed stack is to the north of that and the gray and no longer accept gypsum, and then we have the existing e stack on east side of highway 41.

We use pipelines under 41 to transport all materials between the plant and the e stack, and we're not requesting any changes to that existing infrastructure.

We are requesting a PD rezoning to laterally extend the E stack to provide additional storage of gypsum for approximately 16 years to continue our plant operations there.

We are requesting to add approximately 127 acres to the PD boundary for a total PD acreage of just over 1,400 acres.

The ESE, the E stack extension includes 178.5 acres of new land disturbance onto the existing E stack.

With that, we will be incorporating approximately 160 acres of the existing stack into that project area.

And by incorporating that existing stack, it allows us to get the 16 additional years of storage.

Without if we did a standalone stack, it would be approximately 350 acres.

So the area currently is highly developed, and the land is largely converted to industrial recreational facilities as well as the racing facilities and auto salvage yards.

The ESE will impact approximately 29 and a half low quality wetlands and streams, and the impacts will be compensated through the purchase of mitigation bank credits, was a commonly acceptable form of compensatory mitigation.

Details of the ESTAC extension have been directly coordinated with EPC.

We did an extensive review of several off-site locations for this project.

We found seven possible locations, and the analysis included a comparison of wetlands, streams, proximity to plant, as well as location and landscape, and none of those were able to meet our storage requirements of 16 years.

The areas surrounding the E stack on the east and south side are located with an existing declaration of restrictions.

And because of that and other logistical concerns, we are not able to also move the E stack lateral extension to those areas.

So these images here are represent examples of the typical aquatic systems that are going to be impacted with this project.

What you'll notice is that these symptoms systems do not resemble natural natural functioning streams or wetlands.

The hydrology has been altered, vegetation is limited, and the connectivity to the surrounding habitat is poor.

While these functions, these features meet regulatory definitions, there is very little resiliency or functional value remaining in these areas.

North Archie Creek existing creek is pictured here, and it is ditched throughout the project boundary and beyond, and it has been ditched since the mid-1900s.

It was originally rerouted in 1984, and this is an opportunity for us to make greater improvements to that system based on the latest technology, and it will be protected in perpetuity with the conservation easement.

Habitat quality is low due to the unstable banks and channel.

There's a lack of a floodplain, and there's lots of invasive species.

The creek has an existing habitat assessment score of 70 out of 160, which means it's functioning at an approximate 48% level.

The engineered redesign, which is shown here, will allow for adequate conveyance with the addition of freshwater wetlands on additional to each side of the bankfold channel that will help provide uh habitat as well as additional water quality in the stream itself.

The goal here isn't just replacement but also improvement.

This restored stream is expected to provide greater habitat value, better hydrologic function, and stronger long-term stability than the features being impacted.

So we are also proposing to utilize the flex provision of the light industrial future land use category for approximately 19.3 acres, and therefore mending the stack buffer declaration of restrictions.

And those two areas are outlined in black on the west side of the stack within that blue line there.

We are proposing to replace those 19.3 acres within the DOR with approximately 347 acres of land owned by Mosaic south of the Allafa River with a conservation easement, and all of this is reflected in PDE condition 19.

This exhibit shows the location of that conservation easement.

So it was south of our plant site, south of the Allifire River, but it does border the bay, and it's to the east of Sunken and Bird Islands.

The conservation easement will permanently protect approximately 347 acres.

It's an opportunity for us to pair conservation easements with String mitigation areas.

Since the resources being impacted as part of this request are already degraded and limited in ecological function, the mitigation strategy is intentionally robust and multi-layered.

We viewed it as a whole, and this approach simply doesn't replace the impacts of the wetlands that were impacted.

It results in a stronger, more resilient ecological systems that are permanently protected.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please sign in.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Madam Hearing Master.

My name is Santino Provenzano with Mosaic.

My business address is 13830 Circa Crossing Drive.

I'd like to just present some information tonight regarding fossil gypsum management, more specifically, state, federal, and local regulation and how those regulations relate to how the system is operated and the oversight that these agencies conduct on those operations.

So at the federal level, we have a couple of levels of regulation that are, I think, important and relevant.

The first that I wanted to point out is what uh is referred to as the NESHAP.

And I think this is an important point to make early in the presentation.

Um, as the NESHAP is the driving regulation that requires the stacking of phosphody gypsum in a stack.

So whether or not there are other practical ways to manage phosphody gypsum, maybe in other parts of the world, we are obligated under federal law to store and manage phospho gypsum in a stack system.

Beyond the federal level, at the state level, there are multiple rules governing the operation maintenance inspection of phosphody gypsum stack systems, specifically the phosphody gypsum management rule at 62673.

Also the supporting rules at DEP regarding technical standards around dams and dikes, groundwater standards, surface water standards, and other standards related to wastewater and stormwater management during and after operation of the stack.

And then finally, additional overlap in the form of county regulation through the development of regional impact 242, which covers the stack operations, the development of regional impact 68, which covers the plan operations, and this plan development rezoning that we're discussing tonight.

So dipping a little bit uh further down into the details, I wanted to just highlight um maybe some of the scope of each of those regulations, the controls that are used to meet those regulations, and some of the assurance activities that happen both internally at Mosaic and by the regulators.

So, first on the core FDEP phosphogy management program.

Um, you'll note here that the uh regulations require uh professional engineering design and professional engineering oversight of the design installation operations and inspection uh of those systems.

Um there are also a numerous technical standards in in that rule related to the environmental protection elements of the design, including liners, leachate collection systems, and stormwater controls.

Finally, uh the phosphogy gypsum rule also has robust standards for inspections.

Mosaic is obligated under those rules to inspect the facility on a daily basis, um, and we also do additional inspections with our civil engineering staff on a weekly basis and an annual third-party professional engineer inspection.

Um to some of the supporting regulations, just highlighting uh again those third party inspections of the dike system, um, the liners, um, and in addition, uh the maintenance of what we call minimum freeboard and surge capacity in the system.

So the regulations for GIP stack operations require us to constantly monitor and maintain adequate surge capacity so that the system can be safely operated during heavy rainfall events and tropical storms.

And then finally, at the county level, um just pointing out here that the development of the planned development district shall proceed in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of DRI 242, and what the DRA does, it takes a lot of those state requirements and incorporates those into the DRI, meaning that the county will have direct regulatory oversight and regulatory authority over the ongoing operation of the stack.

Don't forget to sign in.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Madam Hearing Master, Tina Eckblad.

Um, for the record, I'm principal at Sage Entitlements.

My business address is 8404 Deepwater Creek in Panama City Beach, Florida.

Um, you heard a little bit from Ms.

Thornton about the industrial future land use flex.

I I want to start there with some of the planning related details.

Um we are seeking to take the existing light industrial future land use and kind of spread it over the existing natural preservation areas for approximately 19 acres.

Um this is to allow those light industrial zoning uses to occur and have approvals from the county prior to the agency permits that would approve those impacts and associated mitigation.

We do agree with the conditions set forth by the planning commission supporting this flex, which includes that, as you've heard the plan development will proceed in that is the end of 15 minutes.

So if we could hold tier 20 to wrap this up, that would be perfect.

Please continue.

Okay.

Um we do agree with the planning commission's um conditions, which includes, as you've heard, maintaining strict compliance of the plan development with the DRI development order as well as the general site plan and land use conditions.

Um, but also we do agree to filing a future land use map amendment to address these areas within 60 days of the last permit approval and then recording that amended declaration of restrictions.

We have met the required findings of policy 2.2.23 for the flex to occur.

This area is obviously part of a plan development.

It is not greater than 500 feet from the existing land use boundary.

It has not been part of a flex previously and is not prohibited by any applicable community plans.

Um because this is light industrial, there is no density increase in the coastal high hazard area, and the extension of public infrastructure is not necessary to support the request.

Um, this particular area is not adjacent to residential or community facilities.

With regard to compatibility, as Ms.

Thornton explained, the extension is along the western portion of the existing stack, which is adjacent to existing industrial and manufacturing uses.

Um there was a visual impact assessment completed and is part of the record demonstrating that the maintenance of the existing height standards and the view from these existing surrounding uses will not be negatively impacted.

There will be a planting plan and other visual management procedures.

And then from the perspective of the northeast and south, there is an existing stack buffer that will remain in place.

These the surrounding residential, commercial, and community facilities areas will continue to have the view of that mature landscaping that was planted either 30 or more years ago with the initial condition, or there was enhanced plantings done in 2003.

There is a management report that is filed annually regarding the visual perspective from 24 key areas.

That management plan for this year and in the few in the future notes that the mature landscaping will effectively screen and improve the visual landscape.

We did have a variation that was filed for the enhanced buffer.

Typically, in an industrial site, a 30-foot um landscape buffer with a wall is required.

We are exceeding that dimension.

We have asked to eliminate the wall again due to that mature landscaping, and we have incorporated that buffer into the general site plan, ensuring that that remains in the future.

And then with regard to the East Stack extension, the North Archie Creek reroute will again provide that um additional landscaping, enhanced visual management, and an additional 100-foot separation.

So in conclusion, we believe that the plan development and specifically the E stack extension is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development code.

The companion amendments and proposed conditions along with the general site plan will maintain consistency with the comprehensive plan.

The light industrial flex meets the required findings and supports the additional required agency permits, and then the extension occurring along the West Stack boundary proximate to industrial manufacturing uses is appropriate.

That concludes our presentation in chief.

Our team is here.

Should you have any questions?

I do have a few questions, and um several of them have been answered by your presentation.

I I appreciate that.

One was where is the flex and you illustrated that, and two is uh where is the conservation easement south of the Allah FIA?

So you've answered those in your graphics, so thank you.

Um the question pertain my question pertains to the variation that references the uh visual management plan, and in my reading it talked about 18 viewpoints, and I see and my question was is that the original approval and is that what you're going to maintain?

But I just saw in one of your graphics that talks about 24.

So was that increased as a part of this uh request to expand the stack?

Um carry take it.

Okay.

Um the 18 points which staff has covered in the site plan.

We have a figure on page four of the site plan, which now identifies the 18 locations from which that monitoring plan will be um conducted annually, an annual report will be um provided.

So is the question then just want to make sure I'm answering the question you have, um Ms.

Finch, uh, about the continuation of that monitoring and the locations of that.

The question pertains to the number of the viewpoints.

Was it 18 prior to this application or is it increased because of this application?

Uh it is 18 increased because we try to be responsive to the locations that we knew staff would be interested in making sure that we insured.

So it was 14 before and the old PD, and we've now raised back to 18.

That was my question.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Um I believe.

I believe that's the end of my questions because you have, as I said, you've answered them in your presentation.

So thank you so much.

Does that complete your presentation?

Yes.

Perfect.

Development services.

Good evening again.

Uh good evening, uh, same ball uh development services.

Uh the applicant is requesting to rezone uh 1,412.4 acres, uh, which includes PD 99-um 1153 in addition to 20 other properties uh to allow for the proposed phosphodegypson stack to be extended to the west and northwest.

Uh plan development um PD 991153 was approved in 2000 and most recently modified by PRS 250655 for phospho gypsum stack at a maximum temporary height of 275 feet and a final uh settled height of 250 feet.

Um the uh the property is located approximately one quarter of a mile north of US 41 and Riverview Drive intersection.

It covers approximately 2.2 square miles that abut several properties and differing uses that vary from single family residential to heavy manufacturing.

Uh the properties to the south have roughly 1,000 to 1900 feet of separation, which includes an expansive dense vegetation that ranges from 650 to um 1,000 feet wide.

Uh the properties immediately west of the expansion area are zoned and developed for manufacturing and agricultural use, except for one residentially developed uh developed property, which is actually owned by the applicant.

The properties to the north include vacant lands and a public park and recreation site and development along the eastern portion of the site would be separated from the expansion area by uh by the existing stamps, uh existing stack system and buffering and screening provided by the existing visual management program.

Um the stack extension uh would be subject to federal, state, county regulations, um, including any agency specific permitting requirements for the construction and operation of the gypsum stack system.

The components of the stack system include the um phosphogen stack uh together with all the pumps, piping, ditches, drainage conveyances, water control devices, collection pools, cooling ponds, surge ponds, uh auxiliary holding ponds, regional holding ponds, and any other collection or conveyance systems associated with the transport of the phosphogypson from the plant to the to the stack uh it's and its management of the stack and the processes uh water process water wastewater return to the phosphoric acid production or other processes.

Uh FDEP regulates the design, construction, operation, and maintenance, closure, and long-term care of the system.

Um, and if approved, the conditions of approval include a requirement that the PD must also uh comply with the DRI.

Um in lieu of the LDC buffering and screening requirements um required by the LDC, the the current stack buffering and screening is provided through a visual management program that surrounds the property on the north southeast and a portion of the western side of the property.

Uh this management uh visual management program includes 11 on-site and seven off-site enhanced planting areas.

Uh the applicant is proposing to continue uh with this visual management program to mitigate the impacts of the Pro Stack and in lieu of complying with the um buffering screening requirements of the LDC.

Um as proposed, the buffers would exceed the width of all required buffers and the existing vegetation exceeds the minimum planning requirements of the buffers with the exception minimum planning requirements and uh screening requirements with the exception of the masonry wall uh where um type C screening would be required uh based on the existing buffering screening and the mature screening from the public right-of-way and the neighboring properties, the amount of separation from the permitted stack area to the neighboring properties.

The stack uh footprint would be extended to the west northwest of the stack um towards the industrial zone developed properties and requirements to monitor and maintain the visual management program.

Uh staff finds the emission of the masonry wall will have minimal impact on the area, and that the applicants request for a variation to buffering screening requirements would meet or exceed the intent of the LDC.

Um the 275 foot temporary maximum stack height and 250 foot final set uh settled height would be the same as what is currently allowed based on these factors.

The 275-foot temporary maximum stack height and 250-foot final set uh settled height would be the same as what is currently allowed based on these factors to find the proposed uh PD rezon compatible with the existing zoning and development pattern in the area and recommends approval subject to the conditions that includes my presentation if you have any questions.

None at this time.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Planning commission.

Lily Lennihan with Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is in the light industrial and natural preservation future land use categories and is within the urban service area, except for Bird Island and Sunken Island, which are in the rural area and do not have a designated future land use category.

There is a corresponding comprehensive plan map amendment, HCCPA 2604, which is requesting the natural preservation future land use category for the two islands.

The site is within the limits of the Riverview, Gibson Tent, and Greater Palm River community plans as well as the South Shore Airwise Systems Plan.

The intent of the light industrial future land use category is for concentrated industrial development that involves the processing of non-hazardous and non-toxic materials and creates a minimal degree of impact on the surrounding environment.

The natural preservation categories intended for public or privately owned lands of significant environmental importance set aside primarily for conservation purposes.

A flux of approximately 19.3 acres to the light industrial future land use category is requested to accommodate the ESC footprint.

The applicant is committing to a condition as a part of the plan development stating that the develop the development of the PD district shall proceed in strict accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the DRI development order, the general site development plan, and the land use conditions.

This condition condition is integral to planning commission staff's finding of consistency to help offset the flux request that is overlaying on natural preservation.

The applicant has committed to dedicating lands off-site as natural preservation within 60 days of approval of the permits, the developer must execute an amended declaration of restrictions for the stock buffer and shall apply for a future land use map amendment to reclassify the property being dedicated to the natural preservation category.

The proposal is consistent with the intent of Flu's Objective 3.1, its associated policies on compatibility as the proposed use is compatible with the existing development pattern and surrounding the site and incorporates substantial mitigation measures.

Based upon the above considerations, planning commission staffs finds the proposed plan development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsboro County Comprehensive Plan.

Ms.

Lennihan, let me just ask you for the uh clarification for the record.

The agenda shows the planning categories as res six L I and N, but it I don't see res six anywhere else.

I'm just confirming with you that I there should not be res six.

Okay, so that's only on the agenda.

Yeah, it's that so that's an error.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

We'll now ask for uh anyone that would like to speak in support, either in the room or online.

How many people if there anyone would like to speak in support?

One online.

Uh, how many people in the room?

Go ahead and come forward if you're in support.

Anyone else?

All right, so we have two.

Uh it's 15 minutes total, so we'll give you seven and a half minutes piece.

We'll go with the person in the room first.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Marley Talbard Jones.

My address is 7401 Thomas Way, Tampa, Florida.

I am a lifelong um resident of Progress Village.

I am the Providence Village Civic Council Vice President.

I am a member of Victor AMB church in Parkness Village.

And um been now in my life.

I'll be 62 on Thursday, and um don't intend to go anywhere.

And as long as I've been knowing about a job, a hearing about working, my father always spoke about the chemical plant, which is where he worked and retired from.

Um he raised seven children and my mom off the salary at Mosaic that is not mosaic, and um my husband also worked there.

A lot of people in the village uh community work there.

Um over the years, I have seen a lot of growth with uh mosaic, and um noticed a lot of changes.

I'm more aware of how they do their processing and safety measures that they have taken to make sure that we are comfortable in the neighborhood and also for their workers.

I've been to several of their sites.

Um I've done uh several tours and have been um explained a lot of things that that take place for safety, air quality, water safety, and always um them given back.

I'm on several nonprofit boards with Mosaic, and they always are finding ways to help the community and also not just the local community, the surrounding area, but making things better for the world.

And as a matter of fact, on our last civic council meeting, which was last Monday night, I did bring this issue up because I wanted to know what the community thought about the expansion.

And there was no complaints.

And like I said, over the years I've noticed the change in not just the visible vision, the visual change, but also in the quality of air and in everything else.

So, you know, I am in support of them doing it, doing the expansion, and it's no one cohorts me, uh you know asked me to come to this.

It's just based on what I've learned over the years and listening and just being a part of and seeing how they uh take the time out to make sure that the we are informed on everything that's going on and also to ensure our safety.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming down.

I appreciate it.

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

All right, we'll go to the person in support that is online.

Good evening.

Uh Christopher Oaks, could you please oh, perfect, we see it.

Well, good evening, uh, Madam Hearing Master.

My name is Chris Oakes.

I'm a resident of Hillsborough County, uh, Tampa native, and a longtime employee of Mosaic, including many years at the Riverview facility.

Tonight, the Riverview facility is on what we refer to as a turnaround at Mosaic.

It's a proactive safety and maintenance measure that all of our mining and manufacturing facilities they take at least once a year.

So they couldn't join us tonight.

But our current site-based employees, they certainly wanted to be here.

And as in my current role, uh leading maintenance efforts at a mosaic, I kind of wanted to raise my hand and volunteer on their behalf to speak on their behalf.

Riverview is quick with its own port, making it an especially critical part of our mission to help the world rubber food it needs.

And having marked more than a century of operation on Tampa Bay, it's a central figure in the Gibson River View and Progress Village communities.

The Riverview team is proud of its engagement with its neighbors.

Some of our employees call Progress Village home.

Some have parents and grandparents who worked at the site, and we have at least one father-daughter pair on site right now.

The Riverview site is a family setting.

We volunteer in the area with everything from hunger relief to clothing drives for our neighborhood schools to the sheriff's summer cereal drive helping our local deputies win.

Several folks sit on the Mosaic Riverview Community Advisory Panel.

I myself sat on that panel for many years when I was at the Riverview Facility.

And this group of folks is composed from all walks of life across the local area who meet at least nine times a year to learn more about our operations, often touring different mosaic sites and facilities.

We are proud to pull the curtain back up for them.

These are our neighbors, our friends.

And at Riverview, we consider it imperative.

We remain involved in our community.

I thank you for your time.

Mr.

Oaks, before you leave, could you give us your address for the record?

Sir.

My business address is 13830 Circle Crossing Drive with you.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

So that seeing no one else in support, we'll call for anyone who would like to speak in opposition.

All right, if you could raise your hand.

Go ahead and come forward.

Is there anyone else while she's coming up that would like to speak?

So that's two people.

Anyone else?

Raise your hand.

And no one online, I presume, correct?

All right.

I presume not.

So Jermaine, there is no one online.

Thank you so much.

So it's 15 minutes total, so if we could give the speakers seven and a half minutes each.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Teresa Corden.

I live here.

I actually live in Brandon.

I grew up in Lutz, so I've been here my whole life.

I'm here today to speak against the mosaic expanding of the stack in the Riverview area.

I am aware that Florida provides almost 25% of the world's commercial fertilizers and 60% domestically.

China's the number one producer.

Morocco also has large reserves.

And then Russia does as well.

So that being said, I do not think that it is the state of Florida's responsibility to supply the country or the entire world's insatiable and ultimately unsustainable.

Appetite for commercial fertilizers main from made from mined phosphate, especially if that demand, uh supplying that demand is detrimental to this state, this town and the residents.

Most of them, all of them are over 200 feet high.

They cover hundreds of acres.

Collectively, the stacks store over a billion tons of phosphog.

That's billions of tons of radioactive waste just buried in our precious soil, sealed in a concrete tomb.

And that being the only thing separating it from contaminating our aquafore aquifer and the drinking water of millions of people.

And these leaks do happen.

There's actually very well documented cases in our state.

In 2021, structural forces uh failures forced the release of 215 million gallons of toxic wastewater into Tampa Bay.

Um, and then I'm sure a lot of you guys remember there was a uh the worst red tide bloom in history um right after that, and there are plenty of studies linking the leak uh of all of that water into the bay to the bloom.

Um this was also not the first time um in 2011, 170 million gallons of contaminated water were released into Tampa Bay.

Um, so uh that actually got the states the 2021 incident got the state's attention.

Um that's uh Piney Point is actually currently it was ordered to close.

So 155 million dollars and five years later, the site is still not completely shut down.

Remediation efforts are still ongoing.

And um, where are the owners of the Piney Point stack?

They are it's the Mulberry Corporation, they're bankrupt, so basically um the taxpayers of the state and the county are left holding the back.

Um the new Wales facility had a sinkhole open underneath it in 2016, 215 million gallons of contaminated water released into the aquifer.

In 2023, a tear was another tear was detected in the repaired liner.

Um and then even going even further back in 97, uh there was a mulberry plant that spilled millions of gallons into the Alpha River.

Um our waterways are not always going to be so forgiving.

Um we are a state that depends on tourism.

People come far and wide to see our beautiful beaches, our forests, and our natural springs.

There is no other place like Florida.

We need to start acting like it, and allowing mosaic to expand their activities is not acting like we want to preserve and take care of the things that make our state unique and beautiful.

Um all gypsum stacks are ticking time bombs.

They are ecological disasters waiting to happen.

They emit radon gas, uh known carcinogen linked to lung cancer.

Um we cannot continue to mortgage the future of our children in our state for the short-term profits of a billion-dollar chemical company being mosaic.

Um I did have some questions for the previous speakers.

I don't know if there's a forum to be able to ask those questions.

So, what you can do, you've got about a little less than four minutes left.

What you can do is you can ask your questions and then on rebuttal, they can address them.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um, so I do have a few questions.

Um the Burden Sunken Islands uh are according to the rezoning request, they want to make them um a conservation space.

Um I'm wondering, can that not happen without the stack expansion?

Can all of the ecological things that they're proposing to do, like setting aside easements and things like that, the Archie Creek thing, is that possible without since it's their land technically, I'm assuming, couldn't they just do those things without expanding the stack?

Is all of it contingent on expanding the stack?

Um and then how many of the 3,000 employees are actually related to the phosphate mining activities at this plant.

I saw that she mentioned that there were 3,000 employees, so I was just curious.

Um, how many people would be affected economically?

Um, I did, you know, hear the the woman who just came up and she spoke very highly of um you know her father's experience working for them.

So, you know, it's never my intention to put people without a job, but I'm just wondering um, are there other things that they could do?

Like, do we have to continue?

Like how many of those jobs are actually related to the mining activities.

Um, the other question I have is uh this is gonna this expansion is going to be good for 16 years.

What's gonna happen in 16 years?

What are we going to do?

Um, I feel like we're just kind of kicking the can down the road here.

Um you know, Mosaic is at the end of the day a billion dollar company.

They have tons of money, I'm sure that you know they could do a lot of things.

Um maybe they don't have to do exactly the way things are going.

I just wonder is there a better way to mine the phosphate?

Are there alternatives to using the phosphate and things of that nature?

Um, let me just make sure I don't have any more.

Um, oh, I have question.

Um, that report, there was a report that was mentioned um about some border uh requirements, some trees, some mature trees that they had put up, they said that they do a report every year.

I was just wondering if we could get a picture of those trees that they planted 30 years ago.

I would love to see what they look like now.

All right, that's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time and coming down.

If you could please sign in, sir, if you want to come forward.

And Jermaine, if we could reset that perfect to seven and a half minutes.

Good evening.

If you could give us your name and address.

Thank you.

Um, my comments would be very brief.

Um lady there covered majority of them.

I think the biggest thing I wanted to say is the while, you know, mosaic may pass all the codes and requirements to to uh to stand this tax.

Um the history pretty much speaks for itself.

Um what what will change?

I mean, there's uh uh quite the um history of mosaic um uh violations and the force actions um that's happened over the years, and uh the young lady mentioned several of them.

So um just because they meet all the requirements in the codes, um, doesn't mean that they won't continue the actions they have in the past.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

If you could please sign in, thank you for coming down.

All right, seeing no one else in opposition, we'll close that period uh of the hearing and we'll go back to development services.

Ms.

Heinrich, anything further you want to add nothing further, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, then we'll go back to the applicant for rebuttal.

I'll give you certainly it's five minutes, but you can certainly take additional time if you could uh address the uh the comment, the questions, and whatever else you'd like to address.

Thank you, Miss Finch.

Um, Miss Corden's questions.

I I think we hear there seems to be a bit of confusion.

There were references to the phosphate mining process, and I know that often folks combine the two processes.

What happens at Riverview and with the gypsum stacks is not phosphate mining at all.

Um it is the processing of rock from the phosphate mines, but it's a completely different process, completely different regulations and different locations.

And so I just wanted to, we're be happy to to talk to Ms.

Corden to kind of explain that um off record, of course, just to explain how those things work together.

As far as the 350 jobs, I think there were multiple reports about the just the extent of the jobs that are driven by the phosphate industry, but the 350 jobs mentioned were specifically employment by mosaic at the Riverview plant.

Doesn't speak to any of the collateral kind of jobs from contractors at all that that support the industry.

Um the extension's good for 16 years, that's the scope of the application.

That's what we're asking for now.

Um, and in the future, if there was to be more, we would submit a separate application to address that, but we are asking her for 16 years.

She asked about the Archie Creek.

We were out in Burden Sunken Islands, conservation, preservation, a lot of that we're doing in coordination with planning commission staff.

We were asked to um designate those islands and to have a zoning designation placed on them, and so that's why we're doing that.

Uh the Archie Creek we're out is certainly a part of the proposal.

I think Mr.

Provenzano slides may be helpful in the context of why we have to stack.

That's the requirement.

He covered that in his presentation.

There were slides to the extent that explain the process and the regulations that require us to do the work the way it is done.

The stacking, the requirements that kind of deal with with all of that come from the federal government, the state government, and then also from the local governments.

And so we we comply with those regulations.

We have complied with those regulations.

We continue to do so.

And review in the combination with the GRI, this PD.

It's looking at the continuation of what we believe to be good and safe operations at Ripper View.

And so we intend to continue that.

The plan's been in operation since 1924.

This is not new.

This is a continuation.

I think those are the questions I heard.

She had a question about the trees.

If you had a picture of the trees, uh there is, in fact, in the application, and I'll be happy to provide that to her.

When we talked about the 14 locations and the 15 locations, there is a full report with documentary photographic evidence of how it's been filed now for since 2001, 2002.

So we have about two decades of photography that shows how those bifurcens trees have grown in over time.

So I'd be happy to share that.

It is in the application materials, which are public.

I did see it.

But yeah, separately, I'd be happy to share that with her as well.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Does that complete your rebuttal?

It does.

All right.

Then with that, we will close rezoning 26-0436 and go to the last case.

Our last item is item D9, major mod 26-0441.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD00-0047.

Tonya Chapella has reviewed this for development services and will provide staff findings.

And at the beginning of the hearing, we did provide you with a revised staff report to add in some information that the applicant brought to our attention this morning, which is the proposal that is for this pod.

If it does not happen, would restrict their existing use as a daycare.

So we have put that in there to recognize the existing use in addition to this one as option two.

Understood.

And I believe the applicant also has some other changes to enter just for geography purposes.

And I just asked her to put those on the record tonight verbally, and we'll capture them in the report.

Perfect.

All right, thank you so much.

Good evening.

Good evening, Cammy Corbett again with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

I have the privilege this evening of representing the Riverview Monastery School at Rivercrest.

There you go.

This is an existing location that is in Riverview.

It's along Sims Road on the left side.

You have the vicinity map on the right side.

You can see the location of the existing school and daycare, and then the parking that is utilized for it.

This is an original really large PD called River Crest.

And it's hard to see on this slide, so I go to it on the next slide.

We're only modifying a very small portion of that PD.

And then that's that area blown up.

And you can see it in purple.

And you can see two sections of M on the site plan.

And that's the clarification I'm going to be seeking in the staff report.

It's indicated on the site plan that the school is located on the westernmost portion of M in a little bit of L.

You can see the parking area is in uh pod L.

And then there on the eastern side, there's also a daycare, and that's unrelated and unaffected by that.

And so the changes that I've asked Michelle to make are just some geographical changes to indicate where the actual locations are, just to make that a little more accurate.

And then on the right, you can see the proposed site plan.

And then we are this is we have in the site plan activity.

We have a queuing and special event parking detail as well.

And essentially, what we're asking for is an option two is the 80 children at the daycare and the 50 students uh for the elementary school.

Um, and I am here to answer any questions that you might have.

Staff has found this consistent and compatible.

I don't um just to verify it.

Look, I went back and looked at the um the original PD uh 0047, and it looks like you backed into how many uh students were approved based on a trip count or something like that.

So there is the I and I'll ask Michael Yates to come up and he did the traffic analysis and came up with the math, and I want to make sure I'm accurate on that.

But essentially, this was approved for a daycare.

There's actually construction plans that were approved that said school, so our client didn't realize that there was any issue with the uh rezoning as soon as he figured it out figured it out it was an issue.

He asked us to come in and make it make it right.

So but it never just before you go, it never the the originating zoning never specified the maximum number of children.

It didn't appear.

Correct.

Good evening.

Good evening, Ms.

Funch.

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

It did not from anything that I read.

Um there were two parcels there that the daycare got split uh between there's a there is another daycare to the east, uh, but there was not anything in there in the zoning that specified number of students, but it was in the original construction plans.

That is where the 110 comes from.

I see is the construction plans.

But and now the commitment is 80 for the daycare and 50 for the school.

Correct.

So for a total of 130.

Perfect.

Okay, that was my only question.

All right.

Uh does that complete your presentation?

Yeah, I mean, that's essentially, and it's been operating in the area for quite some time, and there aren't any issues.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Development services.

Good evening.

Good evening, Tanya Chapella, development services.

BD 000047, as most recently modified by PRS 150130.

It's a 459 acre plan development approved for a mix of residential and supporting commercial uses.

Um, the current request applies to PubM, which is approved for daycare uses.

The site is currently developed with a daycare, and the applicant is proposing to expand the youth to include a primary, a private uh elementary school with uh up to 50 students, while maintaining a maximum of 80 acre children.

The request is compatible with the surrounding PD zoning district in terms of use and intensity.

The area is developed with single family residential, a public park, and a public school, which reflects a consistent development partner.

No expansion of the building footprint or major changes on the site layout are proposed.

The request is limited to adding a low intensity institutional use within an existing development.

Um parking will be accommodated with through existing spaces adjacent to the building and within the CD amenity area based on the proposed enrollment and classroom count.

The applicant has demonstrated adequate parking based on the above uh staff finds the request compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the established development pattern.

Um staff recommends approval subject to conditions, and this concludes my presentation.

If you don't have any question, none at this time.

Thank you so much.

Planning commission.

Lily Lennihan, Planning Commission staff.

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

It is in the urban service area within the limits of the Riverview Community Plan and South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

The request is for a major modification to a plan development to allow school as a permitted use along with a daycare to allow up to 130 children total with an intended mix of 80 daycare children and 50 elementary school students.

The surrounding area consists of a mix of single family residential and institutional uses to the west across Ramble Creek Drive is an elementary school.

To the east, there are additional single family residences residences and another educational facility, Creative World School Riverview.

Properties to the south include single family residences and the River Cross River Crest Community Development District, a public quasi-public use.

Given this established pattern of residential and educational uses, the proposed addition of the school daycare facility is consistent with the existing development context and represents a logical extension of the institutional institutional uses within the area.

The proposed school and daycare facility is consistent with the intent of the Riverview Community Plan Goal 10, which aims to maintain and support high-quality schools that also function as community amenities.

Goal 10 specifically encourages the expansion of after school programs, the promotion of educational diversity to serve individuals of varying ages and needs, and collaboration with education providers to locate satellite and specialty schools within the Riverview community.

The proposed facility introduces a combination of daycare and elementary educational services, thereby broadening the range of educational opportunities available to local residents, particularly particularly for early childhood and elementary age populations.

Based upon the above considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

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

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No, ma'am.

All right, Miss Corbett, you have the last word.

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close major modification two six-zero four four four four four four four one and adjourn the hearing.

Thank you all for your time and testimony.