Hillsborough County Zoning Hearing Master Meeting – April 27, 2026
Hillsborough County Zoning Hearing Master Meeting – April 27, 2026
The Hillsborough County Zoning Hearing Master (ZHM) convened on April 27, 2026, at 6:00 PM, presided over by Hearing Officer Susan Finch. The meeting addressed a wide range of rezoning (RZ) and major modification (MM) applications, including continuances, withdrawals, and substantive hearings. The Hearing Officer will file recommendations by May 18, 2026; final decisions will be made by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) at its June 9, 2026 Land Use Meeting (unless otherwise noted).
Withdrawals and Continuances
- Withdrawn: RZ-STD 26-0290 (Wimauma Commercial, LLC), RZ-STD 26-0481 (Leaders Companies, LLC), RZ-STD 26-0548 (Melva Rodriguez).
- Continued to May 26, 2026: RZ-STD 25-1026, MM 25-1261, MM 26-0045, MM 26-0062 (by applicant), RZ-PD 26-0095, RZ-PD 26-0217 (by applicant), RZ-PD 26-0303 (by applicant), RZ-PD 26-0329 (by applicant), RZ-PD 26-0338, MM 26-0340, RZ-PD 26-0339 (by staff), RZ-PD 26-0363, RZ-PD 26-0422, RZ-PD 26-0426, RZ-PD 26-0433, RZ-PD 26-0437.
- Continued to June 22, 2026: MM 26-0063 (by applicant), RZ-PD 26-0270.
- Continued to July 20, 2026: RZ-PD 26-0237, RZ-PD 26-0281.
Public Comments & Testimony
Public testimony was heard on each of the following applications. Positions are summarized below per case.
Discussion Items
C.1 – RZ-STD 26-0310 (David Wright / TSP Companies, Inc.) – Request to rezone 0.34 acres from RSC-6 to CN-R at NE corner of E Martin Luther King Blvd & Watson Rd. Applicant agreed with staff. No public testimony. Staff and Planning Commission found the request consistent and compatible. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
C.2 – RZ-STD 26-0541 (Mark Bentley) – Request to rezone 2.3 acres from ASC-1 to M-R at 6106 Hartford St. Applicant argued the rezoning aligns with the LI future land use and existing industrial pattern. Opponent: Susan Swift (representing Levi Equine Holdings) opposed the M-R district, requesting CI or PD with a 50-foot type C buffer due to noise and visual impacts on a horse stable to the north. The applicant rebutted that noise is regulated by code and that the required 30-foot type C buffer is sufficient. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
C.3 – RZ-STD 26-0609 (El Rancho Food Truck, LLC) – Request to rezone 1.06 acres from BPO to CG at 4332 W Waters Ave. No opposition. Staff and Planning Commission found the request consistent with the commercial corridor. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.1 – RZ-PD 25-1061 (Todd Pressman / Pressman & Assoc., Inc.) – Request to rezone 15.6 acres from PD (05-1783) and RSC-2 MH to a new PD for a 74-space luxury RV resort on Symmes Rd. Access via TICO easement. No public testimony. Staff and Planning Commission found the resort compatible with surrounding mobile home and single-family uses. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.2 – MM 25-1415 (Todd Pressman) – Major modification to PD (00-0533) at 2122 & 2134 S 78th St to allow 25 multifamily units, 5,000 sq ft of restricted commercial, and a 100 sq ft leasing office. The current car wash use (abutting residential) will be removed. Applicant requested variations to reduce buffers and setbacks. No opposition. Staff supported the variations. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.3 – MM 26-0215 (Florida Conference Association of Seventh-day Adventists) – Major modification to PD (18-0296) at 5585 E County Line Rd to expand school from 650 to 1,100 students (including 250 daycare) and increase building area to 135,000 sq ft. Opponent: Samuel Berkman (resident) opposed due to lack of pedestrian improvements (sidewalks, crossing) along County Line Rd, citing pedestrian crashes and code requirements. Staff responded that the developer is only required to install sidewalk along project frontage; off-site gaps are not the developer’s responsibility. The applicant agreed to provide a sidewalk along frontage. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.4 – RZ-PD 26-0328 (Okoye Morgan / Rock Solid Construction) – Request to rezone 0.51 acres from CN to PD for six townhomes at 5600 & 5602 E Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. No opposition. Staff found the residential use less intense than commercial. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.5 – RZ-PD 26-0349 (Hill Ward Henderson) – Request to rezone 638.8 acres (adding 13.1 acres) to a new PD (Council Growers) in Wimauma. No increase in density. Includes modifications to road layout and phasing. No opposition. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.6 – RZ-PD 26-0431 (PSS, LLC) – Request to rezone 2.25 acres from PD (20-0102) and RDC-12 to a new PD for 16 multifamily units and 3,500 sq ft of office at 3814 Lemon Ave. The site is encumbered by access easements from adjacent retail development. Applicant requested a variation to place a sidewalk within a buffer. No opposition. Staff supported the variation. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.7 – MM 26-0432 (Suncoast Community Health Centers, Inc) – Major modification to PD (21-0701) at 10710 Walker Rd to allow up to 17,650 sq ft of business professional office (including up to 10,000 sq ft medical office). No opposition. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
D.8 – RZ-PD 26-0436 (Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC) – Request to rezone 1,412.41 acres (including 127 new acres) to a new PD to extend the existing phosphogypsum stack (E stack) westward for 16 additional years of storage. The companion comprehensive plan amendment seeks to reclassify Burden and Sunken Islands to Natural Preservation. Proponents: Marley Talbott-Jones (Progress Village resident, civic council VP) and Chris Oakes (Mosaic employee) spoke in support, citing Mosaic’s community engagement, safety record, and economic importance. Opponents: Teresa Corden and another resident opposed, citing environmental risks (e.g., Piney Point, sinkholes), radioactive waste, and the need for sustainable alternatives. The applicant’s team addressed regulations, mitigation (including conservation easement on 347 acres and Archie Creek restoration), and the visual management plan (18 monitoring points). Staff and Planning Commission found the proposal consistent with conditions. Result: Heard and pending recommendation, with a note that the companion CPA date is to be determined.
D.9 – MM 26-0441 (Riverview Montessori School at Rivercrest, LLC) – Major modification to PD (00-0047) at 11520 & 11560 Ramble Creek Dr to allow up to 130 children (80 daycare, 50 elementary school) within an existing building. No opposition. The applicant clarified that the original approval did not specify a student limit; the new option provides clarity. Result: Heard and pending recommendation.
Key Outcomes
- All 13 applications heard (C.1–C.3, D.1–D.9) were heard and pending recommendation to the BOCC Land Use Meeting on June 9, 2026 (except D.8, which has a companion CPA meeting date to be determined).
- 3 applications were withdrawn (RZ-STD 26-0290, 26-0481, 26-0548).
- 19 applications were continued to various future ZHM hearings (primarily May 26, 2026).
- The Hearing Officer will file recommendations by May 18, 2026. Parties of Record may request additional evidence by May 28, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com