Good morning, and welcome to the June 9, 2026 Hillsboro County Board of County Commissioners land use meeting.

Will everyone please rise with a pledge and invocation given by our chaplain, Commissioner Gwynmyers?

I pledge allegiance to the fly of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is saying one nation in the God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for all the constituents are here to listen to their project being discussed.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

Uh before I pass things over to Mr.

Grady, uh I need to read into the record from Commissioner Miller.

Please be advised that due to our previously planned travel to manage county business in Washington, D.C.

I will not be able to attend the June 9th land use meeting.

If you have any questions regarding this, please don't hesitate to reach out to me directly.

That's from Commissioner Miller.

Uh Mr.

Grady, you want to review any changes to the agenda?

Good morning, Commissioner Brian Grady, Hillsbury County Development Services.

In addition to the uh published withdrawals, continuance and remands on page three and four of the agenda.

The first agenda changes on page twelve item E3 PRS twenty-six-0752.

Additional part of your records have been added to the backup.

Motion Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Cohen, please record your vote on changes the agenda.

Move to approve.

Okay, this time if you're here for a B item, your application has been approved.

Uh this time, if you're planning on testifying today, would you please stand, raise your right hand so the clerk can swear 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, now on to the uh vacation items.

Uh Mr.

Grady, you want to introduce first item.

Commissioner, the first item agenda item C one vacate petition 23-012.

Uh real estate services will provide this, present this item.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with facilities management and real estate services.

Item C1 today is vacate ID V23-0012.

This is a petition by Gunn Highway Investment LLC to vacate an unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of approximately 0.9 acres.

The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of first edition of Keystone Park Colony as recorded in Platbook 5, page 62, and is generally located east of Gun Highway and north of Tarpin Springs Road in Keystone, Odessa.

The petitioner submitted this request to allow for development of a residential subdivision.

Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request.

A temporary public access and drainage easement is being reserved over the vacate area, which will automatically terminate once the petitioner's proposed Odessa preserve replat is recorded, which will satisfy staff requests to provide legal access to all parcels adjacent to the vacate area as well as alternative drainage easement rights for a drainage connection for lake artillery.

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

Anyone like to speak to this item?

Seeing none, can we have a motion?

Move to approve.

Motion Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on C1.

Motion carries six to zero.

C2.

Next item is vacate petition C2.

Uh vacation vacate petition 25-0021.

Uh real estate will present this item.

Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services for the record.

Item C2 today is vacate ID V25-0021.

This is a petition by MRP TMHC BTR LLC to vacate a portion of a platted public drainage easement located at the intersection of Turnbuckle Drive and Gideon Way in Apollo Beach and consisting of approximately 758 square feet.

The subject drainage easement was dedicated through the plat of Waterset Wolf Creek Phase F as recorded in Plat Book 147, page 243, and is generally located east of North U.S.

Highway 41 and north of 19th Avenue Northeast.

The petitioners submitted this request to allow for construction of a sign in the vacate area.

The petitioners uh public works stormwater does not object to this vacate, provided the sign is constructed outside the minimum 10-foot maintenance berm and 10 feet from the center line of the pipe crossing.

The drainage easement requested to be vacated does overlap a platted utility easement.

However, the utility easement is not affected by this vacate and will remain in its entirety.

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

Thanks for your consideration, and I am available for questions.

I thank you.

Seeing none, can we have a motion?

Move to approve.

Motion Commissioner Myers.

Sign Commissioner Mostal, please record your vote on C2.

Motion carried six to zero.

C three.

Next item, Commissioner's agenda item C three, vacate petition 25-0023.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services.

Item C3 today is vacate ID V25-0023.

This is a petition by Mosaic Fertilizer LLC and Innovative Land Management LLC to vacate portions of improved and unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of approximately 0.83 acres.

The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of South Tampa as recorded in Plat Book 6, page 3, and is generally located south of Madison Avenue and east of South U.S.

Highway 41 in Riverview.

The petitioners submitted this request to allow for future site development.

At the request of staff, the petitioners completed a certified parcel application to ensure all parcels adjacent to the subject vacate area will continue to have legal access to public right of way.

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

Thanks for your consideration, and I'm available for questions.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else like to speak to C3?

Seeing none, can we have a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion uh Commissioner Wolstell said Commissioner Myers.

Please record your vote on C3.

Motion carried six to zero.

C4.

Commissioner's next sign of agenda item C4, vacate position 26-0002.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services.

Item C4 today is vacate ID V26-0002.

This is a petition by Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, Innovative Land Management LLC, Felix Moreno, and Evangelista Espinel Naranjo to vacate a portion of improved platted public right-of-way known as Jensen Road and consisting of approximately 1.48 acres.

The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of South Tampa as recorded in Plat Book 6, page three, and is generally located south of Madison Avenue and east of South U.S.

Highway 41 in Riverview.

The petitioners submitted this request to accommodate redevelopment and parcel consolidation under Mosaic.

Upon request, the petitioners have granted utility easements over the vacate area to TICO and Frontier.

Additionally, at the request of staff, the petitioners have entered into an access easement agreement to ensure all parcels adjacent to the subject vacate area will continue to have legal access to public right-of-way.

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

Thank you for your consideration.

And I'm available for questions.

This is a public hearing.

Seeing none, can we have a motion?

Motion Commissioner Cohen, send Commissioner Wolstealt.

Please record your vote on C4.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay.

Good or E items.

Commissioners next item is agenda item E1 PRS application 26-0749.

This is a uh petition to modify a 16.86 acre portion of a larger planned development.

The parcels located the southeast corner of Benita Drive and Crescent View Road in the Waimama area.

The commission commissioners the petition is to request a modified the lot layout in Pod P within the PD to reconfigure the layout and also to modify add an additional lot development standard within Pod P for this development for single family.

No other changes are proposed, and staff is recommending approval.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Good morning.

Um Bryce Benson with Half Associates, 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 900, Tampa, Florida.

Here on behalf of the applicant.

Um as staff said, it is 16.86 acres.

Sorry.

Um it is within Pod P, which is located in the northeast corner of the development shown on this plan.

The current plan shows the layout on the left side, and the proposed plan is on the right.

It's basically just a change in the layout.

Um during engineering, it made sense to kind of split the stormwater pond, so it changed the layout a bit.

There's no change in uses, density, um, development standards, other than increasing the lot sizes to 60-foot wide lots.

Um that's basically the only change that is being requested.

There's no change in access either.

There were no objections from any of the reviewing agencies and no um inconsistencies found with development services.

So we're here if you have any questions.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition?

Can we have a motion?

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Myers send Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Next on a commissioner's agenda item E2, PRS application 26-0750.

This is uh request for a modification of a 31-acre uh plan development located the northwest corner corner of uh Martin Luther King Boulevard and High View Road.

Uh Commissioners are making three changes to the application.

Uh as part of a redevelopment and redesign of the shopping uh center center.

Uh they are asking for an increase in overall square footage from by 6,000 square feet from 220 222,000 to 228,000.

Uh there is a uh trip cap within the conditions of approval of the uh limit uh daily trips AM and PM peaks.

Those are being adjusted as part of the accommodate the additional increase in square footage and the final changes.

There uh there's a requirement for sidewalk on the west side of high view road.

Staff is recommending approval.

All right, thank you.

The applicant here.

Yes, good morning, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

Again, this is a very straightforward application.

We're just adding uh some square footage to the large uh department store that's our grocery store that's already approved.

Thank you.

Here to answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

All right, can we have a motion?

I'll move for approval.

I just have a good question.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Wilson.

I just Mr.

Gorman, can you confirm this isn't another sidewalk to nowhere?

I'm not familiar with the geography.

I this is a sidewalk along the uh eastern portion of the project that will connect to a sidewalk on the south side of the house.

Okay, all right, thank you.

We're gonna get a motion by Commissioner Wolstool, second commissioner Myers.

Uh please record your vote motion carries six to zero.

E3 next item is agenda item E3 PRS application 26-0752.

This is a request to modify uh uh uh within the Northdale PD uh portion of the golf course uh dealing with the area that's associated with the clubhouse and tennis courts uh within this PD accessory golf driving ranges are permissible uses, but because the the detail in the site plan uh the site plan is being modified uh to accommodate the uh provisions of uh golf driving range and also the uh standards related to the uh golf driving range that are spelled out in the land of land of the court are being modified to accommodate this uh design, which is uh electronic golf driving range, which will be completely enclosed with uh with uh with the netting to ensure uh uh that the balls will stay within the area of the driving range.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

For any questions, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Morning.

My name is Vene.

I'm the owner of the golf course.

This particular um amendment, we are asking for the uh zoning of the minor modification of the zoning to be use uh underutilized area, which is for recreational purpose.

It's the existing tennis courts, and we are planning to use it only for recreational and uh with time, every first lady has to modernize, so this will be a driving range using top tracer technology, and from a safety perspective, as uh Mr.

O'Brien said that it will be fully contained with a very tight net.

Um there's it's eight feet of um landscaping in between from an accused as well as from a um the Northdale the making sure that landscaping meets the needs of the neighborhood.

And we plan to be a good neighborhood, uh the good neighbor, and uh it's it's all about using the underutilized recreational area for the right purpose from a recreational perspective and creating a good amenity for the community.

All right, thank you, sir.

Appreciate the comments.

Uh, anyone here in support of the application?

Anyone in our please please come forward if you want to speak good morning.

Uh Ian Frisbee, 4623 Landscape Drive, Tampa.

Uh I am in support of this request for a minor modification.

It's reassuring that the current owners are willing to invest significant resources to improve the golf club.

This was not always the case with prior ownership.

Improved maintenance of the clubhouse and grounds is apparent and management's willingness to work with commun uh community leaders is very encouraging.

Some months ago, I sent the golf club an email regarding a ground maintenance problem behind my home that had been an annoyance for many years for myself and a neighbor.

I was very impressed with how quickly it was taken care of and continues to be maintained to this day.

So I'm here to support their efforts.

I have owned my golf club adjacent home since 1989.

The view was the major factor in my selling in the selling point.

My hope is that the Northdale Golf Club continues to thrive and remain an important asset to the community.

Too many Florida communities have not been so lucky.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Frisbee.

Next morning.

Good morning.

Thomas Murray, 15751 God inside Lane in Northdale.

And I've been president of the North Hill Special Taxing District as well as president of the North Hill Civic Association.

And in my 12 years of working in the community, one of my biggest complaints has been the golf course, you know, and how it's been maintained, or whatever.

And I've witnessed at least three sales of the golf course in the last X amount of years.

The previous tube owners' purpose was to basically let the golf course fail and then try to uh circumvent what we have to develop housing.

And this is the first uh ownership that has actually been willing to take money and put it back into the course to keep it uh a recreational facility, and uh we're the tennis courts where they it got really destroyed in uh in one of the hurricanes and it was really in disrepair, and they're really trying to make an improvement on this golf course.

Uh and I think as a community, both committees that I had uh represented uh uh totally in support of this, and we're hoping that this is a long-lasting uh uh friendship, you'll say, between the community and uh in the golf course.

So we wholeheartedly support it and hope you do also.

Thank you, Mr.

Murray.

Uh, any other proponents?

Uh anyone in opposition.

All right, seeing none, uh I just I just want to say having I'll live around the corner and work out at the YMCA down the street most days, not this morning, but um so I've seen I've seen the good times of this golf course decades ago, and I've seen the bad times.

And as Mr.

Murray indicated, uh previous owners didn't maintain the course, let it come run down.

And uh immediately after the the present ownership group took over, I met with them and they said, Hey, we don't have any interest in in developing this, we want to invest in it, starting with the infrastructure, and they've got an extraordinary vision, and pleased they've been they've kept their word, and um and so I wholeheartedly uh support this.

So uh can we have a motion?

Motion Commissioner uh Wilson, Commissioner Myers.

Uh, please record your vote on E3.

Um carries six to zero.

Thank you.

E4 or F1, I guess.

Commissioners, the next item is Jen Item uh F1, a major modern application 23-132.

Uh, Cameron Clark with the county attorney's office will speak to this item.

Morning, commissioners.

Cameron Clark Assistant County Attorney.

Um as we discussed at our briefings, there's an ex parte communication issue that I will raise with you, but I'd actually like to start by uh just briefly discussing the status of this application.

Um this was before the board in July of 2023.

Um the board denied the application at that time.

The applicant uh appealed that denial to circuit court where the applicant prevailed.

The county appealed that ruling to the appellate court where the county prevailed, came back to circuit court where the circuit court judge essentially fixed his order and once again quashed the board's denial from July of 2023.

So where that places us is it effectively rewinds this application back to July of 23.

Um Hearing Master recommendation has been written to the record.

Uh Planning Commission report has been uh render the record, and oral argument has been taken, and we are at board discussion phase.

Um the effect of the court order is to really place some significant constraint on the board's action at this point.

Um the board cannot deny the application again based on this record because essentially the record that's before the board now is the exact same record that was before the board in July of 2023.

And let me just state um I know Commissioner Bowles was not on the board at that time, but in our briefing he advised he has had a chance to review the record, and so he can participate in this.

Um the board cannot deny the application again, and the ability to remand is constrained by the fact that the court has taken, has essentially made certain findings.

First, it has found that there is evidence in the record to support the applicant's contention of complaints consistency.

So that can't be re-examined.

And uh the court has found that there is not evidence in the record, compensational evidence to support the determination uh of the uh maintaining a public purpose of the existing zoning, such as the green space, the open space and stuff that was argued previously.

So the board's actions at this point, because it is so constrained and because we have the court making determinations on these issues, our recommendation would typically be for the board to approve the application.

However, uh, and just so you know too, we prepared us uh a separate notice letter in this case to make sure concerned residents understood that they could attend the hearing, but the oral argument has already been taken, so there's no opportunity for new testimony at this time.

Regarding the ex parte communication, um I have discussed this with the applicant's attorney, and they wanted me to make sure to understood it was the applicant did not do this.

This was actually uh an interested party, uh the golf course owner.

An ex parte communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding creates a presumption of prejudice against the application, essentially, but there is a way to cure that, and that is going to be what our recommendation is to you today, which would be to remand the application to the zoning hearing master to allow for limited testimony on the substance of the ex parte communication that cures that issue, and then it would come back to you for a vote at a subsequent land use meeting.

So uh for the record, the recommendation, and I I wrote it this morning just so I could um uh read it into the record is to remand this application to the zoning hearing master to allow for the ex parte communication to be entered into the record of this case and to allow for comment only regarding the limited substance of the ex parte communication, and I've confirmed confirm with staff that the ZHM hearing would be on July 20th of uh 2026 in this room.

Um so that's the recommendation at this time.

If there's any questions, I'll be happy to take.

Oh, uh, I just want to put in the record in discussion with the applicant, they do not object to the remand for this limited purpose.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Cameron.

Commissioner Wolstell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I went back through the email.

The literal the only part of it that's ex parte communication is probably gonna be the line that says what I believe that GL project offers the best solution.

That's literally the only comment to the to the rezone.

The rest of it has nothing to do with it.

So I'm assuming when we remand it back, that's all that they're gonna be able to discuss is whether or not the comments um a one-way communication of I believe the GL project offers the best solution for residents.

That's gonna be the only thing that gets debated, right?

Yeah, I believe it I I'm not looking at the email, but essentially that I know the substance was very limited.

It was like one to two sentences.

Yeah, okay.

And it was a one-way communication, just so everybody understands.

Um I will um I I hate to do this just because it's there's no way that this changes, in my opinion, the outcome, but I do agree that they have to have the right to communicate.

So I will move to remand this to the zoning hearing master on the July on the June 20th or July 20th.

July 20th.

July 20th um hearing.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to remand uh by commissioner, we'll also second Commissioner Cohen to address the ex parte uh communication.

Um I just want to well, two questions.

I just want to make sure everyone's clear here.

I I guess it's for you, Cameron.

Uh, number one, there's no opportunity to take public comment this morning.

Is that accurate?

Not this morning.

That's correct.

Okay.

And then you stated, I believe you use the term significant constraint on the remand.

So I guess the question is for you or Adam or anyone, maybe both of you.

Do you see any avenue or opportunity to broaden that remand?

At this time, Mr.

Chair, I would say that's very difficult.

There, like I said, it's not impossible, but all the issues that have already been discussed in this case, the evidence been submitted, the jury the board is discussed in its denial, and that were discussed by the court, essentially those are closed issues at this point.

Uh so new evidence on say the desirability of maintaining open space, things of that nature would not be uh helpful at this point because essentially it's already been determined that those issues are resolved by the court.

Okay.

I'm just gonna say uh you know, having represented Pebble Creek for 24 years, I feel very strongly that uh this board let the neighborhood down.

Unfortunately, uh that ship is sailed, and county attorneys made it very clear what our options are.

Commissioner Bowles.

When this comes back before after the July 20th hearing, will there be an opportunity for public comment at that time and will it be limited only to what happened at that hearing?

Would you would you expound upon that so our audience can understand?

So just as the ability to comment at the July 20 ZHM is going to be limited, I believe this comes back to land use in September.

There will be a new oral argument opportunity, but it would be limited to that issue only because everything else that's in the record is going to be the same as it was in July 23, and there's already been oral argument on all those issues.

Okay.

So we got a motion to uh remand by Commissioner Wolstol, sign Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote.

Just for the record, this will be 6 p.m.

Public hearing.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cameron Sapeda.

Thank you.

Motion carried 5 to 1.

Commissioner Hagen voted no.

Okay.

F two.

Commissioner's next item is an item F two, rezoning PD 25-1061.

This is a request for a rezoning of a 15.6 acre parcel on the north side of Sims Road between I-75 and US 41.

The request is rezoned this parcel to a plan development to allow for a 74 space RV park.

Uh the balance of the development winning on the east side of the of the park because the west side is encompassed by a large uh TICO UT utility easement.

Buffering screening is being provided adjacent to adjacent residential uses.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

Planning mission found this consistent in the hearing officers also recommending approval.

And staffs available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Ms.

Chairman Commissioners, Todd Pressman, 2002nd Avenue South 451, St.

Petersburg.

I will keep this very abbreviated because of status of the staff is indicated to you.

We have approval support from zoning planning commission and the ZHM.

Also, the ZHM record indicates there was no one in opposition.

And just very quickly, this is 251061, 15.6 acres, gibson to the South Shore.

I've indicated the support from the planning establishment.

Located as indicated on the mappings here.

Two parcels are involved, which would uh allow for a 74 space upscale luxury RV resort lodging use amenities.

Uh Ms.

Chairman, I'm happy to go on, but I will keep it abbreviated if there's any questions or concerns.

Be happy to answer them.

All right, thank you.

Uh, any proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition planning commission.

Thank you.

Good morning, Melissa Linehardt Planning Commission staff.

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

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

Future land use section policy 3.1.3 emphasizes the importance of compatibility between new development and surrounding land uses.

These provisions clarify that compatibility does not require identical land uses, but rather a development pattern that is sensitive to and maintains the character of the surrounding area.

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

To the south, the area transitions to commercial uses, including a U-Haul storage facility and a vehicle repair shop.

The proposed RV resort is residential in nature and shares similar characteristics with the surrounding mobile home uses, particularly in terms of scale, intensity, and occupancy patterns.

To further ensure compatibility and minimize potential impacts to adjacent residential properties, the site design incorporates buffering between the amenity area and the surrounding residential.

These buffering measures enhance visual screening and provide separation, thereby reinforcing compatibility with the established development pattern, making this consistent with the aforementioned policy direction.

The residential six designation allows for a maximum density of six dwelling units per gross acre based on the 15.6 acre site.

This would typically allow up to 93 dwelling units.

Given that RV parks are generally considered consistent with the broader range of uses permitted within the residential six designation, the proposed plan development is compatible with the intent and character of the land use category.

Therefore, it is consistent with future land use section goal two and objects objectives 2.1 and 2.2.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Hearing Master.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed plan development rezoning and found it to be in conformance with the applicable requirements of the land development code and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The recommendation of the zoning hearing master was for approval.

Okay, commune motion.

Move approval.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wolstool, second Commissioner Cohen.

Please record your vote on F2.

Motion carried.

Six to zero.

Thank you.

Next item.

Commissioner's next item is general item F3, a major mod application 26-0215.

This is a request to modify PD that's located on the south side of East County Line Road.

It's a 42.84 acre parcel.

The request is to uh remove the parcel has two development parcels and parcel A and parcel B.

Parcel A is uh permitted a school K through 12 parcel B was permitted 200,000 square feet in nursing medical office and adult care.

Uh this request removes uh the parcel B development option and is requesting to utilize the entire parcel for a K through 12 school, increasing the student count from 650 to 1,100, increasing square footage from 125,000 to 135,000 square feet, and removing some access points related to the parcel P development.

Uh staff did review this and found this approval.

Planning mission found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and the hearing officer also recommended approval.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

I thank you.

So applicant here.

Good morning.

Good morning, Isabel Albert with Half 1000 North Ashley Drive.

Thank you.

Looks like I'm the shortest one here.

So as you heard, this is for the North Tamp Christian Academy.

It's about 42.84 acres.

It's um currently a planned development, but it did get approval in 2014 as a special use, and it is in the NMU for district.

So the request is basically to convert the 330-foot bed parcel B into the expansion of the school.

We are reducing the access points on the east and to the north just to what from five to two.

All right, thank you.

Any uh proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition.

Okay.

Uh planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the neighborhood mixed use for future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is not located within the limits of a community plan.

Future land use section objective 3.1 states that all new developments should recognize the existing community and be designed in a way that is compatible with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood.

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

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

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

Also to the east is the Lake Bridge water treatment plant.

There are also single-family homes and HOA and common properties surrounding the site with multifamily uses further east.

There are significant buffers that naturally exist on all sides of the development in the form of wetlands, forestry, and stormwater ponds.

The use itself as well as the addition of square footage should not disrupt the nearby residential uses as there appear to be adequate mitigation measures with the natural buffering and screening that are in place, which is consistent with policy direction related to compatibility.

According to future land use section objective 4.6, certain non-residential land uses, including but not limited to residential support uses and public facilities, shall be allowed within residential neighborhoods to direct directly serve the population.

These uses shall be located and designed in a manner to be compatible with the surrounding residential development pattern.

Policy 4.6.1 clarifies that residential support uses such as child care centers, schools, and churches are allowable land uses in any of the residential, commercial, and industrial future land use categories.

The facility shall be of a design intensity and scale to serve the surrounding neighborhood or the non-residential development in which it occurs and to be compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning.

With the use of the site being a school and daycare as well as being compatible with the surrounding existing uses, the request is consistent with this policy direction.

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

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed major modification to plan development zoning and found that the proposed modification is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan.

And the recommendation was for approval.

All right, thank you.

Uh board members, I don't see one on the queue, so um I don't have any problem with with the development.

Uh however, I do have uh problem with uh traffic on county line road as has happened many times in the past, not only at this particular county line, but whenever you have a development that's near adjoining county, you have challenges just associated with development going on in the the other county.

We've faced it.

We've been on both ends of it, just a little west of here when PASCO developed a Walmart there.

There were all kind of challenges east of there when on Hillsborough we approved uh um CVS right there, and there are all kind of challenges for for PASCO.

So I've seen been on both sides of it.

But when you consider all the development on both sides, traffic on the county line is terrible.

That's why several years ago I was successful successful in getting a traffic signal at Grand Hampton and County Line that helped, but it essentially bought time.

Um, the development has continued, particularly in PASCO.

There's gonna be another school there at Dunham Shores.

So we know the traffic is going to continue to get worse.

We know with this school and with that school, we know nearly every school.

There's backups, queuing challenges.

That's just the inherent nature of schools.

Um when you also consider that this this plan has a condition when they exit, you can only go right approaching um Royal Hampton intersection.

So the question I've got, I'm gonna ask Adam, would it be appropriate to remand this to consider the operational impacts at Royal Hampton intersection?

Yes, Commissioner, I believe it would be there.

There is a um I understand there's significant testimony uh from letters in the record regarding the condition of that intersection.

It has it was not studied from an operational standpoint for this project or nor the impact on this project.

There is a signal condition for the school, but it is not at Royal Hampton.

Uh it is really mainly at the exit of the um site.

So you know, to get additional information in the record on the on the status of that um potential signal and uh warrant and contribution from this uh school from an operational standpoint, I believe in a remand would be appropriate for that purpose.

I thank you.

And and I know no one came down in opposition, but if you look in the back up, there's probably a hundred folks that are parties of record in opposition, primarily for the wanting to take a look at the traffic signal.

So uh Commissioner Wilson.

Thank you.

Um is your goal to make them have a stoplight and be able to turn left and right, or are you just have greater concerns?

The main concern, and I'll have Adam correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's it's forcing everyone to go right into this sign into this intersection that years ago folks wanted uh felt that a traffic signal was needed at that time.

Staff felt the Grand Hampton intersection was the appropriate needed the most, and that's why the county at that time we did we put a signal there, but apparently, according to staff it either already meets warrants or it likely meets warrants, but for some reason was not a party, was not a party of this application.

Did I explain that correctly?

Or yes, sir.

So the the there is county review of that, but that information and the status of it and the relationship between the signal and this school is not part of the record, so the remand would be appropriate for accomplishing that.

We'll note that the site does have a left turn lane uh to take uh trips into the school, and that does pose a conflict from vehicles exiting and turning left.

The the reason I just time is money, and if that is his issue, is this not something we can just have an agreement to right now by the party, or do you have to can if they say hey we'll agree to an extra stoplight right now, can we move this forward and we can just save everybody time?

I think that'd be great, but I doubt they'll accept that, but more than willing to ask.

I mean, I'll I'll just if the applicant would like to, if not, then I'm gonna agree to Commissioner Hagen's remand and discussion if or if you don't have the authority, I understand I can just say try and save everybody time and money.

This is Steve Henry Links and Associates.

Um we did conduct the analysis.

So you're you're asking about signalizing our main access.

No, or or no you're talking about grant the Royal Hampton.

Royal Hampton, yes.

Well, you talking about our access or Royal Hampton.

I think our access is a very good thing.

Whatever he's has a concern with is what I'm talking about.

Royal Hampton.

Royal Hampton County.

At this point, our our our clients not here, so we don't have the ability to be able to that's appropriate.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Um is our date, Adam.

Recommend the July 20th hearing at 6 p.m.

Drylight 20th C A.

All right, Commissioner Bowles, just out of curiosity.

That whole area was annexed except for the school, doesn't get taxes by the city of Tampa.

Does any of these conversations need to kind of overlap with their ability to control what happens outside?

Because that Royal Hampton may be under boundaries.

I think it's what further complicates this potentially, and Adam shared some of that with me, and perhaps that's why um staff didn't include it.

I don't please yes, sir.

I think I think that that is that is something that we can engage on the uh if if this is remanded, is the the Royal Hampton, the development that it serves, and there's only one way in and out of that development on County Line Road is a city of Tampa development.

However, the intersection of Royal Hampton and County Line is is a county roadway.

So it is a kind of a mixed um, but we will engage if this is remanded, we will engage with the city of Tampa on that, whether there is still an ability for that development to be required to install a signal will be part of the um part of what we review.

So the Mr.

Chair, if I may so does the our ownership extend all the way down county line and in the middle, or do where does it end for Pasco?

Where's beginning for Hillsburg?

Where does it begin for City of Tampa, like in that intersection?

So for uh Royal Hampshire, roughly for Royal Hampton.

Um it looks like it's a I couldn't estimate that that distance, but approximately the depth of this school is where the jurisdictional line changes and becomes the city of Tampa.

Okay.

So we have a little city of Tampa with a kind of a little carve out.

Well, yeah, because again, I think I expressed I I know why that was done, you know, but there's no dollars coming in.

But that being the case, well, that's the truth.

No advalorum gonna come out of school.

So uh, but that being the case, you know, do we get into a war with City of Tampa based on you know we're gonna do something that may we will lift if this is remanded, we'll look at all options whether there's still an option for the city of Tampa to require the development developer to install that signal.

I understand that the community is pretty much built out at this point and doesn't have an attendant developer.

Um look at that in addition with the the operational aspects of the the trips from this school and the increased trips on on that same intersection.

A little convergence of several things here.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh thank you in the queue.

So I'll I'll pass a gavel just to remand to address the operational impacts of the Royal Hampton intersection and to determine if a traffic signal is warranted, engage the city of Tampa and and look at it and everything else that Adam said much more eloquently than me.

So I'll make that motion.

We have a motion by uh Commission Hagen a second by uh Commissioner Watster, please record your vote motion carried six to zero.

All right, thank you.

Next item.

Yeah, still commissioners next item is an item F4, rezoning uh PD 26-0328.

That this is a request to rezone a 0.51 acre parcel on the south side of Martin Luther King Boulevard, uh west of the interchange of MOK with uh I-4.

Uh the request is remote from commercial neighborhood to a PD to allow for six units and two triplex buildings.

Uh staff did find this approval uh with conditions.

Uh planning commission found a consistent and record hearing officer also recommended approval.

We're available for any questions.

All right, is the applicant here?

Yes.

Please come forward, sir.

Good morning to the board of county commission and to all those that are in their respective places.

Uh we stand this morning in regards to uh rezoning this C in to a planned development.

This property 5600 and 5602 is in a area that for many years has been underserved as well as blighted.

This property now will have the opportunity to serve as a bright light and a beacon of hope to individuals that are much need of homes.

This property would serve as an anchor for this community as it moves forward.

So today we will love to see this property and this project move forward.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate the comments.

Can you can you please say your name for the records?

My name is O'Koy Morgan of Roxala Construction and Development.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone here in support the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you.

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

The site is in the urban service area.

The subject property is located within the limits of the East Lake Oriott Park Community Plan.

Surrounding the site, there are single family uses and vacant land as well as two family uses to the south and west.

To the north across Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, there are public quasi public uses, heavy commercial, light industrial, and further northeast, there is light commercial development.

To the east of the site, there is additional heavy commercial currently operating as a truck center, as well as public communications and utilities that exist as a cell tower.

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

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

The residential 12 future land use category surrounds the site on all sides.

Further east, across North 56th Street, is the city of Tampa with categories consisting of residential 20 and community mixed use 35.

To the east, there is urban mixed use 20, as well as office commercial 20 future land use categories.

With the site being 0.51 acres and being in the residential 12 category, the site may be considered for up to six dwelling units.

As only six dwelling units are being proposed, the request is consistent with the density permitted for this site.

Future land use section policy 2.3.1 encourages development and redevelopment within the urban service area to utilize allowable density of the land use category to maximize the utilization of infrastructure and the efficient use of land.

As the request is with the urban service area and is um requesting the maximum potential of the future land use category for the site.

The proposal is consistent with that policy direction.

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.

Hearing master the zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed plan development rezoning and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and in accordance with the land development code and the recommendation was for approval.

All right, Commissioner Woolstrong.

Um thank you.

I just wanted to did they say that development services found it inconsistent.

No, sir.

Okay, good.

I thought I missed her.

I just wanted to um thank the applicant for taking the time um to find the right location for redevelopment and density, much closer to the core and where there's actually a chance of um public transit.

You know, we've the eastern Hillsborough has been plagued with all of the high density being forced out there because the land's cheaper, but there's no jobs and there's no transportation out there, so it doesn't really help people.

Um and that's why I vote no on those, and that's why today I'll be moving for approval on your item.

And I wish that other applicants would be as thoughtful.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, we've got a motion to approve L4, Commissioner Wolstall.

Second Commissioner Cameron Cepeda, please call your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Thank you, sir.

Next item.

Next item is agenda item F5 rezoning standard 260541.

This is a request to rezone a 2.3 acre parcel on a north sort of Hartford Street.

Uh in the west of uh US 41.

Uh the request is to rezone uh to from ASC 1 to a manufacturing uh zoning with restrictions or restrictions is making a provision for provision for shared access with adjacent properties uh due to uh spacing issues uh given the narrown of those those properties, all those three properties on Harford.

Again, this is a light industrial plan category, therefore staff did find this uh request approvable.

Uh planning commission found a consistent in the hearing officer.

Also recommended approval.

All right, thank you.

Applicant here.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Ryan Manassey with Johnson Pope, Director of Planning 400 North Ashley Drive Street 3100.

Uh, just briefly, this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and was found consistent by the planning commission staff and approvable by development services staff.

The proposed MR zoning district implements the site's light industrial future land use designation and allows for the employment generating uses specifically contemplated by that designation.

The zoning hearing master testimony was established that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with the surrounding uses and appropriate for the site.

Both development services and planning commission staff testified in support of the application and the zoning hearing master subsequently recommended approval.

In summary, this is a straightforward rezoning that implements the adopted light industrial future land use designation, requires no waivers, and is supported by county staff and zoning hearing master.

If the board would like, I can provide the full presentation that was presented before the zoning hearing master.

Obviously, that's part of the record, so I was trying to keep this brief for now.

Um otherwise we'd respectfully request your approval, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone in support of the application?

Anyone in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning, thank you.

My name is Susan Swift.

I'm a certified planner.

I'm representing Levi Equine Holdings.

Can I stop my time there for start again?

My name is Susan Swift.

I'm a certified planner.

I'm representing Levi Equine Holdings LLC and Michelle Sisko, who is here with me today.

If there are any questions, I can't answer.

She owns the property to the north of this site in the blue at 6107 South 36th Avenue.

Cisco Farm is an equine facility.

Cisco Farm is also a partner with New Life Village, a residential facility for children who have experienced trauma.

Cisco Farms provides equine therapy to these children free of charge.

And as you can see, they've put a lot of uh investment in their own property.

My client realizes that the land use is light industrial, and they are not trying to prevent a rezoning on this or commercial uses.

But the rezoning must still pass the test of compatibility according to the policies in the plan.

Specifically, this policy 2.2.1 says not all of those potential uses are routinely acceptable anywhere within that land use category.

And we have reached out to the applicant a few times, and they have trying to get some uses restricted from this rezoning.

They were not inclined to change the application.

So we request that the board eliminate these particular uses that are noisy and would spook the horses and have an impact on the residents.

The MR zoning district that you you have before you already allows for this.

And again, as you can see, they put a quite a substantial amount of uh time effort and money.

And they have not they have not uh asked code enforcement to come out to um cite the uses on this property as they are now, not allowed in the ASC one because they were hoping to compromise and make sure that both parties could use their properties as as they hoped.

Uh thank you, and if you have any questions, happy to answer them.

Thank you, ma'am.

Appreciate the comments.

Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition?

The applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Uh, just a couple of points.

Uh again, planning commission staff found it consistent as well as development services.

Um, there's a broad range of policies that we're consistent and compatible with in the comprehensive plan.

Obviously, the board uh commissioners are aware of the numerous different policies, and they're outlined in your uh planning commission staff report as well.

Um regarding code enforcement matters.

Again, if this is a if it's under violation, I haven't been made aware of it.

If it is in the future, they'd have to come in compliance, and the one way to come in compliance I could tell you would be to come before this board and request a rezoning to exactly what they're doing.

Um I think the most important thing to highlight here is the light industrial future land use category.

The ASC1 zoning doesn't align with that category, so this is merely bringing that into compliance.

That's why we need that broad range of uses that are already identified in your land development code for this LI category.

Um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Planning commission.

Can I just ask a question before please come back up, sir?

Um are you at all inclined to entertain anything that was asked for by Miss Swift?

I didn't, I was trying to look at the list when it was popped up there.

Um, me and Ms.

Swift, we did talk previously as she indicated, and uh there were some uses that I was going back and forth with my client at that time.

Um so at this point, the client's not inclined to eliminate any uses.

Okay, thank you.

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the light industrial future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan.

Future land use section policy 3.1.3 specifically requires all new development be compatible with the surrounding area.

Surrounding the site, there are additional single family residences to the north, heavy industrial to the east and south, and heavy commercial, light industrial, and light commercial to the west.

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

Given that the predominant land uses in the vicinity are commercial and industrial in nature, the proposed rezoning from ASC1 to M or manufacturing is consistent with the compatibility consistent with and compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

While this request is a standard rezoning and does not require a site plan, the proposed land use aligns with the manufacturing or M zoning district, as well as the light industrial future land use category, the site is within.

Both the M zoning district and the light industrial category are abundantly present in and the surrounding area where the site is located.

Given the prevalence of similar uses, the proposed development is compatible with the established development pattern and can be expected to integrate effectively with the surrounding area.

The request is also consistent with future land use section objective 7.1, which states that the county shall pursue a thriving economy through promotion of target industries which are focused on national and international competitiveness.

Future land use section policy 7.1.3 emphasizes the importance of maintaining competitive sites and existing office and industrial uses as key components to the economic future of unincorporated Hillsborough County.

Accordingly, the proposed rezoning from ASC 1 to M zoning district supports the economic development objectives by facilitating industrial and manufacturing uses that contribute to job growth and enhance the county's economic competitiveness while remaining proximate to the local group workforce.

Strategy 13 of goal two of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan emphasizes the support of well-designed compatible densities and intensities at appropriate locations.

Goal five seeks to encourage and promote a diverse range of industries, businesses, and job opportunities that capitalize on the community strengths and enhance employment options.

Accordingly, the proposed rezoning supports the intent of the community plan by reinforcing existing industrial land use patterns, promoting employment generating uses, and provides a compatible intensity of development at the proposed location.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Thank you.

Hearing Master Zoning Hearing Master considered the proposed rezoning to the manufacturing restricted zoning district and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and also in accordance with the land development code and the recommendation was for approval.

Okay.

What's the uh pleasure of the board?

To approve.

Motion Commissioner Myers.

Do I have a second?

Uh Commissioner Cameron Topeto.

Yes.

Um, first of all, I'd like to uh thank the Cisco Forums for all that they're doing.

That's just amazing.

Um to hear the things that they're doing.

Uh very thankful for what they're doing for the children.

And also, um, since the applicant is not inclined uh to the conditions that were requested, um, for that reason I will not be supporting this.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Wolstrom.

My my question and concern is they can do pretty heavy stuff under light industrial um it's pretty expansive on what can be done under a light industrial land code, correct?

Both under the light industrial and the manufacturing does provide a wide range of uses.

The light industrial future land use category will limit some of those heavier uses that have discharge, heavy vibration or or particulate uh generation uses and do we do we take into account what that might do to the the animals that are already existing right adjacent to it so we we have um there are code requirements that are our standard code requirements based on the zoning district and adjacent zoning district that will require screening, require a masonry wall to be constructed between this site and the uh site to the north.

Uh additionally, if it's confirmed that there is a residence on that um site, there will be um limitations on the noise that can be generated at that site for a a processing or assembly type use if that's the use that they choose.

Uh and you're saying if there's a residence on the site itself or if there's a site on adjacent site.

I'm sorry, on the site to the north.

Uh is there a residence on the site to the north?

It was represented here today that there is, and so don't have any information that contrary.

Just if it if it's confirmed, that would that would trigger that there's a residential use adjacent, and there would be limitations on the noise again for uh manufacturing and processing type uses.

So then it could be restricted whether they agree to it or not, then if there is some type of noise abatement needed because I came from the manufacturing world, and you'd be amazed even at the type of like roll form machines or stamping machines.

I mean, it's it's extremely loud, and a masonry wall isn't gonna isn't gonna stop the noise.

Yes, the code restrictions would be between 7 a.m.

and 10 p.m.

they'd be limited to 60 decibels, and between 10 p.m.

and 7 a.m.

be limited to 55 decibels.

Okay, well wait and hear what commissioner cohen has to say.

Commissioner Cohen.

Yeah, I just I I agree with Commissioner Cameron Tapita.

I just think the failure to even entertain anything on the list is is not right.

Adam, is I'm kind of torn here.

Uh would a remand be helpful in any regard here?

We may under potentially a continuance if there was a desire to consider additional restrictions since this is a standard zoning district.

The restrictions have to be agreed to by the applicant.

So I just like Mr.

Manasseh would like to please Ryanassi for the record.

Again, the list that was just presented, that's not what was presented at the ZHM.

There was discussions prior to that, and specifically my discussions with Ms.

Swift were that we need the warehouse, we need the manufacturing, we need the open storage.

If I had a couple of minutes maybe to look at the list, maybe I can knock some off.

You know, at that time when I went back to the client with I can't, you know, they didn't want us to do manufacturing or possibly warehouse manufacturing, or that that was a no-starter for us, unfortunately.

So I mean I I think I saw on the list that was up there slaughterhouse.

There's no intention of my client putting a slaughterhouse there.

Um that helps the commission any I think there's a likely path to for approval, but I think the board wants to tighten a few things up.

So why don't we we don't have many items left, but why don't we continue it to the last item unless the board is that and then we'll see what we can do.

Okay, we've got a motion to continue last item, Commissioner Willstill, second commissioner uh Cohen.

Uh please accord your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay, thanks.

Commissioners, the next item and run the related portions of the agenda real related items G1A and G1B.

G1A is a vacation petition 26-0007.

Uh, real estate will uh speak to this item and then following their presentation, then I will uh speak to uh related item G1B, which is a related rezoning item.

Okay.

Applicant here.

Well don't take up vacation.

Good morning, commissioners for the record.

Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services.

Item G1A today is vacate ID V26-0007.

This is a petition by East Group Properties LP, Laura Dillard Daigle, Anthony and Judy Saladino, Delbert, and Magdalene Alvarado, Lon and Nancy Borbola, Larry and Linda, Anthony Nelson, Gordon Anthony Jr.

as trustee, and Caroline Anthony as trustee to vacate a portion of improved deeded public right-of-way known as Tanner Road, consisting of approximately 1.11 acres and generally located west of Interstate 75 and south of East U.S.

Highway 92 in East Lake Orient Park.

The petitioners have submitted this request to allow for consolidation of the parcels under East Group properties and construction of two warehouses.

Upon request, the following easements are reserved in the vacate resolution.

Number one, a perpetual utility easement for an existing county force main, which lies in the vacate area.

Number two, a temporary public access easement to ensure continued legal access for adjacent parcels.

And number three, a temporary public utility easement for TICO and Frontier.

The temporary public access easement will automatically terminate upon certification of all parcels adjacent to the vacate area, and the temporary public utility easement will automatically terminate upon recording of permanent easements to TICO and Frontier.

Additionally, a standalone utility easement has been granted at the request of staff to ensure the county's ability to maintain the aforementioned force main.

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

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

All right, thank you.

Uh this public hearing.

If not, we'll defer that to the end of the rezoning.

Uh Mr.

Grady need to introduce the rezoning item.

Yes, the rezoning G1B is read only PD 26-020.

This is a request to rezone a 57.85 acre parcel to a plan development.

Uh the northern portion of the parcel uh north of the Tanner Road, the area being proposed or vacated is already approved for warehousing distribution and manufacturing.

Uh, this this PD would provide for an additional additional uh uh extension of uh that those uses uh on the south side of uh Tanner Road is outlined the site development plan for a total for a total of 760,000 square feet of uh entitlements.

Uh staff is recommending approval with conditions, uh planning commission found a consistent in the hearing officer.

Also, recommended approval.

Applicant here.

Good morning.

Morning, Commissioners, Nicole McKinnon, Barbis Kramer Law Firm 2002 West Cleveland Street for the record.

Um, we're here today, as staff mentioned, for phase two of this industrial project.

Um, it is expanding to south of Tanner Road.

Um, so we do have unanimous findings of consistency and compatibility from Hillsborough County staff as well as planning commission staff.

Very consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan, the East Lake Orient plan.

There's no known neighborhood opposition to this project.

Um, I did want to give a quick shout out to the real estate department.

As you heard from Victoria, there was a number of property owners involved in this application.

The vacation was um, you know, a lot of work for for us and for the county.

So Victoria Adam and Jared Alfino, thank you guys so much for all of your help with that part of the application.

Um we are here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anyone here in support of the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the urban mixed use 20 future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area.

The subject property is also located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park Community Plan.

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

The subject property currently can um consists of vacant land and has an approved light industrial warehouse uses under the previous plan development approval of 22-0692.

Similar light industrial uses are located to the north along East Hillsborough Avenue and east across Interstate 75.

Residential development is predominantly located to the south and west, while the commercial and industrial uses are oriented along East Hillsborough Avenue and the Interstate 75 corridors.

Considered collectively, this mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed use, especially as it is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hillsborough and Interstate 75, where similar uses are found.

Future land use section policy 4.2.1 requires that projects proposed in all mixed-use plan categories to develop with a minimum of two land uses within a single building or within a single project.

The requirements for two land uses applies to properties that are 10 acres or greater in the RMU 35, UMU 20 and CMU 12 future land use categories, unless the project is exclusively industrial.

Based upon the proposed use of plan develop the proposed plan development uses of warehousing with or without distribution, the project is exclusively a light industrial use and therefore is not required to meet the two land use criteria and is therefore consistent with this policy direction.

The East Lake Orient Park Community Plan includes an economic development goal that seeks to provide opportunities for business growth and jobs in the community.

The expansion of the previously approved plan development will increase the current economic opportunity on the site and create additional job opportunities within this area of East Lake Orient Park.

Additionally, future land use section objective 7.1 states that the county shall pursue a thriving economy through the promotion of target industries.

Industrial uses are included within the target targeted industries, and given the location, compatibility, and community plan goals, the proposed plan development is consistent with the community plan vision and the aforementioned policy direction.

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.

Hearing Master The Zoning Hearing Master found the proposed plan development rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and in compliance with the land development code.

The recommendation was for approval.

All right, member motion for move approval.

Got a motion for uh to approve G1A and G1B by Commissioner Wellstool, second Commissioner Cohen.

Please court your vote.

Next order commissioner, the next uh items are related items G2A and G2B.

Uh G2A is a request to rezone uh 2.25-acre parcel that's located on the west side of Lemon Avenue, uh south of Martin Luther King Boulevard.

Uh the request is for a plan development.

Uh it's currently zoned portion of its PD and portion of the RDC.

The plan development would allow for uh 16 uh units of multifamily and 3,500 square feet of office.

Uh staff is recommending approval planning mission found and consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval of the related item uh G2B is is a minor modification to the PD located north of this uh proposed PD.

The the northern uh this the area where the access point is located is within that PD and is being zoned out of that PD to be incorporated into the uh new PD, which is due to G2A.

Uh therefore the modification is necessary to modify the site planning conditions to recalibrate to show that area being removed under it still will be functioning as access for both projects.

So staff is uh recommending approval of the PRS item also.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Uh good morning.

Ann Pollock with Trennamois representing the applicant here.

Um it's a little confusing, so I was just gonna briefly go through it.

Um, for our PRS request, uh, this is a 2.8 acre vacant parcel.

Uh future land use of Res 9 and in PD 20-0102.

Um, it's currently the location of an Aldi store on Martin Luther King to the east is Lemon Avenue.

This minor modification removes the half acre that you see there in the hashtag area, and that will be transferred to the proposed PD that is running concurrent to the south.

We are not making any other changes, and the um PRS won't increase the FAR beyond what's permitted in the PD or allowed in the Res 9.

So there's no issues with the remaining property there.

Uh the PD request, um, like Brian said, um, we are adding in the half acre from the PD to the north, um, and we are proposing 16 multifamily dwelling units of a townhouse style and 3,500 um square feet of office.

Uh just to give you some background, the whole property initially was owned by the same owner, and the owner sold the Aldi property uh to the to the north there, and the property that's now developed as a Wawa, sold those two properties to be developed for retail.

Um, the seller retained the parcel shown in green here to the south.

The seller then allowed the Aldi developer to use a half acre of that green property for access and buffering to connect to Lemon Avenue.

And so that was included in the 2020 PD, even though the Aldi didn't technically own the property.

So they did construct the roadway.

And again, fortunately, uh removing that doesn't affect uh the FAR for the property to the north.

So uh the PRS removes that land, the PD adds the land and adds the development.

Um the PD is also adding a sidewalk along the north side to the west.

Um currently to the west, there is nothing there, but there may be in the future.

It is a very tricky uh sidewalk to build because of the existing road and because of the uh slope where you see the proposed uh stormwater pond there in the bottom left.

Uh so we have requested a variation to allow our five-foot sidewalk to be put in the 20-foot northern buffer that we're required to have.

Um again, there's no existing pedestrian connectivity to the west, um, and we will ensure at least 10 foot area for landscaping within that 20-foot buffer, so you still get the required landscaping, and there should be uh no negative impacts from that.

Uh, there's just no other place to put it.

Um, it is compatible with the surrounding area.

You'll see that the uh Mango Terrace apartments are to the south.

Um, and so this new project that's coming in is basically going to be like a step down in intensity between the apartments and the Aldi and Wawa that are to the north.

There is uh office to the west and some uh small residential to the east.

Um the the Lemon Ave, which runs from Martin Luther King down to the southern part of our property does not actually continue, so those residential homes you see on the bottom right would not be impacted by any traffic from this proposed development.

Um consistent with the comp plan uh meets commercial locational criteria, meets the Sefner Mango community plan, the neighborhood protection policies, and we're now ensuring additional pedestrian connectivity to whatever comes uh to the west uh planning found it consistent as well as the uh zoning hearing master.

Um we do have uh support from transportation, and we've gotten um an administrative variance deemed approvable for the driveway spacing on Lemon Avenue.

Uh so with that uh I am here for questions and would um hope you would uh approve both of these so that this project can go forward.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Anyone here in support the application?

Anyone in opposition planning commission?

Thank you.

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

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sephenor Mango Community Plan.

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

Similarly, policy 4.4.1 emphasizes neighborhood protection through compatible site design, buffering, and transitions between differing land uses and intensities.

The proposed plan development demonstrates compatibility through several factors.

The mix of multifamily residential and office uses reflects the existing pattern of residential and commercial development in the immediate area.

In addition, the scale and intensity of the development are limited and appropriate given the site's the site's size and context.

Lastly, the site design incorporates buffering, setbacks, and orientation that provide transitions between the commercial uses to the north and the residential uses to the south and east.

The inclusion of office uses along a major corridor and residential uses internal to the site provides an appropriate land use transition and furthers compatibility.

The Sephner Mango Community Plan promotes redevelopment and the enhancement of community character while maintaining a hometown atmosphere.

Goal three of the community plan directs commercial and office development to major corridors such as US 92 and Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard.

The subject property is located along Martin Luther King Jr.

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

The proposed office component is consistent with this strategy, while the residential component complements the surrounding development pattern and supports the overall mix of uses in the area.

Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County community um comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll uh hold off on the vote until after G1B.

Commissioner Coney, do you want to make a comment?

I just want to ask a question.

Just I I'm not sure I totally understand this.

Um is the Aldi losing its driveway access on dilemma, but it's but your argument is it's okay, it already has enough access points elsewhere.

Yes, sorry to interrupt.

Um it is not losing the access, the access will remain.

Um we have uh several uh private easements between the parties requiring it, and the the condition from the PRS has been added to ensure that the access will continue, and the PD itself has conditions as well to ensure that that access will continue.

So Aldi will continue to have access across that driveway that's existing, as well as the access to the north to Martin Luther King.

And our the the PD area in red here.

Well, I don't know if you see it, but um, will have access across that driveway as well as cross access through to the north to Martin Luther King too.

So it's just that the ownership of the driveway is gonna change?

The ownership is the same.

The ownership is not changing.

All that's changing is which PD the driveway is located in.

Got it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yep.

All right.

Staff need to introduce PRS.

Again, a G2B is PRS 260472, and again, is to modify the PD to remove the acreage from the one PD to incorporate into the G2APD.

We have that we are recommending approval.

All right.

Applicant.

I would just reiterate that this is just switching the driveway from the Aldi PD to the new PD that you are concurrently reviewing.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Right.

Can we have a motion for G1A?

Second G2A and G2B.

Um motion, Commissioner Cohen.

Second Commissioner Wolstool.

Uh please record your vote.

Motion carried six to zero.

All right.

Commissioner, the uh next item is uh staff items.

This is a monthly uh status report on a live local act development projects.

I would note that uh as outlined in the report, we have three new and applications filed since the last month's update.

Uh staff's available for any questions.

Any questions, comments?

Commissioner Willstrom.

I'll just comment that that number is now up to 3654 units by my count pending um our lawsuit.

So thank you.

So do we need a motion to accept to accept motion, Commissioner Cohen.

Side Commissioner Wolstool, please record your vote.

Commissioner Myers.

Motion carried six to zero.

Okay, go back to F5.

Thank you, Chair Ryan Manasseh, Johnson Pope.

Uh, thank you for the time and addressing this at the uh last part of this hearing.

Um, I believe we got somewhere with some of the uses of the list that I just saw.

Um I could present it on the overhead if that's easy to do.

Sure.

Okay, so from the list, um we have one question that uh I'll bring Ms.

Swift up here in a second, but just so you understand where I'm coming from.

My client needs the manufacturing process and an assembly and the and open storage, which is not part of this list, but you could see the remaining items that are X'd out our list our uses that we are okay with restricting.

So and we actually included a firing range um on the fly out there.

So, you know, with the exception of manufacturing, processing, and production, which is defined.

I think uh Ms.

Swift provided a definition sheet here in their code.

Um I wouldn't be able to restrict that.

Now there is a question on that as far as um Miss Whiff was we're talking out there and uh about the noise and what can be manufactured outside that we were looking maybe to staff for a little more guidance on.

I don't know if Brian or Adam can help us out.

Just as far as like my understanding is if there was some outdoor welding going on.

Obviously, they couldn't exceed the EPC note noise levels, but would I don't think it differentiates between indoor and outdoor manufacturing your question on the on the noise limitations?

No, the question is for the definition of manufacturing.

Um is that how much can be done outdoor?

No, the question is for the definition of manufacturing um is that how much can be done outdoor how much manufacturing can be done outdoor or is that in an enclosed building I don't believe that that definition limits it to indoor or outdoor the noise limitations in the land development code would govern both scenarios as well as the EPC which was stated which I believe is a little higher than what the land development code would allow.

Right.

So I mean we feel like we've made a lot of progress but again the uh the list of uses um and what they want to do is kind of what's left if it fits under manufacturing that's our only concern about how much and will one concrete block wall and 30 feet uh minimize the the noise but um a lot of progress has been made and that's really the only um question the the light industrial land use is kind of a misnomer when you add the uses that are allowed in the in the manufacturing zoning district so um but we we feel like we've made a a lot of progress with all the elimination of the other uses all right thank you just to be clear from the representative of the applicant so again we're we're okay to restrict the lined out uses and I can turn these in for the record obviously but we would again um that's as far as okay we we understand thank you sir and I appreciate uh your willingness to to work with Ms.

Swift Adam do you understand Adam sorry you understand what they're agreeing to?

Yes what we would understand is that that list that was put up there with the line struck through our uses that the applicant is agreeing will be additional restrictions on the PD and those uses will not be allowed in the manufacturing zoning district right I think that's correct.

Commissioner Cameron Sapeda yes I think they did really awesome in making a lot of changes that were requested and for those reasons I will move for approval.

Second okay we got a motion approved by Commissioner Cameron so paid a second uh commissioner cohen with the additional restrictions on uses uh please record your vote motion carries six to zero okay Adam got anything else sir that concludes our journal okay we're adjourned