Good morning.

Welcome to the May 12, 2026, Hillsburg County Board of County Commissioners Land Use Meeting.

Would everyone please rise for the pledge and imitation given by Chaplain Commissioner Gordon Myers?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

States of America and to the Republic for which is things.

Thanking you for this land use meeting.

All of the applicants who have submitted an application that we plan to discuss this morning.

Bless our staff as they work and give us our briefing of how to prepare us for this meeting.

Thank you for everyone that that is here and those who are on their way.

In your holy name I pray.

Amen.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

Mr.

Grady, you want to review changes the agenda?

Morning, Commissioners.

Brian Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services.

In addition to the published withdrawals and continues on three and page three and four of the agenda, we do have one change on the published agenda.

It's on page 12 item F4, major mod 26-0346.

Therefore, conditions 1.2 and 1.3 uh referencing where we had reference to the restaurant.

It added the phrase sit down restaurant to clarify that is the use restriction that's part of this major modification.

That concludes all the changes in the conditions.

So moved.

So send Commissioner Myers, please record your vote and changes the agenda.

Commissioner Cameron Sabeta.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Right, can we have a motion for the consent?

So moved.

Motion Commissioner World still send Commissioner Cohen.

Please call your vote on the consent agenda.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Okay.

If you're planning on testifying today, would you please stand, raise your right hand so the clerk can square you in?

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

Okay, we're now on the vacating public hearing portion agenda.

Uh Mr.

Grady, you want to introduce the first item?

First item is general item C One, vacate petition 23011.

Uh real estate services will provide for present this item.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Item C1 today is vacate ID V23-0011.

This is a petition by MVCA LLC and Falkenburg Capital, LLC, to vacate a portion of the plat of Mission Village Phase 1 as recorded in Plat Book 110, page 321, and return it to Acreage.

The proposed vacate area consists of approximately 0.59 acres and is generally located east south of East Atomo Drive and east of South Falkenburg Road in Brandon.

Additionally, the vacate area is located immediately south of and adjacent to a previously vacated portion of the mission village phase one plat.

The petitioners have submitted this request to allow for future site redevelopment consistent with the surrounding area.

At this time, staff is unaware of any continuing objections from the citizen, and there are no objections from reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers.

And at this time, I'm going to turn it over to the petitioner's attorney who would like to make a brief presentation.

Good morning.

Thank you and good morning, board.

My name is Brian Dion from Johnson Pogue 400 North Ashley Drive.

Um I'm here on behalf of the applicant and the owner who was also present.

Um I just wanted to say thank you to staff.

Um we appreciate everything that they've done for us, and we agree with um their findings and their presentation to the board today.

Um we have done everything to do that we needed to get this application submitted um in the appropriate manner with appropriate notice, and we want to reserve any additional time that we have to address any objections that might come from the public.

Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh, this public hearing.

Would anyone like to speak to this item?

I see a nine command of motion.

Move approval.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wilson, sign commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on C1.

Motion carried seven to zero.

C2.

Next agenda agenda item is C2 vacation petition 25-0005.

Good morning, Commissioners.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services.

Item C2 today is vacate ID V25-0005.

This is a petition by Crown Holdings Group LLC to vacate a portion of improved platted public right-of-way known as Pulitzer Avenue in Citrus Park Village, which consists of approximately 6,000 square feet.

The right-of-way proposed to be vacated was dedicated in 1926 through the plat of Manhattan Park as recorded in Plat Book 22, page three, and is generally located north of Gun Highway and east of Sheldon Road.

The petitioner has submitted this request primarily to stop drivers from cutting through their parking lot and to allow for possible future redevelopment.

As a condition of no objection by reviewing departments, the petitioner has granted utility easements over the vacate area to TICO, Charter Spectrum, and Frontier.

The petition was provided to the Florida Department of Transportation, FDOT Turnpike Enterprises, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District for their review, and each agency did not have comments or objections to this vacate request.

All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to the request.

Thank you for your consideration.

And both myself and the petitioner are available to answer any questions.

Commissioner Wilson.

Just very briefly, I'm I'm gonna move for approval, but something that Mr.

Gormley looked into.

I usually you don't see such a big vacate connecting two separated pieces of land, so I asked the question what's the zoning going to be on the vacate, and would that then entitle it to live local?

And the answer, of course, is that yes, it does make that one big commercial lot.

In this situation, it doesn't look like that would really be applicable, but it's something I hadn't considered before because usually on vacates I don't care, and I move to move to approve.

But I just wanted to point that out to the board that um while I'm appreciative that um we're all suing, and I hope we prevail.

That is something that we might have to consider if we don't in Leon County.

So I'll move for approval.

Motion to approve uh Commissioner Wilson.

Second Commissioner Cohen, please record your vote on C2.

Motion carries seven to zero.

C three.

Next item agenda item three, C3 vacated petition 25-0014.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services.

Item C three today is vacate ID V25-0014.

This is a petition by RWH Construction Services Company to vacate a portion of unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of approximately 7,974 square feet.

The right-of-way proposed to be vacated was dedicated through the plat of Cluis Garden Tracks as recorded in plat book 25, page 89, and is generally located east of North U.S.

Highway 301 and south of Harney Road in East Lake Orient Park.

The petitioner submitted this request to add parking to their existing property and to improve track traffic circulation within the property.

Upon recommendation from utilities, the petition was reviewed by the City of Temple Terrace.

At the request of the city, the petitioner has granted a public utility and ingress egress easement over the vacate area.

All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request.

Thank you for your consideration, and I'm available to answer any questions.

This public hearing, would anyone like to speak to this item?

Now can I have a motion?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wilson sign commissioner Myers.

Please call your vote on C3.

Question carries 6 to 0.

C4.

Commissioner Next Agenda item is C4 vacate petition 26-0010.

Good morning, Commissioners.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with Real Estate Services.

Item C4 today is vacate ID V26-0010.

This is a petition by Joseph Bernhardt and Michelle Anderson Bernhardt to vacate a portion of a platted public drainage easement located at 2327 Platinum Drive in Sun City Center and consisting of approximately 40.4 square feet.

The easement proposed to be vacated was dedicated through the plat of Sun City Center Unit 257, Phase 1, as recorded in Plat Book 75, page 37, and is generally located west of South U.S.

Highway 301 and east of Kings Boulevard.

The petitioners submitted this request to cure an encroachment of the westerly exterior wall of the home into the platted public drainage easement so they can complete the sale of their property.

Although the county's public works department policy PWD 0001.02016 generally restricts the vacating of drainage easements.

Public works stormwater does not object to the vacate request due to the relatively small area requested to be vacated.

All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to the request.

Thank you for your consideration.

And I can answer any questions.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone like to speak to the item?

Saying none, can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wolstall, sign Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on C4.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Okay.

First EO item.

Commissioner, the first uh yeah, items agenda item E1 is PRS application 260473.

Uh this is a request for a minor modification to a 5.91 acre parcel within a larger PD in the Apollo Bach area.

It's located north at the northeast corner of 19th Avenue Northeast and uh Turnbuckle Drive.

Uh Commissioners, the the request the app is requesting the modify access points to provide for a ride and right out access point for this parcel to 19th Avenue Northeast.

Uh right in right out for the parcel to Turnbuckle Drive along the west and uh full access connection via shared access uh to Myers Glenn Avenue, which is on the northern boundary of the uh parcel.

They're also requesting modification development standards.

Uh staff is is uh is recommending approval and revealed for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning, Cammy Corridor with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson uh representing the applicant this morning.

This is a pretty straightforward uh request.

Just to have a quick couple of graphics to give uh let you see if you could go to the presentation.

Thank you.

Uh quick graphics to show you the location and where those access points are and where they're shown on the site plan.

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

All right, thank you.

Uh, any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Wolstall signed Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on E1.

Motion carries seven to zero.

E2.

Commissioner's next item is agenda item eight two PRIS application 26-0505.

Uh, this is a request to modify a two-acre parcel within the uh a PD containing a single family residential subdivision.

It's on the south side of Olivia uh Pinecrest Road and Southeast County.

Uh Commissioners' request is to modify the setback uh standards for this one specific lot.

Uh there's currently a hundred foot setback along the eastern uh boundary for all the lots along in this PD.

Uh the app is requesting to allow for sexy structures uh to be within that uh setback area sub in placement will be subject to land development code regulations and dealing with accessory structures.

I wouldn't know if there's a 10-foot easement on the eastern boundary, which provides for additional setback requirements above what the code would allow for accessory structures uh based on surrounding development pattern.

Staff uh does find this request approval or an available for any questions.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Morning.

Um, we're the property owners.

Um we're simply requesting for our lot twenty-two to um be added or revised for condition 12 to exempt accessory structures from the existing 100-foot setback requirement.

Um this request would instead subject the accessory structures to the applicable accessory structure setback standards of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code.

Okay, great, appreciate it.

Uh, any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Wilson sign commissioner cohen and Miller, please record your vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, could uh the both of you identify yourselves for the record?

Just take your name on the on the microphone.

Morgan Boris.

Carlos Boros.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Motion carries seven to zero.

E3.

Commissioner, the next next sign of agenda item E3, PRS application 26-04545.

Uh, this is a request to modify uh PD, a 4.2 acre PD located in the Greater Palmer area on the on the corner of uh South 72nd Street and the Causeway Boulevard.

Uh Commissioners, this is a project approved for a 90-unit uh multifamily uh development project with the uh with the uh building located along the uh frontage of causeway with parking and retention to the rear.

The apping is requesting the modified buffering screening requirements along the western and southern boundaries.

Uh presently a 20-foot buffer with type B screening is allowed along the entire uh boundaries of both the west and the southern boundaries.

The apping is requesting to modify that to remove that required screening south of the entrance road, which is across from commercially zoned property, and also to move that request along causeway, which is also across from commercially zoned property.

They will be complying with uh City Quarters uh landscaping requirements along Causeway Boulevard.

Uh staff does find this request approval when we're able for any questions.

Thank you.

All right.

So applicant here.

Morning, sir.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Ricky Peterica with Dark Moss on behalf of the applicant.

Uh just for a quick refresh.

We're just requesting essentially to remove the six-foot high opaque fence requirement from causeway and 72nd Avenue and all other provisions of the prior approved rezoning are to remain in place.

Thank you, sir.

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

I can have a motion.

To approve second.

Motion Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on E3.

Motion carried seven to zero.

E4.

Thank you.

Commissioner's next agenda item is uh agenda item E4 Pierce application 26-0612.

Uh, this is a request to modify uh 27.17 acre parcel located in at the northwest and southwest corner of uh Forbes Road and Therona Sassa Road.

Uh the app the applicant is requesting a number of uh transportation related uh requirements and conditions.

Uh one being presently there's a uh parking lot located as overflow parking lot located to the southwest of the intersection of Penona Sass and Forbes Road.

It's currently stricted to utilizing on Friday, Saturdays, and Sundays.

The app is requesting that to be allowed for daily use.

Uh staff does not object to that request.

The other uh requests are dealing with removal of of uh four conditions uh addressing uh one addressing the requirement for additional parking analysis to address uh sufficient parking for the facility, uh another condition dealing with site access and trip generation analysis to address uh you know any requirements for additional uh turn lane improvements for the project and the other technicians uh are dealing with uh analysis to address uh substandard road uh improvements along Fanona Sassa Road and North Forbes Road.

Those are conditions 31 through 34.

Uh the conditions of approval.

Uh staff is is not supportive of removal of those four conditions, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Morning.

Good morning.

Colin Rice at the law firm of old London, 1000 West Cass.

I have been sworn here on behalf of Keel Farms.

Mr.

Keel is with us today, uh, along with uh Mr.

Mike Lee to Palm Traffic.

Uh I'll have them say a couple of words uh after I do a brief introduction here.

So last year we were before you uh for the approval of a 3,000 square foot operation structure.

Um today we're here so Mr.

Keel can build it.

Uh again, this is an active farm.

This is a pillar of the community and a perfect example of agri-tourism in action.

And I want to thank staff for their attention to this project.

So specific to this request, um we've proposed uh a set of revised conditions during your packet.

I have copies if anybody is interested.

But it would allow the southern lot to be used for daily use, uh, and it would remove the conditions imposed last year, and I'll get into why.

Zooming in, uh you can see the tasting room event space uh along the Noda Sasa and Forbes Road.

The southern lot we're discussing today is here.

And and just to kind of reframe what was approved last year, this is the prior 2014 site plan.

The shaded box is the new operation structure.

It's not taking up any parking, it's not introducing any uses, and it is purely for uh employee space.

So again, right now this lot is restricted to Friday, Saturday, Sunday parking.

We're asking that it be opened up for everyday use.

Um last year, transportation staff had uh added conditions 31 through 34 for requesting to be removed today.

Um and I'm gonna ask Mr.

Yates uh to address you briefly to to touch on two key points.

One is the Southern Lot's ability to accommodate uh daily parking needs and to whether a turn lane is required.

So I'll ask Mr.

Michael Yates to address you.

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

Um we did do uh both some parking uh counts at the existing facility, uh both the uh northern site and the southern site to document the parking demand.

And then we also did turning movement counts at the driveways to anticipate whether turn lanes would be warranted uh based on that data.

Uh the southern lot could accommodate the additional traffic uh with utilizing that during the weekday traffic patterns.

And then second, uh we do not anticipate turn lanes would be warranted based on the volume.

So we have looked at both the current volumes and the proposed modification uh traffic associated with that, and we're able to at least identify that we do not anticipate turn lanes would be warranted.

I'm happy to answer any questions, uh, but I'll turn it back over to Colin to finish up.

Thank you, Michael.

Now I'll ask Mr.

Clay Keel to say a few words.

Good morning, Commission.

Thank you for having me.

Uh my name's Clay Keel.

I'm the owner and operator of Keel Farms, Keelan Carly Winery.

Just say a few words.

My father started Keel Farms with our late neighbor Charlie Scott in 1980.

So we are a uh 45-year-old farm.

We are uh still a bona fide agriculture operation.

Twenty acres of our property is utilized for crops, strawberries, blueberries, sunflowers, uh, grapes, even animals, cows, chickens, goats.

So we are dedicated to farming and we still do it.

Like many farms, we've had to adapt over the years.

You know, my father uh began making wine with blueberries in 2003, uh, then uh then becoming one of the uh leading uh leaders in agro tourism and starting that in this area.

Over time, uh agro tourism became recognized as a way to preserve and save small farms like ours as areas developed, such as Hillsborough County.

Uh we are very grateful for that support, support of the state, the county, our community, uh for you know supporting us in and moving forward in agro tourism and allowing our small farm to continue.

Uh we're also can committed to being good neighbors.

All of my neighbors know me.

Um a lot of them are my friends, they all have my cell phone number.

Uh, we're there for them as well.

Probably most importantly, I'm proud of uh who we employ.

We employ over a hundred people uh over in eastern Hillsborough County, one of the leading employers in uh in our area.

Um it's an area where jobs are super important.

Uh just as an example, Cork Elementary, which is the school right down the road, my elementary school uh 65% free and reduced lunch.

So every job out there matters.

Uh today I'm asking that the commission support us in allowing us to park on our south lot uh Monday through Sunday as opposed to Friday through Sunday, as the PD currently states.

I'm also asking that you all remove these transportation requirements uh as they make uh are operationally not feasible for a family farm like ours, and uh do that in line with the agro tourism guidance coming from the state.

Uh in the end, I would like to just say thank you for supporting Keel Farms.

Thank you to the community for supporting Keel Farms and for supporting agriculture in Hillsborough County in general.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Any uh proponent testimony?

Any opponent testimony?

Seeing none, Commissioner Wollstrom.

Thanks.

Um I'm happy to see the parking requirements, and we're we're removing their requirement to do hardened asphalt and everything, correct?

Commissioner, that is part of their request.

They did not submit any conditions to that effect, but if that was part of the board approval, we would we would create conditions to that effect.

So it's um I'm sorry, so it's it's still in there right now for them to have to do that.

Yeah, that I I just I I thought it was getting removed.

I I I remember when this came up before.

I've always been opposed to this.

This is a this is a rural area, and I don't believe that um we should be requiring urban level um improvements to some of these organizations.

This is a rural area, and it can have I grew up on dirt roads, and it's perfectly fine in those areas to have a dirt road, in my opinion.

So the last thing that anybody wants is more farmers to be ran out of the area.

And I remember somebody recently saying that I was um f forcing um the farmers to sell and develop their land, and my response was well, that that would be a felony if you have proof of that.

I would like to see it because I don't want to go to jail.

Um but uh one way to run the farmers out of Hillsborough County is continuing to apply regulations to them that just don't make sense.

So I believe that we should um move to amend and require um any of the hardened asphalt requirements, paving um improvements that were requiring of part of these conditions.

So um I I see the district four commissioners cued, so for now I'll just move to amend um any of the hardened asphalt um paving requirements in the conditions that we're requiring in transportation improvements.

Nope.

I yeah, she's next to speak.

Thank you, Chair.

So um Commissioner Wistols talked um to many of the points I was gonna say.

This is a perfect example of why I think this body exists, and it's because we get to look at things through you know the lens outside of what staff is required to do.

And um I think that if we put undue burden on farmers, we're gonna see more of them close up shop.

Um I happen to know this farm and have lived in the region for many, many years.

Not only um do the neighbors love him, but the community loves him.

He's a great community partner.

Um I think if we require the asphalt, it would actually take away from the feel of going there.

It is you're going to be on a family farm and enjoy an afternoon.

Um, and so I did have a question on the actual request though, right?

So if we um move to accept the variances as they're all presented, yes, that would actually remove the blacktop requirement in it included in it, correct?

It was part of the request.

There the request is there's a requirement to propose conditions.

They didn't include that as a condition, but it's been clarified here today that if the board moves this, we'll add the condition to uh not require I would say just leave the the the parking lot in the existing state, is what I understand is the intent of the condition.

Yes.

And could the applicant clarify that's what you desire uh Colin Rice for the record will happily accept that condition.

Okay.

Okay, we got a motion by Commissioner Wolstool, uh second by Commissioner Cameron Cepeda for approval with the amended uh condition.

And I'll just say that uh I've had the pleasure of going to a number of charitable events at QL Farm through the years, wonderful facility.

And although I haven't been there in a couple years, I hope uh the Board of County Commissioners proclamation that we gave you years ago is still hanging on the wall.

Okay, so with that, uh Commissioner Bowles, can you make a comment?

Can I have the parking engineer come back up?

Or the traffic engineer, excuse me.

Thank you.

When uh you um formulated your opinion, did you do that during just was that during evaluating weekday hours or was that the all seven days?

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

Uh we did a week typical weekday.

I think it was a Wednesday that we went out there, and then we did a Saturday.

So we did both the typical weekday, and then we also did Saturday.

So we did both time periods.

So was a Saturday during one of the events that they normally it was not a special event, but it was a typical Saturday.

Because we didn't want to hit an event Saturday.

Uh, but from a traffic perspective, we always look at you know the typical operating time periods.

And and part of the questions that were being asked today is to remove some of the traffic, and you explain what generally speaking, what we're trying we're removing the variances.

Can you explain what generally speaking what we're trying we're removing the variances?

Yeah, so uh there are sections of the code that require both a full traffic study that evaluates our left and right turn lanes warranted at each of the driveways utilized by the facility and shown on the PD plan.

Uh the second is related to substandard road uh going in going out and evaluating uh the conditions of the road, including turn lanes or pavement width, right-of-way width, sidewalks, and those types of functional aspects of a roadway.

So if um those variances with just with the PD change in allowing the employees to this is about allowing employees to park there based on the the normal work week.

Is that a good way of characterizing this?

Yeah, so part of the request is is related to the parking is to be able to use that southern lot during the typical weekday.

So what they're seeing is they're getting more weekday traffic.

Uh you know, then I think they probably anticipated when they first started out.

And so they have the southern lot there that is being utilized for the weekends, and so the the desire is to utilize that during the week as well to accommodate not only employees but also patrons.

There's already a crosswalk to get from the lot to the facility.

It seems silly that it's being restricted to just the weekends when there is ample parking there to accommodate this, and all they're trying to do is add this small building to improve service, not really improve additional customers or anything like that.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Commissioner Miller, then we're gonna vote.

Thank you, sir.

I just want to um probably answer Commissioner Bowl's question.

For years, he had food trucks out there, and I think this all just came about because now it's going to be a constructed permanent facility, and so it there's been daily parking.

Correct me if I'm not wrong.

Um, on the southern lot for many years, I don't think the traffic has actually increased that much.

It's just now that he's constructing this facility because before he had food trucks out there.

So we got again motion, Commissioner Woolstool with the amended condition.

Second, Commissioner Cameron Cepeda, please accord your vote.

Motion carries seven to zero.

E5 Commissioner's exagenda items E5 PRS application 26-0616.

Uh this is uh request to modify 2.69 acre PE that's located on the south side of Morris Bridge Road.

Uh in the northeast uh portion of the county.

The the the PD is approved for a a soccer facility.

Uh for the site plan is current currently restricted to uh up to four small fields uh with uh rebuffering screening along the perimeter.

Uh the append is part of the conditions of approval.

There is a maximum number of uh persons up to 160 that's per minute on the site uh at any one time.

This request is to add a second uh option for the soccer facility instead of four small fields to have one one large field.

Uh buffering screening will be being maintained.

The the parking facility will be moved uh closer to Morris Bridge Road, and the applicant has uh added a restriction limiting uh the number of uh of persons that can be on the site uh to 72, which is a reduction over what could be accommodated under the current uh uh development options.

Uh based on that, uh those considerations staff does find this request approval, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here good morning, sir?

Good morning, Commissioners.

Uh Chris McNeil with McNearing on behalf of the applicant.

Um pleasure to share with you today these improvements uh or the request for Silva Academy, and uh as you know, the uh location just described.

I'll be uh real brief because a lot of this is repetitive.

This is the approved plan.

The the uh proposed plan just been adjusted here for this condition to allow um one to four fields in this particular option one.

Uh in addition to that, the uh as noted by Mr.

Grady, the uh option to build just one field is what we're focused on for option three, which is this plan.

So it's basically uh the request to go from four fields to one uh to reduce the total occupants from one fifty to seventy-two, uh maintaining the setbacks while shifting the building uh relative to maintaining the setbacks relative to the residential with increasing the one to the south and uh maintaining screening and buffering uh as well as the right-of-way preservation scene at quarter on the north side.

So uh with that, just that summary there is for you.

Uh no change to those setbacks and option one or uh for the uh option to be able to do four field max as opposed to all four at one time.

And uh any of you have any questions from here to answer?

Thank you, sir.

Uh, any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Now can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Willstall, second commissioner Myers, please accord your vote on E5s motion carried seven to zero.

E6.

Commissioner's next item is general item C E six PRS application 26-0617.

Uh this is a request to modify a PD that's located on the east and west side of uh South Counter Road 579, uh south of State Road 674 in Wymama.

Uh the request is to add an assing additional access point along the southern boundary of the PD and the uh southwest uh quadrant of the the PD.

Uh staff has reviewed this as a recommended approval and is up for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning, Cammy Corwett with the Hill Ward at Henderson.

I don't have anything to add.

I'm here to answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

Uh anyone here in support of the application.

Anyone in opposition seeing none, clear motion.

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner uh Wolstool, second Commissioner Miller.

Please record your vote on E5.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Okay.

That was E6.

Commissioner's X item is item E7.

Uh, this is PRS 26-0 to 621.

Uh the request is for um concerning a PD located on the west side of Bombware Road, south of Boea Road and the intersection of Bombay Road.

Uh Commissioners, uh, this is a PD that was when it was originally approved was under the RP2 plan category and the plan village design requirements that were in the land development code.

Subsequent approval of this area was changed to res four and into the urban service area, and therefore is no longer subject to the planned village uh design requirements.

Therefore, the app is requesting the modified number of conditions uh within the PD that were imposed related to uh the uh planned village design requirements.

I would note that the the overall layout of the uh the uh design of the project is not significantly changing with these changes because most of the conditions are related to the building design requirements.

Uh they are removing a an access point cross access point along the western boundary that now is uh adjacent to an ELAP property.

Uh staff is recommending approval and real for any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning, Korporate with Hill Ward Henderson again.

Uh just the only thing I have to add is we uh wanted to change one slight note on the site plan that was in the record.

It said that all roads would be private, but we already have construction plan approval and preliminary plan approval that allows some of the roads to be public.

So we added a note that the roads could be public subject to the policies in the comprehensive plan, and just entering that into the record.

Okay, thank you.

Uh anyone in support the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Come here motion.

Move and approval.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Cohen, second commissioner Wils to please accord your vote on the E7.

Motion carried seven to zero.

All right.

F items.

Commissioner the first F item is uh F1 rezoning PD uh 25-0383.

Uh this is a request to uh rezone a 4.92 acre parcel that's uh located on the west side of uh North Ola Avenue, uh south of Fletcher Avenue, uh north of uh West 131st Avenue.

Uh the applicant is requesting uh development for uh town uh 10 townhomes uh along the uh frontage of uh Ola Avenue is indicated in the site plan as shown in the site plan.

The large majority of the properties is containing a wetland area, and so again uh development is concentrated along Ola Avenue.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

Planning which found it consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval.

Uh we are bailed for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now it's the applicant here.

All right, why don't we uh continue this to the last last item?

So moved.

Motioned uh by Commissioner Wilson, second commissioner cohen to continue F1.

Uh please accord your vote.

We told them to be here.

Motion carried seven to zero.

F two commissioners, uh next item is item F two.

This is rezoning PD 25-0882.

Uh, this is a request for uh to rezone a 9.66 parcel located at uh the the northeast corner of uh 32nd Street Southeast and 14th Avenue Southeast.

Uh the request is to allow for a 50 room ho containing with the total of 78,000 square feet of uh building.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

Uh planning mission found and consistent in the hearing offshow is also recommending approval.

All right, thank you.

I believe the applicant is on virtually we can't hear you, Mr.

Mr.

That is a reclamation or redevelopment of up the T Borrow Pit.

My client is proposing a small boutique hotel, 50 rooms or less that is proposed to utilize the existing lake as a recreational environmental identity.

Uh the hotel is uh proposed to be located along the I-75 frontage away from the existing residential uses, and the remainder of the property will be cleaned of nuisance vegetation, enhanced with landscaping and utilized as a pedestrian trail around the lake.

Also, no wetland impacts are proposed for this development.

We have a finding of consistency with the comp plan recommendation.

I'm not aware of any opposition to this request, so I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh, any proponent testimony?

Any opponent testimony?

Planning commission.

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

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

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sun City Center community plan as well as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

The established character of the surrounding area is mostly residential in nature, with a few parcels of industrial south of the site.

Future land use section policy 3.1.2 emphasizes the need for gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses to be provided for as new development is proposed and approved through the use of professional site planning, buffering, and screening techniques and the control of specific land uses.

The most recent site plan includes buffering and screening mitigation measures designed to provide a gradual transition between the proposed use and the adjacent properties.

Along the eastern boundary, a man-made lake separates the project site from the existing residential uses, creating a natural buffer.

This is supplemented by an eight-foot buffer with a type B screening along the eastern boundary.

The northern boundary of the site also includes an eight-foot buffer with a type B screening, which abuts vacant land to the north, with the lake creating a natural buffer from the residential area to the east and the additional mitigation measures proposed.

The request effectively integrates into the surrounding development and is compatible with the existing uses in the area.

With the compatibility measures in place and the nature of the proposed use, the request is consistent with future land use section objective 3.1 and its associated policies.

The site's upland acreage is 2.78 acres, which would result in a total maximum non-residential development potential of 75,685 square feet, which would be the maximum non-residential square footage permitted in the community mixed use 12 future land use category.

The proposed development for the site is 68,000 square feet, which is within the maximum potential for the site and therefore consistent with development expected in this future land use category.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master considered the requested plan development rezoning and found it to be consistent with the requirements of the land development code and consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval.

Motion Commissioner Myers.

Second.

Motion carried seven to zero.

F three.

Commissioner's next item is item F3 rezoning PD 26-0213.

This is a request to rezone a 9.9 acre parcel.

Uh that's located on the west side of uh Boyette Road.

Uh the apping is requesting uh to be allowed a general in general indoor outdoor recreation of field facility plus one single family home.

Uh the AFM did propose a number of uh measures to address compatibility surrounding development pattern, notwithstanding staff uh did not find this supportable uh based on the surrounding development, the existing zoning and development pattern in the area.

Uh the planning commission found the inconsistent in the hearing officer also found it not approvable.

Uh we are available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

The applicant here called morning.

Morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

Um I'm here uh this morning for the record, Michael Brooks, 400 North Tampa Street, uh suite 1900, uh Tampa 33602.

Want to quickly recognize I've done it again.

Um quickly recognize my development team, which is um Isabel Albert is our uh project planner, uh Michael Yates, um traffic who you know, Todd Amaden is a project engineer who couldn't be here uh this evening or this morning.

Um very pleased to have worked with them on this.

Uh the plan development.

I'm gonna give you really just a roadmap real quick um before I get daggerized from Miss Albert.

Uh but the plan development before you is essentially for two uses.

Uh, an existing single family residence, which will remain on the property as it is today, and then a recreational use slash general indoor outdoor as it's defined in the zoning code.

And I want to just take a minute here to to look at the definition of recreational use.

It encompasses a very broad spectrum of things.

Uh and this really goes to the commercial nature that you're reading about in your um in some of the staff reports.

The definition encompasses things that we traditionally think is commercial, right?

Bowling alleys, skating ranks, the orange theory down the street, uh, movie theaters, other gems, things that we anticipate seeing at the intersections, um, similar to our commercial framework.

There's another spectrum, and they're listed here is baseball batting cages and play fields, and that's not to say that's all that is part of our proposal today, but that's to say that there is a group of very land intensive type uses uh that do not lend themselves well to the locational criteria uh and being treated as commercial uses.

And um, so with that um kind of overview, I want to just take one second here to talk about the applicants because a lot has been said, there was a lot of testimony at the zoning hearing master in your backup.

The applicants are local parents in the community, they're attempting to meet a known need.

Uh and I'm hearing and have learned there's a lack of available options for this type of use.

Uh, these are full-time professionals, so this is not their primary business.

The art is not intended to be an income replacement.

They are just passionate uh people about youth sports, community investment, and what this project will be.

And that will be a theme that you will hear from both the supporters and the opposition.

Real quick and lastly, an operational overview.

Um the yard is a private instruction-led sports facility.

Um, so operationally, what that means is approved trainers and instructors will rent space from the yard and then work with their clients who, in many cases, are uh student athletes.

Um all activities are scheduled, so this is not a walk-in type or drop-off type facility.

Uh, it will have um-site um staffing uh via the residents that will uh also provide some security maintenance oversight.

And uh as Ms.

Labert's going to explain, we really believe that the proposed layout you're gonna see tonight has incorporated all the design techniques to ensure that this is a low price low profile transitional use and rather than a traditional commercial operation.

Um I'm just gonna quickly say that the zoning hearing monster did acknowledge this distinction that I just raised.

And the fact that while it's not like a park, it has very park-like elements because the things that I just explained to you happen inside the park, and they happen inside community facilities.

The problem here is that there's just not enough space.

Uh so with that, I'm gonna ask Ms.

Albert to come up.

Uh I have a slide up that is the site location.

You can see it as it just described on the uh west side of uh Boyette, uh, which collector wrote in the USA, it's about 10 acres, and here's Miss Albert.

Thank you.

Good morning, Isabel Albert with HAP.

Um, I'm a certified planner, and uh my address is 1000 North Ashley Drive.

So, what we have here um is actually a very interesting area in the county.

It's kind of like this little pocket of land that's been forgotten that is in the urban service area, but adjacent to the rural, it's between it has this corridor, T Cork corridor, so it's kind of putting this area forgotten.

But um, and that's why you'll see that in the rural service area, you've got a you know, you've got the typical AR, you'll have a pocket of residential one.

Somehow this area has maintained as a residential too.

But also it has to be recognized that the majority of land that's vacant there is actually owned by TICO.

There's some individual lands like um in this area, but the AR portion is um owned by TICO.

So here's the site.

Uh what the we're trying to do is maintain the residential development, but we have the recreation portion of it uh behind you know 350 feet, which is the front of the area that we're trying to maintain semi-rural, and we have the uh the establish the um buildings looking in the butt in the back.

We relocated the batting cage uh behind the play fields and also being protected by the building there to to address noise attenuation and things as such.

We also provided uh operation limitations from the concerns that we had.

No competitive games, we made sure there's no you know, loudhorns, whistle, blowhorns.

Uh we have our lights, which are going to be automatically switched off, and they're all going to be uh re redesigned in order to meet our photometrics that Mr.

Brooks is going to go through, and um, and we have some hours of operation.

But we also wanted to compare, like the to make sure that Boyette Road, you know, driving down Boyette Road was still compatible.

And here what we have is we have maintained the 3.7 acres up front to maintain exactly as it is now.

This is what you know the the expectation is to be semi-rural to see that that is not going to change.

What I'm pointing out here is the house uh there, so all the activity is going to be behind that.

And in order to address that for the buffer and screening, we increases the buffer from the southern property line, but we also ensure that the screening or the fencing that we're providing along the first 350 feet is to be more rural in character.

That's why we have the split rural fencing and things like that.

And then we also have you know the the uh uh screening, vegetated screening, but again, maintaining that three point plus acres up front as a natural state, and then the rear portion is where we're becoming where we're providing the you know the the fence and the screening and all of that that you would typically find in in the code and increasing again the southern uh buffer.

So we have to meet a commercial location criteria.

We have to be within a thousand feet of a intersection uh uh qualifying intersection, and over here you'll see that the activity that we're proposing is within that a thousand feet of the intersection.

And it's also in the South Shore Community Plan.

The South Shore Community Plan is quite a uh large plan.

Uh it's pretty broad considering it's 250,000 acres, or therefore it's addressing the rural area and the urban service area, but it's also recognizing that you know uh property owners do have rights to see what they can do with our land.

And this brings me to Mr.

Michael Gates.

Thank you.

Uh good good morning, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I have been sworn I'll be brief.

Uh on the transportation.

Um there we did a level of service evaluation.

Uh this is from the staff report, but it shows Boyette Road operates at level of service C, uh, 286 daily trips, 29 AM peak hour trips, and 44 PM peak hour trips.

Uh we do have a TRIPCAT with N hour conditions of approval for that.

Uh also we have a design exception to add a sidewalk along the west side of Boyette along our project frontage and then extending that down to Dorman Road.

Uh there is an existing sidewalk along the west side of Dorman Road going south.

Uh there are uh two uh projects uh to the south of this, uh one is a tier one and one is a tier two improvement uh that will focus on pedestrian and safety improvements going south of Dorman Road.

I'm gonna turn it over to Michael Brooks to finish up.

You have 40 seconds, Mr.

Brooks.

Yes, sir.

Um lastly, I do want to make note because it was not specifically referenced in the um in the zoning hearing master report.

We have done a photometric study, which those of you that know this is something for certain uses that you do have to do at the time of construction plan permits.

Uh we went ahead and had uh our client do this initially up front.

Uh I will say that many of the photos that you're going to see this after this uh later this morning are not consistent with this photometric study, meaning that the the plan is to change out these lights.

And you just gives you an idea of the photometric of the uh of the lights, and you can see from that second one that it does not escape the property boundaries.

Appreciate your comments.

Thanks, sir.

You have opportunity for uh for rebuttal uh at this time.

Those in support, is anyone here in support of the application?

Please come forward.

Chairman, if I could help organize uh the supporters, um Mr.

Ashani, I think we have Brendan McCaffrey, Rochelle Davis, and I understand Brian Peters is here today.

Okay, just be mindful.

We have a total of 10 minutes.

Good morning, sir.

Um, Brendan McCafferty, um 6102 Fishhawk Crossing Boulevard, Lithia, Florida, 33547.

Um I'm the president of the board of Florida Hawks.

I'll keep it brief to the time.

Um, and um we're the fish hawk soccer community.

We service teams.

We're at about over a thousand children that we um we manage at our facility.

Um, and it's really a team-based training, both recreation and uh competitive training for competitive soccer training, and it's very team-based.

So we have coaches that that train teams and try to get them better at soccer and perform and have um have a huge bonus to their life.

I'm an unpaid volunteer for this community.

I don't get paid at all.

I just do it for the um really on the board to be the voice of the uh the board is meant to be the voice of the public of our membership, right?

So to understand so we can convey what they really need.

Um one of the gaps from our program is the individual development of the of the soccer players.

So we have team-based training where we teach you know a whole bunch of things on how to play the game of soccer, both recreation and in the competitive program, and we do individual um player development um assessments with the players and say these are the things that you need to work on, right?

Where that falls short is we don't have the capacity to have that individual training with them.

We don't have the field space where our fields are booked from 4:30, like full of teams from 4:30 to 9 p.m.

every every week weeknight and all weekend, right?

So we don't have the space or the coaching capacity to be able to do the individual training um sessions that players need for their development.

So we tell these players, hey, you need to develop on this particular technical aspect, and they're at a loss.

How do I get that development?

The there is trainers in the community that that train people individually in certain aspects of the sport, so they can train them on you know, technical shooting if that's what they or physical, you know, agility that they can train them on, but they don't have the places to do that.

And as a matter of fact, there is the county just put in new signs saying that you know there's no personal training basically on the facilities per the field use agreement.

So they're not even allowed to be on our fields, even if there was time to be, right?

So I just wanted to speak to the need of the community that we hear.

It is our number one complaint, like our number one feedback from our when we do assessments and when we do um reach out to the community.

Our number one is how do I get my child better?

What are the resources to help my personal child get better?

So I think um you'll hear how that helps.

But I just want to speak to the need.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate the comments.

Next morning.

Good morning.

My name is Rashad Davis, and I live in Lithia, uh, 5402 Osprey Ridge Drive.

I've been involved in the local basketball community for about seven years now, both as a parent and as a coach.

During that time, our biggest struggle we've consistently faced is finding places for kids to practice.

Week after week, local uh parents are forced to drop 30 to 60 minutes away for practices and games.

We travel to Brandon, Plant City, all the way to Clearwater, St.

Pete, not because we want to, but because we have no indoor facility in our community.

What's important to understand is that many of these teams are made up of mostly local kids.

Yet parents will spend the hours every single week driving outside the community just so their children can participate in sports and stay active.

When we heard about the yard, I immediately started having positive feedback from coaches, parents, and a ton of athletes who have trained.

I personally spoke with two AAU coaches yesterday who coach uh boys and girls, fourth through 11th grade teams, and they told me that they have about 80 to 90 local kids on their teams who struggle to find you know a place close enough to practice.

And they told me that they have about 80 to 90 local kids on their teams who struggle to find you know a place close enough to practice.

So coaches are competing with dozens of teams in the Brandon and surrounding areas just to secure limited gym time.

Practices are often booked from 4 p.m.

or late at night, which is inconvenient for families and extremely difficult for working parents.

The project is important for another reason.

We've all seen uh stories in the news recently about teen takeovers and young people getting involved in negative situations because they don't have positive uh outlets.

Facilities like the yard give teens a safe place to go, positive role models to be around, and something positive to uh productive to be a part of.

The yard is not designed to be a place where kids are just hanging out or loitering.

The athletes who are there will be with their organized teams, coaches, and trainers.

The facility would create a structured environment centered around sports, fitness, mentorship, and community uh involvement.

The yard will also provide local coaches an opportunity to positively impact hundreds of athletes right here in our own community, and coaches are more than just people teaching sports.

We become mentors, uh, we become role models and trusted adults in these kids' lives.

Having a facility like this allows us to pour into more young people and help guide them in a positive direction.

Finally, we have a few fields around, but absolutely no indoor facility where kids can come together to practice, train, stay active, and improve their physical and mental health outside of the Florida heat.

The yard would give our community something it truly needs.

It would create an opportunity for kids to stay active, to stay connected, to stay off the iPads, and also create a positive environment for them surrounded by coaches, mentors, teammates, and families in the community.

I truly believe it would become an invaluable asset to Fish Hulk Lithia and surrounding communities, and I fully support bringing it here.

And if I may, uh if anybody in the audience supports it, could you please stand?

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next, you got just under three and a half minutes.

How many?

Morning.

Morning.

My name is Brian Peters.

I'm currently uh in my 30th year of coaching college baseball.

I currently coach at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

I just wanted to say that I don't see this facility as anything different than any other community center, much like a community pool where you would hire a lifeguard, uh, self-defense classes where you would hire somebody to do your instruction.

This one is specific to baseball, obviously.

In my profession as a coach, I recruit young student athletes uh to come and play for USF.

We need those student athletes obviously to have some some sort of elite training, uh some sort of um instruction.

We need our young men to be able to uh follow instructions, um, to be able to compete at a high level.

We need them to come in with some high level of accountability, discipline, be a part of uh uh something bigger than themselves and the team, and places like this facility would be places where they can go, get high-level training, and have some place to go to where they can compete and they can be pushed and then they can become better athletes and better people.

My profession is struggling right now with that aspect of it as a parent.

I don't have I'm not a parent myself, but I co-parent 35 young men every single year, and I know that we need our young men that we recruit to come in and have this level of accountability in this point where they can be pushed, instructed in a positive environment with great people that are models and mentors and can help coach and teach the things that go beyond sports that we need them to have for life, like the at the facility here.

I couldn't support this place anymore.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Good morning.

Morning.

Uh hi, my name is Ashana Firklof, uh, 731 Kensington Lake Circle.

I am currently the assistant coach at the Tampa Bay Sun, which is their local professional women's soccer team.

Uh I'm also the girls' technical director at Ferder Premier FC.

And the reason why I wanted to get the opportunity to speak today is we have many of our professional soccer players that live in the area, and they've always asked about how they could give back to the soccer in the community.

And there hasn't been a facility locally that they could go and practice and teach young players a game, give back to the community from that standpoint.

Um, and being the technical director for a youth soccer club in the area, I know many of our players actually do want the facility like this that they could go and practice and train.

And with me being in a position that I could also give back, I see great benefit to having this facility in our community, where somebody like me with high technical skills, um having the highest coaching soccer license in the country.

I could be someone who could facilitate this growth and development of our young athletes in the area, and having this facility is something that could help us to go far, far away.

Also, from a professional soccer standpoint, with many of our girls or players, I want to say young women living in this area, they always try to find ways to impact the community from a positive standpoint with the game that they love and the game that they've always been known to play.

And them giving back to the players in the community is something that I personally would love to spearhead and personally love to be a part of, and having them being flopped with this facility as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate your comments.

We have a total of 10 minutes.

Anyone here in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh Eric W.

Smith with Lambert Law Offices, uh, 617 West Lumson Road, Brandon, Florida.

And we have a brief presentation as well.

That's theirs.

Yes.

Thank you.

And as we're getting started here, uh, I do want to state that there's been some prior evidence and testimony that was not submitted during the zoning hearing that should be either stricken or disregarded as it was not made before the zoning master and was not made of record in that report.

Um, what we'll be presenting is the information that was presented, as well as the notations that are uh relevant, as well as ending with an impact statement.

The key issue here is that the zoning master found this plane development was not consistent with the existing area, this is existing agricultural area, and that even with the planned uh ways to modify that, it would still not be consistent.

The issue here is what's happening with the uh agricultural farms, agricultural uh animal farms, as well as the businesses that are existing in the area will be impacted.

Uh, for a few of the residents who are directly right next door to the area, they'll be losing their businesses.

Many of the agricultural farms and uh farming for animals have been there for over 30 or 40 years.

If the plane development was uh provided there, um they've been told that they would be losing their customers.

Um the development that has happened before the application process even got started, has impacted where there's been a loss of uh those who are boarding horses, uh horse training, they can no longer have that training.

The loss of existing and prospective uh customers have impacted the the owners.

And so the key issue is what is the disablement going to do to the existing agricultural area.

The zoning master has already found that no matter what they plan to do for both indoor and outdoor uses, it would not be consistent with the existing agricultural area.

Um, as you can see, that for quite quite some time there was development in the area before even doing the zoning application.

Um, a lot of information was submitted today about what the plan would be.

But again, the key issue for this board is whether this development would be in any way compatible with the existing area and existing landowners who have been there for 30, 40 years in an area zone as agricultural only.

Excuse me, Mr.

Smith.

Um, I received an objection that two of the slides that were shown were not shown during the zoning hearing master hearing.

So just a reminder to make sure that that presentation is exactly the same as what was shown at the ZHM.

Yes, it is uh everything you've seen so far has been exactly shown and presented.

There has been nothing that's been modified from this presentation.

Yeah, theirs was modified, ours is not.

So our objection was that for the evidence that was provided from the previous uh presentation, many of the slides were not provided in that zoning hearing, and that would have to be stricken or disregarded before your review today.

And so you can see the uh existing uh area, how it is already um developed.

But this plane of development, which is really an urban development that would not be consistent.

Uh, there's been no regulation as for how often they'd be using the facility.

It could be a seven-day a week uh operation, 15 hours a day, bright lights, loud noises.

This is not something where they're limited to a small enclosed space that's indoors that's not affecting the uh existing neighbors uh in the outside area that have existing uh agricultural businesses and farmland in the area.

It's an example of that existing rural character.

And now the light pollution, for example.

This is what the existing neighbors are seeing in their property uh directly uh by this plane development, and this is not a minimal uh violation of their use of their property.

This is ongoing day and night.

Next one to you.

Now, this commercial uh uh operation, this really isn't simply a recreational use, but it's more for making uh a large sum of money for those existing coaches.

This is something that was advertised well before the zoning application was in place uh to receive as many students as possible, not being limited.

Um again, this is not so much for the kids having a place to play, but for coaches of a place to advertise and to make money in a commercial uh uh manner.

And the pricing isn't something where it's very simple and easy for just local residents just to be able to utilize.

The cost for some of these operations arranged in the 450 per student range.

Um for example, one has exclusive to 99 members.

Uh, that's not limited to just five family members or ten individuals, that's quite a few people at one point for just one coach or one event.

And now this uh facility, again, it's a 20,000 square foot large facility with a very small home next to it, or a small little structure next to it that's being based as a home.

Um, this has the potential for large runoff flooding in the area, causing severe damage to not only the surrounding community, but those using the dorman roads uh for traffic for going to school, things like that.

And again, this road, Dorman Road, is a one and a half lane road, it's not a major uh two-way in and out for the residents or even for this planned development.

It's still gonna cause major traffic issues for the area.

And now this screening or screening visitation is very limited.

For a lot of the property owners, they have the free-range uh cattle or horses that range the property, even with vegetated vegetated screening that can still poison the animals, the horses, the cattle that is around the area.

Um there's been no presentation to the zoning master as to the advanced screening or advanced methods to prevent some some of these issues that really would not be preventable even with uh the plans that are in place by the development.

Now, the noise pollution is a major issue for those that were in opposition or those who are uh living around the area.

We do have a slide in the in the next uh well, it didn't work last year.

Okay, in the video, yeah.

We did have a video of just one batter using uh aluminum bat outs outside, and the pollution from that noise alone was so severe, causing problems to not only the uh residents but to the animals.

There is spooking of the horses causing uh stampede or stampeding, um, and that was just from one batter.

Now, if we amplify amplify that by 10 or 20 or 40, doesn't appear that anyone would want to have that kind of pollution in their environment, but also harming their existing agricultural businesses, losing customers, causing damages, and eventually losing their business altogether.

Um in our last uh hearing, we had over 80 uh, I guess residents who are in opposition of the plane development that were present.

There are many of those who are here today.

I would like like those who are in opposition that are here, but please stand.

Next one.

Oh, so there's been over 200 opposition letters have been presented over 300 petitions signed, hundreds of yard signs, and over 11,000 followers who are against this opposition.

Um, so those who are directly affected in this area that's been zoned agricultural for 30, 40 plus years with those existing businesses, are not in favor of this operation where there are other areas for this type of for-profit operation to exist in the area or surrounding areas.

Um we do have this community concern uh section here, but with the limited amount of time, I do want to highlight that there was one very particular uh witness testimony that came before the zoning master.

Um Ms.

Catherine Wiggins, she has a horse operation both for boarding as well as for uh instruction and training with this direct uh plane development affecting her direct property.

Uh she's lost customers.

Some see this as an eyesore.

She can't board horses because of this loud operation that's happening with not only the light pollution, noise pollution, um, but her income source is from boarding and instruction.

To have this move forward, she's almost lose her business that was already present that meets the uh agricultural specificity specificity of the area.

And that was the concern of the zoning master.

Um granting rezoning would place an ongoing burden on the neighboring residents to monitor compliance by plane development and report violations to the county.

And the important questions that remain is what kind of facilities are in place for uh septic for uh permitting for the restrooms, and those are very small issues in comparison to for those who are losing their businesses.

What would be in place to compensate them for their loss of their livelihood?

They were here first to do a develop, but based on the agricultural uh development of the area, they have done that.

That would be effectively lost and damaged forever by this development that's truly an urban development that has other areas to be a for-profit training facility for students and for kids.

And then lastly, there was also another uh witnessed testimony regarding the impact of a direct neighbor as well, where based on a loud noise, he was in the middle of the stampeding of horses and animals that cause severe issues for him as well.

Um the major complaint that all of these individuals have is why is this changing the nature of their existing community?

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate the comments.

This time applicant has opportunity for five-minute rebuttal.

I guess we'll let them get that.

Okay.

Thank you again, Mr.

Chairman, for the record.

Michael Brooks here for the applicant.

I really want to touch on five points.

Um you've heard, and obviously, there's in your backup some some documentation information, um, and you just heard from the opposition that uh our client did not proceed with this project in the in the normal sequencing of uh permitting and development.

Completely transparent about that.

There's certainly was an exuberance about it.

Uh it began as a place for their kids and their friends to train, and in just full transparency, it kind of got away from them.

All right.

So a lot of that advertising that you saw, that is one of the things that we've talked to the client about.

Look, if this is successful today, we got to pull this back and have a much more structured um uh oversight of the folks who are using um using the facility.

As to the buildings, the buildings themselves, there is nothing inconsistent with the buildings with the zoning, in that if this were denied today, the buildings would stay as part of obviously in a different use, they would remain residential slash quasi-agricultural uh barns.

If this is approved, they will then be converted to places of assembly, which I know Mr.

Bowles knows a lot more about than I can from a fire marshal standpoint.

Um just real quick.

I mentioned on lighting, I showed you the um I showed you the photometrics.

Um you saw photos as I suggested you would with light glares.

Um we went out and took photos as well with all of the aperture settings and some of those are in your backup.

Uh, but the truth is we can't verify all of those.

More importantly, those lights did not at that time have the downshielding and all the other things that we're agreeing to do in the proposed conditions, which are above and beyond the code.

Um in many regards substantially.

You heard from Mr.

Yates that the traffic is de minimis under the county code.

Um with regard to the setbacks and the buffers and the noise and and generally, uh Ms.

Halbert did a good job, I thought, of explaining, and in fact, if this project had come to us at the beginning of the process, I can't tell you that the development team would have suggested it be laid out any differently.

The use of the building to uh attempt to damper the noise to the north, uh perfectly legitimate planning concept.

Um, both of those buildings closest to that line are enclosed, there's no egress on the inns or on the south side, so there's no activation uh in those locations.

And of course, we did extend the buffer on the south property line to match the setback that is required of public course stables uh on the um and if I could apologize for a moment just to pull up on we've got their presentations up there.

Um with that said, I do want to offer a couple of amendments that were not made on the fly.

We took this seriously as we were uh looking at the zoning hearing master.

I've got lots of people up here right now.

If I could go to the OLMO, one of the struggles you might just over a minute also one minute.

One of the struggles we had with this case was kind of this rural, semi-rural transitional concept.

And so what you see, I hope and appreciate on this plan is the f we attempted to keep it rural, semi-rural appearance up front, and so you don't see any changes in that first 3.7 acres, locate things to the rear.

One of the comments that uh the zoning hearing master made is that the open rail fence that is pardon?

One of the open rail fence that we have proposed to run north-south.

We are open to um to putting up a solid fence there if that would make some mitigation from the road.

Uh, we're also a uh willing to increase the buffer on the western portion of both the north and the south.

And um I I can put these into the record, but essentially, we're proposing uh to do 15 foot center trees and 10 foot center on the north and 10 foot center trees on the south.

So that will double the visual area.

Thank you, sir.

All right, planning commission.

Thank you.

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

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

The immediate area is characterized primarily by single family residential uses with lot sizes ranging from one half acre to six acres in the immediate vicinity, which established a low density residential environment.

Single family homes are located directly adjacent to the subject property to the south as well as to the east across Boyet Road, reinforcing the predominantly residential character of the area.

Given the proximity of these residential uses, the nature of the proposed request would introduce a level of intensity and activity that is inconsistent with the established residential development pattern.

As such, the proposal does not demonstrate adequate sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood context and raises concerns regarding its ability to maintain the character of the existing development pattern as contemplated by future land use section policy 3.1.3.

The residential two category is intended to accommodate non-urban density residential development.

Although the total proposed building area is below the maximum intensity permitted under the floor area ratio maximum, the proposed private indoor and outdoor recreation use represents a level of activity and intensity that is inconsistent with the intended character of the residential two future land use category.

In addition, floor area ratio only considers indoor space and does not account for outdoor uses.4.1.

The transition would not allow for development that is compatible with the surrounding area and would be inconsistent with that policy direction.

The proposed request would not complement the single family residential developments around the site.

The subject site does not meet commercial locational criteria as established under future land use section objective 4.7.

The nearest qualifying intersection to the subject site is the intersection of Lithia Pinecrest Road and Boyette Road.

A site is required to be within 1,000 feet of the qualifying intersection to meet this criteria for the placement of non-residential uses.

And the subject property is located more than 5600 feet away from this intersection.

The applicant has submitted a request to waive the commercial locational criteria as part of this zoning petition.

Planning commission staff does not support a waiver based upon significant compatibility concerns of such a potentially intensive use adjacent to established agricultural and large lot residential development patterns based upon those considerations.

Planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Okay, zoning hearing master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed rezoning and found that the requested planned development is not in conformance with the applicable requirements of the land development code and is not consistent with the future of Hillsborough comprehensive plan.

The zoning hearing masters recommendation was for denial.

Okay, we'll go into board discussion.

Uh Commissioner Cameron Cepeda.

Um yes.

I thought that the uh applicant had a great presentation.

Um regarding the location, he said that um they will have fencing and screening to keep the rural atmosphere and with the extended buffering.

Um also the fact that um you know there's a lack of available options for instructor-led sports for children.

Um very important.

I like the idea of the lighting that will stay on the property, and that of course the way the fencing and everything will be screening um that will um block the lighting from the neighbors there, and um I believe they said that the loudspeakers would be pro uh prohibited as well.

Um, so for those reasons, um, I would support this and also make a move for approval.

Okay, we got a motion uh to approve by Commissioner Cameron Cepeda.

Do we have a second?

I'll pass the galvel and second the motion of for discussion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Wilson, you recognize thank you.

Um the applicant did do a good job, and you put together a really good team.

And um, this board always hates when neighbors fight.

Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

Um we're here to just follow the law and impose that law as evenly as we possibly can.

Um I I've seen, I mean, some of the maliciousness, not all, but some of the maliciousness on social media about this.

I'm almost gonna follow Commissioner Hagen and delete my own social media after this post.

And I I understand it, I'm getting to that point.

Um the board has in the years unanimously voted with on some of my items, Commissioner Cohen's items, other items where we have literally in certain circumstances quadrupled impact fees for new development to be brought to Hillsborough County.

And that was in the light of if you want to do business here, you're gonna pay the cost of doing business your share, and we're not gonna force that onto existing residents.

There's no incentives from this board to promote development, there's no disincentives of this board to promote this development.

If you want to come and do business here, this is the cost of doing business.

All of the negativity about this item, none of that matters to me.

Um, I think that it is a good business and a good business model, and I'd be willing to support you bringing this organization to the right location.

And for me, no matter how this application came to the board today, um, the the code enforcement citations aside, I don't see how I could have ever gotten to the position of saying yes on this specific location.

So for that reason alone, I will be voting no today.

I I do hope that if it doesn't pass, that you're able and willing to find an alternative site, and I'd be more than willing to meet with you on how we can make sure that you continue to provide this service to the children of Hillsboro County.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um Commissioner Hagan.

Okay, yeah, I didn't see anyone else on the queue, so it's hard for me to disagree.

Um with Commissioner Wilson's comments, and yes, he's accurate.

I I intentionally am not on social media, so I don't have to I don't get to see the vitriol that's out there.

Um honestly I am very torn on this.

Um I balance the concerns and the locational criteria, things like that with the reality is that I know as a former player and coach that in every sport we have a lack of facilities.

Baseball, softball, soccer, basketball, you name it.

I hear from someone or a group probably weekly asking for more space.

Um we just simply need more recreational opportunities.

And I also know that on my time on the board, um, I've always believed that fire stations and parks actually increase uh quality of life and property values, but I can't tell you how many times in the past we've had requests for neighborhood parks or fire stations, and inevitably there's opposition, and I'm always fighting for them, and usually the board denies them.

Um I also know that the reality is some of and I've thought about this a lot over the years that some of the biggest and busiest parks in my district, too that I played and coached at forest and loots, um, would never be approved today.

And so I balance all those things, and while I am sympathetic to um to those that are opposed the project, um I will support uh it moving forward uh before I call for the vote.

I I did have a few comments myself.

Um I just want to say first of all, thank you all for coming out and being so polite and and um you know sharing your feelings on both sides of this.

Um I um today I'm gonna echo the comments of Commissioner Wistel that I 100% believe that facilities like this should exist.

I've already raised two kids, paid for private training myself, um different things, so I know that it does need to exist, but this is not the appropriate location.

This is a very rural area.

I'm very familiar with the area.

Um actually went back out on several occasions because this has been such a contentious topic to see for myself so that I didn't have to depend on you know testimony or or pictures, and um I will not um be supporting this moving forward.

Um with that we have a motion and a second on the floor.

Um seeing no further comments, please record your vote.

Commissioner Myers, I'm thinking this is a tough one.

Is it rare really can I Madam Chair?

Can I speak a minute?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

I too appreciate everyone coming down to share your comments with us, but when it comes to our youth, and having a facility in a place for them to be off the street after school doing the summer is really important to me because our kids, when they have nothing to do, they get into trouble.

Let's let's face it.

I wish it was some kind of way the two parties can work this out and find a location that would be best served for uh our youth and for those who own their businesses.

Is it any way uh Adam that this can come back to us and they can kind of work this out before we vote?

Is it any other location?

Even Commissioner Miller in your district that they can find a location to work together before we take our no vote.

Someone answer me, please.

Mr.

Certainly is an opportunity for the applicants to look at another location for this site.

Um they wouldn't it wouldn't really be in the context of this application, which is site specific, but um you know, certainly if there's a if this is the I'm gonna ask the applicant to come back up.

Yeah, ask, ask.

We have some procedural.

I have a motion.

We called for a vote, so now I'm confused as to what I need to do to direct this board.

I'm confused as well.

So I'll stand this is highly unusual.

So any clarification we can we can hear if uh Commissioner Myers has asked uh the applicant to come up and respond, we can hear from uh the applicant.

But there is a motion on the floor, needs to be addressed uh forthwith because I also feel like now she's brought up a point that I feel like I need to debate, and we have a motion, and I've actually already cast my vote.

So do we rescind that?

I need some direction, and I don't I'm sorry.

I need some direction, and I don't make that simple.

We canceled the vote because of the uh the discussion that was taking place.

Okay, I think that's so we're canceling the vote.

We can cancel the vote, remain on the discussion of the motion and second, and then return to the vote once this uh do I need to have a motion for that to happen or I I don't I believe that we are still um subject to that motion and okay.

So we're in the debate main on that discussion for the next few minutes.

Yes, ma'am.

Madam Vice Chair may have a general point of order.

Okay, sir.

Um the the question is is honestly in germane to the topic of today's application.

We can't reconsider this site for a different site.

They would need to completely resubmit.

So if the real answer is that we just encourage the applicant if they find an alternative site to come and meet with us, I believe is the general point here.

There's really no topic to be had.

I don't even know that we can legally consider and ask is can we put it on a different site today?

You're correct, uh, Commissioner Woosel.

The application that's before the board at this point is site specific, so there's really no way to make uh change to the location in relation to this application at this time.

And I appreciate the discussion.

I mean, uh I'm I'm still tone, but I want to ask my question.

And I I think um Mr.

Brooks, you yes, ma'am.

I I'll do my best to answer the question.

Uh for the record, Michael Brooks.

The the site is 10 acres, and I started out talking about the land intention.

The challenge is finding 10 acres in the urban service area, which we are in the urban service area, although we have AR zoning.

But when you take these uses out to where there is larger land tracks, five 10 acre tracks, the problem you find is that everything is zoned, but many things are zoned AR.

So we're back in front of this board, maybe in a more rural truly rural setting in the rural area, but with the same problem with it being a commercial use.

Okay.

And so obviously, if this is denied, there's a lot of passion here.

They are motivated to go find something else.

Uh, but we really believe that it's within the urban service area.

And uh, given the other things that can happen around it, that this is a less intensive use than other options.

Okay.

Thank you.

Was that helpful, Commissioner?

So if I'm understanding correctly, since we opened up the debate, I can then speak before I call for the vote, correct?

Okay, seeing no one else in the queue.

I'm gonna go ahead and say that's precisely the point, sir, is that there is a process for commercial properties to be rezoned through everything, and that's the whole point is that this was done sort of backwards.

I feel like they're asking for permission after they did everything that they want.

I agree with you, Commissioner Myers.

I want these kids off.

I did it for myself.

Keep them busy, they stay out of trouble, but there's an appropriate place for that, and in the rural setting is not that place, in my opinion.

We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Beta, second by Commissioner Hagan.

Um, please record your vote.

Madam Chair.

Can you restate the motion, please?

Was to support the applicant in support of the applicant, sir.

Motion failed, three to four with Commissioner Bowles, Miller, Cohen, and Wolstell voting.

No.

Okay, can we have a motion to deny?

So moved.

Motion, Commissioner Woolstool.

Second.

Second, Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote.

Motion carries six to one.

Commissioner Cameron Space voted?

No.

Okay.

Thanks everyone for coming out.

Uh next item.

Commissioner, next on agenda item F for major MATA application 26-0346.

Uh, this is a request uh for a major modification to 1.73 acre parcel within a larger PD.

This is parcel B within the PD.

Uh the request the parcel is currently approved for 12,000 square feet of BPO uses in a bank and or credit union with no drive-through.

The app is requesting to be allowed a 4,000 square foot sit-down restaurant on parcel B.

Uh they've approved the operating hours and proposed enhanced buffering and enhanced screening along the northern boundary between the residential component of this PD to mitigate for the reduce uh setback for the uh a call out or box associated with the drive-thru associated with the sit-down restaurant uh based on those considerations.

Uh staff did find this approval.

Uh planning manager found it consistent in here and also also recommended approval.

We're available for any questions.

Okay.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you very much.

Isabel Albert with half 1000 North Ashley Drive.

Um this site is uh approximately 1.73 acres.

It is in the Riverview Community Plan and within the urban service area.

It is currently zoned as uh mixed use development with commercial along Gibson Ton Drive with a residential behind, and it is in the SMU6 land use category.

So currently the parcel is um is approved for BPO and a bank.

It's bifurcated by a large 125-foot-wide Tico easement, and uh parcel A along Gibson Ton Drive is approved for uh also BPO use and is developed right now with the tire kingdom.

The proposal is to amend parcel B to allow a sit-down restaurant with one drive-through lane.

Uh we have included uh hours of operation because the code does not recognize sit-down restaurant with with one drive-thru that functions more like a sit-down restaurant, or it's just a drive-thru that's more like a McDonald's, and therefore we are proposing some hours of operation that shows the typical operation of a uh more like a sit-down restaurant, and then there's the accessory drive-throughs.

Compatibility, um, we address that through increasing the uh height of the wall uh along the northern boundary, which is adjacent to the townhomes, and this is for uh because we are proposing a call box 150 feet from our property line.

Um, however, it's approximately um closer to 200 feet to the closest residential development, but uh in good faith we increase the height to eight feet.

Uh we also increased the setback for the building uh to 50 feet, and we also increased the number of uh vegetation along the northern property bound uh property boundary.

The road condition, uh this location, and no improvements are required.

It's already um meeting county standards and the agency review.

There was no objections, and the hearing officer recommended approval.

And I'm here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any proponents, anyone here in support?

Any opponents?

There may be one person virtually.

Yes.

Okay, good morning.

Please please.

Hey, good morning.

My name is Shamir Francis, and I live at the Lands at Allah Trace, um, POA, uh, which is considered to be parcel C, which we have 96 units, along with the parcel A and B in the front.

Now I heard that she said that there was a recommendation here, and officer, which is the information in there is partly incorrect.

Uh it states that the POA grants access easements rights of parcel A and B to those parcels.

We actually inherited that under an unconscionable cost-sharing agreement and access rights by the developer.

Um we strongly oppose this major modification because it's fundamentally changed what originally was approved and place a significantly more intensive commercial use directly next to an established residential area, and it would additionally give us more costs.

Um, this is not a minor adjustment.

The planned developments limit the parcels to offices or bank credit unions and specifically prohibit other drive-through uses.

What is being proposed now is a sit-down restaurant or a drive-thru with a drive-thru, and they're asking for the setbacks to be changed so that it's closer to our wall to the closest residence.

Right now, we have parcel B.

I think it is across the street, and parcel B is further away from us, and we can hear everything that happens on Tire Kingdom.

They're racing in our community when they're testing the um cars.

We can hear everything, all the owners at least three buildings down on the left side already can hear everything.

When this restaurant goes to the right side, we're gonna have more issues there.

Now there's a material difference as we spoke about that is gonna bring more continuous traffic, idle vehicles, beagle and speaker noise, um, longer dwelling time and extended hours.

I know that they said they make the hours between a certain amount of time, 10 a.m.

or 10 30 a.m., which they claim will not affect the morning traffic, but individuals in the community go to work different time.

As it relates to the coming home time, right now we have a hard time already getting into our community because the traffic road is always blocked turning left or turning right.

Um regular individuals outside the community, they don't abide by the traffic rules there.

We I wrote multiple complaints to the county before on my personal name, not on the community's information.

Um we have a hard time getting in and out of our community right now in the morning and in the afternoon.

Now what makes this more concerning is that the request relies on multiple waiver, um, making it higher intensity use for our community.

The application acknowledged that the site does not meet the commercial locality and criteria, yet is asking for an override of the requirements.

That is clearly an indication that the site was not intended for that level of commercial intensity or activity.

Um in addition to the drive-thru and the setbacks from 200 feet to 150 feet.

Um, our residents are concerned about the noise, they're concerned about the speaker levels, they're concerned about the consistent noise that they will have to deal with throughout the day, and also in the evening until 9 30.

Um, I know that they said that they're pretty gonna put a wall up, maybe that will help to a certain extent.

Doesn't that doesn't mean it's gonna work for us.

Additionally, they talk about the TICO easement that they have, um, and there's some limitations with that TICO easement, and it's a substantial um specific wording.

I think it says it's a substantial site limitation with the TICO easement.

Um, the applicant the applicant has met with TICO and is comfortable that they'll be able to come to an agreement with them that will allow them to you know use the site, but that's still gonna be a burden for us.

Additional in the application, they're asking to utilize our private roads.

Um currently, we have tire kingdom utilizing the road.

Um Starbucks also is utilizing utilizing the roads at no compensation to the community.

We are only 96 homes, and we're eating the costs for outside community continuously for any damages that come to our property, any substantial wear and tear, any wear anything that happens to that our roads, we are responsible for it.

And this point in time, just changing the functionality for what that lot was designed for will create more um undue hardship for our community.

We also have homeowners are putting their homes up for sale because of the noise with the with um Tire Kingdom, the excess use of the road with um Starbucks because they're concerned that we're going to just continue to have to increase HOA dues to try to accommodate things when we have an unreasonable cost sharing agreement on us that we didn't opt into.

And we were gonna be spending more and more as more cars are utilizing our roads, more cars are you know, the wear and tear, the damage, the use, we have to maintain these things, and we are being burdened already by a cost sharing that we didn't agree to.

We inherited it.

We already have a lot of delays right now, and I know um the transportation can talk about that because they had an agreement with the developer, and from my understanding, the developer didn't comply with their agreement, so we are not allowed to use the back gate.

It is an emergency gate only.

We cannot use that.

So we only have one way in and out of our community, and we are already substantially burdened with getting out of the community to take five to ten minutes to get out when all when other people are going to work or commuting or coming home and they block the and trans, we can't even get in.

We have consistency issues, so we're we were requesting and asking that the modification is denied at this point in time.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Uh, this time my applicant has opportunity for a rebuttal.

Good morning, Commissioners.

William Malloy, 325 South Boulevard.

I'm I'm going to keep this fact-based.

I know there's a lot of emotion behind what we're asking for right now.

This PD was approved with the townhome development.

Two commercial outparcels underneath the TICO easement line.

That was the original approval.

This site in particular, parcel B, was slated for a bank with up to four drive-through lanes.

When we got this project, we obviously started with TICO.

We had to make sure that we could work underneath those wires appropriately with their permission.

They have all kinds of requirements for access for their facilities, et cetera.

We're essentially there.

That's that's not an issue for us.

We're completely comfortable with that.

Again, back to the formation of the original PD.

Both commercial outparcels have recorded agreements with the HOA for cost sharing.

They are not set amounts, they are percentages.

It's 20% per unit.

The commercial outparcels pay 40%, not a cent amount, 40% of repairs and capital capital contributions.

We also put in 10% on parcel B towards drainage infrastructure.

So I'm not calling anyone disingenuous or misrepresent misrepresenting anything, but there's a substantial contribution that's been ongoing and will continue to be ongoing for the road maintenance.

I believe that in my mind that addresses most of what the opposition is concerned about here on this point because it is that road.

But again, tire kingdom and us are on the hook for 40% of that number.

Um I'd like Michael Yates to come up and just explain to you that the delta between that four drive-thru bank and what we're proposing is just about a wash.

Thank you.

Michael Yates with Palm Traffic and I have been sworn.

Uh yes, we did do a traffic study that evaluated uh some of the comments that were addressed.

Uh we looked at the intersection uh both at Gibsonton and Alfana Trace, and at the main entrance where uh this entrance would be on Allifa Trace.

Uh, both were shown to operate at acceptable level of service.

Uh there are, you know, there are obviously delays along Gibson.

There is a signal at this intersection, which is unusual for a subdivision to be able to access or a signal.

There are delays with being on a side street to a signal, but the intersection operates within the parameters of the land development code, and there is nothing more they can do.

The green times are being allocated to the main line, which is what you would expect to be done.

Um, as far as the difference in traffic from what was originally approved, it is essentially a wash.

Um, the staff report from the Hillsborough County staff shows that it was, I think, within a couple of trips uh during the AM peak hour, which this isn't even open during the AM peak hour.

So the traffic is within the what was originally approved, and we're not requesting any changes to those intensities.

So that is all I have and happy to answer any questions if anyone has them.

Thank you.

Is it okay if I address the ma'am?

Your time's done.

For the record, Isabel Albert with half.

Um, just you know, summarize this is a less intense abuse.

We are increasing the um the buffer and screening, so we're not really changing it, but we're changing it to make it more restrictive.

We are increasing the setback.

We are changing the setback to make it more restrictive.

And we are restricting it to one uh drive-thru, which previously was permitted.

So we are doing all of this to address the compatibility.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the suburban mixed use six future land use category.

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

The proposal meets commercial locational criteria as established by future land use section objective seven 4.7 as the subject site fronts Gibson Drive, which has a context road classification of suburban commercial.

This roadway classification supports the location of neighborhood serving commercial uses along the corridor.

The proposed restaurant use complements the existing commercial development pattern along Gibson Drive, where nearby uses include Tire Kingdom and Starbucks, along with additional commercial development in the surrounding area.

Office uses are located to the east, while a townhome community approved as part of the planned development is located to the north.

This pattern reflects a developing mixed-use corridor characterized by neighborhood serving commercial uses integrated with residential development.

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

The applicant has incorporated several design and operational commitments to ensure compatibility with the residential development located north of the site.

Additionally, the drive-through order box will be located 150 feet from the residentially zoned property line, though the actual separation from the nearest residential lot line is approximately 185 feet due to a 35 foot wide dry pond owned and operated by the homeowners association located between the properties.

Furthermore, the applicant is voluntarily committed to limiting hours of operation from 10 30 a.m.

to 9 30 p.m., which reflects the operational characteristics of a sit-down restaurant rather than a fast food establishment with extended hours.

These operational limitations help minimize potential impacts related to noise, traffic, and late evening activity.

Taken together the enhanced buffering, increased setbacks, and operational restrictions, ensure that the proposed restaurant use remains compatible with the adjacent residential development and surrounding mixed use area.

Based upon these considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department.

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master's recommendation was for approval.

Okay, can we have a motion?

Move approval.

Motion Commissioner Wolstool sent Commissioner Myers, please record your vote on F4.

Motion carried seven to zero.

F five.

Next agenda item is agenda item F5 rezoning standard 26-0359.

This is a request to rezone a point nine acre parcel that's located on the uh west side of uh Orient Road, uh south of Martin Luther King Boulevard, North East Broadway Avenue.

The parcels currently zoned RDC 12, uh, which permits uh two unit duplex units and single family detach.

The request is for an RMC 12 zoning district, which is a multifamily district, which would permit uh attached units under both scenarios, a maximum of under both zoning districts, a maximum three units are permitted.

Uh staff did find this approval.

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

Thank you.

I thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Applicant here for F5.

All right, what's the pleasure of the board?

Adam, this has got our recommendations of approval, no opposition on the move approval.

All right.

Get a motion to approve F5, Commissioner Willstall, second Commissioner Miller.

Uh please record your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

F six commissioners F6 is rezoning standard 26-0457.

This is a request for zone of 3.6 acre parcel from uh AR to AS1 AR would permit one lot on the property given the size of the parcel the AS1 would permit up to three uh units uh given the surrounding development pattern with the adjacent AS1 zoning staff to find us uh approval.

Planning found a consistent in hearing officer, also recommended approval.

I thank you.

Uh the applicant here F six.

Boy, never seen, never seen three.

Commissioners, I wouldn't know this would otherwise been on consent because other than increasing the rural service area and density.

So again, it's all at records of approval.

I don't see anyone over the second.

I motion Commissioner Wolstool, second commissioner uh cohen.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Uh did it did F1.

We believe that F1 that there was a representative here in the room but didn't speak up when it was called.

I believe he has come back in the room.

Yes.

Yeah, yes.

So F1 will be rezoning PD 25 0383.

The request is for a PD for 10 town homes.

Staff is finding its approval.

Planning commission found a consistent in here, also recommended approval.

Uh morning, sir.

My name is Tace of Kurdy.

I'm here to represent the applicant.

The applicant could not make it.

I thought he would be here earlier.

And uh I'm here just to answer any question if there is any.

Okay.

Are we okay with going forward?

Okay.

Um anyone here in support.

Anyone in opposition?

I think there might be some virtually.

If you hear, please come forward, ma'am.

The total of 10 minutes.

If you prefer to take online first, it's up to you.

I usually defer those at the make the effort to come down.

So all right, thank you.

Um my name is Susan Dennis, 13109 North Hamner Avenue.

Um I'm a homeowner on Hamner Avenue, the neighboring street to the west of this proposed modification.

Um, and neighboring to the parcel as well.

Um, our street receives a lot of the runoff from the wetlands on this parcel, the lowlands.

Um, our road does not have stormwater infrastructure.

Our homes all run on septic, which regularly get affected by the standing water on our road.

Um, as shown on the Hillsburg County flood map.

Um this is the parcel in question.

The development goes to about here on the parcel, so you can see the natural flooding that happens.

This property continuously floods, and our roadways has a continuous runoffs.

Excuse me.

Um this person uh parcel previously had a 1,500 square foot home, and the developer is increasing the impervious surface to up to three over 30,000 square feet.

I understand that flooding and water is not your concern, and it's legally not something that you can make a basis on, and it's something that deals with on the permitting side.

Um, but I just implore you to at least consider um as a resident on the street for over 40 years.

We have real life knowledge of what that wetlands does to our roads.

Um so that inevitably will create more runoff.

Um this plan does not promote building continuity in our area, it's an oversized housing development sandwiched between single family parcels.

Um the buildable portion um, because partial uh being on the wetlands, only some of it is buildable, so that's where all of the um development will look like.

Um I believe myself with several of our neighbors believe that this would be best served to be a subdivided parcel where we can put four or five houses, um allowing appropriate growth to the scale of the neighborhood.

Single family homes would also allow for more impervious surface compared to a large parking and drive lane as proposed in the project.

This project, um, this type of project is more appropriate in areas already designed and already zoned for the scale of development.

I would also like to note um if this is approved, this would be the second multi-unit townhome development on Ola Avenue.

The other 19-unit town home was approved by the BOCC in 2022 and is within 1,000 feet of this proposal.

Hopefully, this board has reviewed our file and seen the pages of signatures and opposition, um letters submitted, residents showing up.

It hasn't been easy.

The zoning hearing master meeting was delayed five times, and this meeting for the BOC was delayed four times.

Um we do our best as homeowners to follow that process.

Um there's a fellow level feeling like stall tastics, but I'm sure there's a lot of variables that go into it.

Um even at the zoning hearing master ownership didn't show up, we were bumped to the very end, and so we got to enjoy your company all the way to the very end, and it just feels like we're doing our best to show up and prioritize the value of our neighborhood and preserve our neighborhood where ownership maybe doesn't have the same value to the hearing master and the courtesy and respect to show and be present um because this is the second time now we've been bunted to the end.

Um I asked that the board would uphold the current zoning and the land development code 2.2.2 to single family residential standards and this project being denied.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am, for your comments.

Got four people that have signed up virtually.

I'll I'll call your name and see if you're online.

Uh Brian Blair, Mr.

Blair online.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioner Hagen.

Uh Brian Blair of North Forest Hills.

I've lived here for over 40 years.

We are a we're a multi multicultural single family neighborhood where the homes average about a half a million dollars.

And we're more than a mixed, you know, we're not a mixed-use neighborhood, and we're trying to maintain that the integrity and the harmony of North Forest Hills, but our infrastructure is so overwhelmed right now, and the flooding in this particular area, and Forest Hills was famous for flooding, but this is the absolute worst place in Forest Hills where the flooding exists.

And you know, I I know stormwater not to mix two different things, but our our the groundwater pumping, our lakes are at the low levels that they've ever been recorded in over 40 years right now.

We don't need another multi-use family here.

I mean, um please look through the lens that the staff does not see was a comment.

And staff is turning North Forest Hills into a blighted area, and you know, this is really bad because we pay a lot of taxes here.

Even the petitioner even started putting in fill dirt without uh permission, but I know there's other people that want to speak, and I just humbly humbly please ask you to deny this project, and I I thank you so very much.

Thank you, sir.

Lorena Acosta.

Ms.

Acosta on the line.

Lorena did not check into the meeting.

Okay, how about Eric Flasterstein?

Yes, I'm here.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

My name's Eric Flasterstein.

I live at uh 13106 North Ola Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

Um we moved here in about 2005 into an area that's single family homes, and that's where we're at.

If you look at our road, Ola Avenue between Fletcher and heading south, there is a large retention pond directly across the street from this property, which basically occupies the same length on the other side of the road.

And that sort of created a buffer between these more commercial uses and other things from the actual neighborhood.

That would be eliminated if you allow them to put a 10-unit uh house on or whatever you call it on this property.

But beyond that, you know, circling back to what Susan said, which is extremely important regarding this flooding type of concern, is the fact that every time it rains heavily, this property floods.

We live two houses down from it.

So every time it rains heavily, that land tends to flood, it tends to overflow into the street.

Sometimes it's for part of a day, sometimes it can be days, and sometimes it's actually weeks where water runs off of that property.

There seems to be like a spring or something that gets activated when there's heavy rains.

Because it isn't just the water from the rain itself that's running off, because it continues long after.

Um there's some something odd that goes on there.

When the previous structure was there that when I raised a little portion, that the water ran off the whole property and went into the road and eventually drained down to a drain, which led into the retention pond.

And this plans for this new thing, I don't see how that's gonna be handled.

Seems to me that the flooding is basically gonna go into everybody's backyards who's adjacent to the property, which is not a reasonable situation.

I empathize and feel sorry for the owner because I'm sure he wasn't aware of this impact that it'll have on the neighborhood, but it is an impact, it's very real.

And the people who've lived here for so long should not be penalized because he wants to develop a uh 10-unit deal on this property.

You could put single houses on there and maybe maintain this flow type of whatever.

You know, I know you guys listen to all the different things from these experts and people who've been educated, but we're down here in the field, actually experiencing it already.

We understand what really goes on, and that needs to be taken into consideration into a decision as to whether to allow this to proceed or not.

So any case, in that respect, we ask that you vote no and do not approve this as it currently stands.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh is there a Beverly Keaney Do you hear me?

Yes, ma'am, you got uh two minutes.

Oh my goodness.

Beverly Keeney, 10902, North Edison Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33612.

Today I come representing the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association have come before you guys before.

Hello to the county commissioners.

You do know I'm here because other members cannot be downtown right now.

I represent the 1,200 people that uh receive our newsletters and are also uh Facebook followers up in North Tampa.

Yes, the people have told you about flooding issues in the meeting today, but um on May 19th, we're having another uh community meeting regarding the pumping of the water from Forest Hills.

How does this all play together in our opposition?

The um area that is a wetlands on this property is a part of the floodplain of Curiosity Creek, which feeds into the fresh water that is and groundwater that is pumped to keep the river clear and stuff.

So there is a long history of water issues that we need to be um considered in this.

You know, if we we need a little bit more depth into it.

What we see, and I've um provided letters to you guys back in August as well as November 5th.

I've been on the uh calls that got canceled before to talk about how we want to retain as a residential area for single family homes that would allow for the groundwater to um penetrate into the soil and go on.

So we want the the um development there to uh mirror the characteristics of the rest of the neighborhood, please.

And um, you have my letter from November 5th to talk about the flooding issues, the property in that area, how the infrastructure is not um aligned to take care of a massive um uh townhouse units 10.

These units are almost touching each other when we look at them, and so there is no room for escape of water or animals.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate your comments.

All right, thank you.

I think she was live from ground zero.

Um the applicant has an opportunity for a bottle.

Sir, did you want to add anything?

Uh I was in uh in the meeting with the building department the first time, just listening.

I think we took in consideration the mu retention pond to accommodate our impervious area for the storm water.

We're not touching the witland land.

We're doing our sit back properly.

I don't see why we should carry the load of everybody for the stone water.

We have almost five acres.

We are only using less than an acre, literally.

There's about 30 some uh thousand square feet worth of impervious area.

So all this concern, I just don't see the merit in it, to be honest with you.

And those town homes, they're not going to alter the look of the neighborhood.

We are doing in order for us to afford having you know developing this piece of land, we need to make grade A for the building.

Yes, they are touching touching each other because they are town homes, they're not single family homes, and they will have beautiful elevation.

We're not trying to disturb the neighborhood at all.

We're condensing all of our development right in the front along the street.

We're not I just don't see the the to be honest with you.

I don't see the argument that the neighbors have.

I don't know why they they hold us uh responsible for everybody.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Planning commission.

Thank you.

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

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

The site is in the urban service area where according to objective 1.1 of the future land use section, 80% of the county's growth is to be directed.

Policy 3.1.3 requires all new developments be compatible with the surrounding area.

The site currently consists of single-family residential uses with additional single family residential to the northwest and south of the site.

To the east is a retention pond owned by the Florida Department of Transportation.

Additionally, there are group homes and light commercial uses to the north of the site.

The residential four category allows for the consideration of up to four dwelling units per um gross acre for residential uses.

The site contains approximately 2.67 acres of uplands out of a total of 4.92 acres.

As more than 25% of the site contains wetlands, the environmentally sensitive land density credit applies.

As such, the maximum density dwelling units that can be considered for the site would be 13 units.

With 10 proposed units, the request is consistent with policy direction and development expected as in this future land use category.

Goal two of the Greater Carrollwood Northdale community plan emphasizes community design with a key strategy encouraging new development and redevelopment to incorporate compatibility design techniques.

The proposed site plan reflects this strategy by incorporating appropriate appropriate buffers and setbacks, facilitating a smooth transition between adjacent land uses.

Additionally, the existing residential density in the surrounding area supports the suitability of this location of the proposed development.

The proposed rezoning from RSC 6 to plan development to develop a 10-unit two-story townhome development aligns well with the Greater Carrollwood Northdale Community Plan vision.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Zoning Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed plan development rezoning and found the proposal to be consistent with the land development code and with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval.

Okay, going to board discussion.

Commissioner Woolstrom.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I just I thought the uh ma'am, you did a great job.

Um I I did want to make you aware that the designer the lot is currently zoned REST four.

So something will never be um built here.

Um but with that being said, I believe that residential six is too aggressive of an ask an increase in intensity on the lot, so I will move for denial.

Second motion deny by Commissioner Wolstool, second Commissioner Cohen.

I completely concur the zoning pattern, particularly to the south is large single family homes, quarter acre to half acre.

I think it's incompatible and inconsistent with a number of policies.

Uh Commissioner Cameron Cepeda.

Yes, um, I agree, and also with the um current infrastructure issue and the flooding for those reasons as well.

I would deny this.

Okay, we got a motion to deny by Commissioner Woolstool, second Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote for denial.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Next item, please.

That's it.

Commissioners, the uh final item then is agenda item uh I one.

This is a status report on a little local act development projects.

I would note that uh for this file report.

There was no new application request for development in a loop local filed as part of the update.

Um we're available for any questions.

Commissioner Wilson, just one we do have one applicant that's ignoring the concerns and the lawsuit.

Is that correct?

We we we do have one applicant that has proceeded to uh receive construction plan approval, and I believe is is in preparation for um developing the site.

And which site is that?

This is off of Anderson Road.

Um manufacturing zoning district.

It is uh the address is 9001 uh corporate lake drive.

Uh it's a it's an area that's manufactural zone.

It's kind of across the street from the veterans AMC.

Uh we see that.

Oh, I know that's it.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh any motion to accept the report.

So moved.

We have a motion um and a second on the floor.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

No other items for discussion.

With that, we're adjourned.