Hillsborough County Land Use Hearing Officer Hearing - May 11, 2026

The Land Use Hearing Officer (LUHO) hearing convened on May 11, 2026, at 9:00 AM in the County Center, Tampa, presided by Hearing Officer Susan Finch. The agenda included continuances, withdrawals, and hearings on 12 variance requests. All decisions will be filed by June 2, 2026, per the hearing schedule. No public opposition was expressed for any of the variance applications.

Consent Calendar

• A.1 SU-SCH 24-1335 (David Wright / TSP Companies, Inc.): Continued to the June 15, 2026 LUHO hearing.
• A.2 SU-SCH 26-0219 (Pressman Todd): Continued by staff to June 15, 2026.
• A.3 SU-AB 26-0430 (Naidip Foundation Inc.): Continued by applicant to June 15, 2026.
• A.4 SU-CH 26-0538 (Templo Filadelfia, Inc.): Continued by staff to June 15, 2026.
• A.5 VAR 26-0584 (Eric Langsotn): Continued to June 15, 2026.
• A.6 VAR 26-0599 (Patricia Williams): Withdrawn.
• A.7 SU-AB 26-0628 (Renzo’s): Withdrawn.
• A.8 VAR 26-0640 (Lumei Ferrer): Withdrawn.
• A.9 SU-AB 26-0674 (Longshots Sports LLC): Withdrawn.

Public Comments & Testimony

F.1 VAR-WS 26-0590 – Ashley & Cody Brown

• Applicant Ashley Brown testified that the backyard is almost entirely encumbered by the wetland setback, preventing a pool for their children. They purchased the home with an existing covered patio. Neighbors were notified and raised no objections.

F.2 VAR-WS 26-0678 – Todd Pressman

• Applicant Todd Pressman and contractor Scott Dispenza argued that poor soil conditions (low area with poor compaction) forced the location of an existing pole barn into the wetland setback. Pressman offered to remove pavers as a condition. The hearing officer noted the lack of soil borings or engineer reports. No opposition.

H.1 VAR 26-0596 – Luisa I Alonso

• Representative Jorge Camarota stated the current owner bought the property in 2017 with an existing rear addition. A code enforcement citation arose from a separate garage remodel. The addition had been there since 2006. No opposition.

H.2 VAR 26-0598 – Jason McIrvin

• Applicant Jason McIrvin explained that an existing pole barn, originally legal, would become too close to the property line after a proposed subdivision. He seeks a variance to allow the subdivision. No opposition.

H.3 VAR 26-0600 – Suncoast Power Solutions

• Representative Matthew Groot requested a 6-inch variance for a generator side yard setback. A window on the rear would push the generator further into the rear setback if not placed on the side. Neighbors were notified and one called for information only. No opposition.

H.4 VAR 26-0611 – Jodi M. Martin

• Applicant Jodi Martin and her husband Stephen Martin testified that a 6-inch variance is needed to add a bathroom with a ceiling track system for their disabled daughter, to avoid institutional care. They provided letters of support from neighbors. No opposition.

H.5 VAR 26-0619 – Lenia Almarales Ganen

• Representative Roxana Bello (building contractor) said the applicant needs space for her growing family and mother. Marcus West, a supporter, testified that the applicant is a hardworking caregiver and that similar structures exist in the neighborhood. No opposition.

H.6 VAR 26-0649 – Shayne Robinson

• Engineer Richard Coates and applicant Shayne Robinson explained that conflicting staff comments (sidewalk vs. buffer) necessitate a variance. Robinson noted that the adjacent property is a junkyard and that I-4 widening will soon take the land, making the buffer moot. The site is being redeveloped from a former chop shop into an electric car dealership. No opposition.

H.7 VAR 26-0682 – Luisa I Alonso (second case)

• Representative Jorge Camarota stated the current owner completed an extension that existed when they bought the property. The lot’s diagonal rear line prevents compliance with the 25-foot setback. The extension is used for family gatherings. No opposition.

H.8 VAR 26-0684 – Miroslav Mitusina

• Applicant Patricia Ortiz explained that the property consists of three parcels, one within the Riverview Downtown-Uptown Overlay. The proposed drive-through uses (bank, restaurant, oil change) cannot meet overlay requirements for parking location, building setback, and entrance orientation due to lot size and shape. The overlay predates the approved PD site plan. No opposition.

H.9 VAR 26-0685 – RU Project Management Group, LLC

• Representative Rule Londono detailed that the house was built in 1979, and the current owner purchased in 2014 with existing pool and screen enclosure. In 2023, they re-screened and covered the patio, triggering a code violation. Variances are needed for minor encroachments (0.2–0.3 feet on side setbacks, 8.7 feet on rear setback). No opposition.

H.10 VAR 26-0695 – Elizabeth Guiterrez

• Applicant Liz Gutierrez (CEO of Enterprising Latinas) and Donald Odom stated the property is being expanded to provide community services, including a daycare. The lot’s configuration and an existing building prevent compliance with the Wimauma Downtown Overlay for front setback, building frontage, stories, and parking location. Supporter Aaron Brecke noted the proposal aligns with the Wimauma Revitalization Action Plan. No opposition.

Discussion Items

• F.2 VAR-WS 26-0678: Hearing Officer Finch questioned the lack of soil borings or engineer reports to support the claim that soil conditions forced the pole barn location. The applicant declined to request a continuance to obtain further evidence. The officer noted that the pool on the property was built without reported soil issues.
• H.1 VAR 26-0596: The officer verified the chain of events: the current owner bought the property in 2017 with the addition existing, and a code enforcement citation arose from a separate garage remodel.
• H.5 VAR 26-0619: The officer asked about the lot size (over 3,000 sq ft) and whether it was a legal nonconforming lot; staff confirmed no minimum lot size was established in the 1971 PD. The officer allowed submission of prior variance approvals from the same subdivision.
• H.6 VAR 26-0649: The officer clarified the location of the six-foot buffer strip on the site plan after staff presentation.
• H.8 VAR 26-0684: No questions from the officer; the applicant’s presentation covered the constraints.
• H.9 VAR 26-0685: The officer confirmed the timeline of construction and the owner’s actions.
• H.10 VAR 26-0695: The officer asked staff to clarify how the 36% variance for building frontage percentage was calculated given the existing building.

Key Outcomes

• Continuances: Five items (A.1–A.5) were continued to the June 15, 2026 LUHO hearing.
• Withdrawals: Four items (A.6–A.9) were withdrawn from the process.
• Variance Hearings: All 12 variance applications (F.1, F.2, H.1–H.10) were heard. The Hearing Officer will file a final decision for each by June 2, 2026. No opposition was recorded for any application. The decisions may be appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board (except for Appeals of Administrative Decisions, which were not on the agenda).