Good morning.

If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Please have a seat.

Good morning, everyone.

I want to welcome you to the June 15th, 2026 land use hearing officer hearing.

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

Let me start by introducing Miss Colleen Marshall.

She is with the Development Services Department, and she'll introduce other staff members that will participate in today's hearing as well as go over any off-the-agenda changes.

Ms.

Marshall.

Good morning, Colleen Marshall Development Services.

To my left is Mary Dorman and Jared Delfino, the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office.

Carmen Mason of Development Service staff is joining us virtually.

Alexis Myers, the planning commission staff will be presenting virtually as well.

During the course of the hearing, a number of other staff planners will be presenting their findings for various cases and be introduced for each item.

We have no changes to the published agenda.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action.

Our order of presentation today is as follows.

Anyone who would like to speak against an application.

Everyone combined, 15 minutes.

Now, regarding that time frame for proponent or opponent testimony, those 15 minutes each.

When we get to that section of the hearing, I will ask you to raise your hand if you plan to speak.

We have people in the room that want to speak, and I believe we also have people online that are participating virtually.

So we'll get a show of hands, a count of how many people want to speak either in favor or against, and we will divide that 15 minutes as equally as we can.

If there are a number of people that want to speak, it's best to organize your team.

So perhaps a speaker takes the lead in making that presentation, and then others can put their name and address on the record.

You can also stand and show your uh opposition or support in the room, and all of that is appropriate.

So just know that we were going we are going to keep those time frames um pretty tight, and so 15 minutes each way is how we're gonna go.

When you get up to speak, either in the room or online, if you could start by giving us your name and address for the record.

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

When you're done, if you're in the room when you're done at the podium, if you could see Germain, Jermaine, raise your hand.

Jermaine is with the clerk's office.

He is keeping a written log on top of the dais.

So when you're done, if you could go over there and sign in, also with your name, address, and the case number to which you spoke to make sure we have that correct.

Let me now turn to Mr.

Delfino.

He is with the county attorney's office, and he will provide you the legal requirements for appealing a decision made by a land use hearing officer.

Mr.

Delfino.

Good morning, Jair Delfino Assistant County Attorney.

This land use hearing officer public hearing is for variance and special use requests.

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

Once the land use hearing officer has closed a case, the record of that case is also closed, and no new evidence regarding that case may be submitted thereafter.

Any decision by the land use hearing officer may be appealed to the land use appeals board.

Should a decision of the land use hearing officer be appealed, the record evidence, including the testimony presented at this public hearing, shall be the only evidence that is subject to review by the land use appeals board.

In reaching a final decision on petitions, the land use appeals board will consider the decision of the land use hearing officer and the record evidence, including any evidence from this public hearing.

If an appeal is filed, the land use appeals board hearing shall consist of oral argument by the party appealing the decision, county staff, and any interveners, each of whom may be represented by legal counsel.

The following shall have standing to appeal a decision of the land use hearing officer or to intervene in an appeal.

One, the applicant, or two, anyone who appeared before the land use hearing officer, presented testimony or otherwise or other evidence, and is adversely affected by the decision of the land use hearing officer.

It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is allowed before the land use appeals board that was not presented to the land use hearing officer at today's hearing.

The county attorney will recommend that the land use appeals board disregard evidence or testimony that is outside of the record at today's public hearing.

Any evidence presented to the land use appeals board that is outside the record created at today's hearing could jeopardize the legality of the land use appeals board decision, and the presenter of that evidence could hurt their own cause.

The safest course of action then is for you to write down any comments you make today and repeat them to the land use appeals board.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath.

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

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

Thank you so much.

Please have a seat.

All right.

With that out of the way, then Miss Marshall, we are ready to call the first case.

Today's agenda we have no vested rights, fee waivers, remands, reconsideration requests, or site development various requests, which brings us a section G sign variance requests.

Item G1, variance 260856.

The applicant is adding mentoring.

The request is a variance to sign requirements.

Staff findings will be presented by Sam Ball.

Okay.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Sam Ball with uh Postbroke County Development Services.

Uh the applicant is requesting uh three uh variances uh which would allow for a new monument sign to be installed on a redevelopment site located at the southeast corner of North Dale Mabry Highway and Haute Road intersection.

Um according to LDC section 7030 C1C, a proposed monument sign of eight feet tall would require a 19-foot setback.

Uh the applicant is requesting a 10 and a half foot reduction to the front setback, which would result uh in an eight and a half foot setback from the North uh Del May Highway right-of-way.

Uh for the another the uh based on LDC section 7030 C2A to the subject property having approximately 650 square feet would be limited to two ground signs along the uh North Del Maybury frontage.

Uh variance 080660 allowed the property to have up to four signs along North Dale Mabry, but because sign C, which would this sign would replace was designated as a poll sign and the variance of a ground sign or a monument sign, uh this variance application requires a request to allow an additional sign because the proposed sign is a monument sign.

Um the applicant is requesting to increase the uh allowable number of signs by one, which would allow three signs on the property facing north Del Mabrie Highway.

Uh it's noteworthy to point out that through eminent domain, the most southern of the four signs that were approved is now on the public right-of-way instead of on the subject property.

Um DC Section 7030 C2A2 requires ground signs to be at least 150 feet apart.

Uh the applicant is requesting a 60-foot decrease to this requirement to allow two of the signs to be located 90 feet apart.

Uh this variance is necessary because variance 08660 was approved to allow only a 50-foot reduction.

Um based on the finally, the based on the survey provided by the applicant, the right-of-way taking reduced the front setback of sign D that was approved in variance 0860 uh to zero feet.

Uh the applicant was a n was notified of this and decided not to include that in the uh and in the variance application.

That concludes my presentation if you have any questions.

I do.

I have a couple questions, and it can either be for you or the applicant.

I'll just put them out there and see.

Um first, I just want to clarify the uh your staff report says on the monument sign front yard setback that it's an eight and a half foot front setback.

And I've just it's a minor thing, but I just want to clarify that make sure we have this right.

The applicant in their actual request talks about eight feet six inches.

It could be the same thing, but I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page with that.

We are eight yeah, it is exactly the same.

Okay, just want to make sure.

All right.

Um and then the separation between the ground signs, the staff report says 90 feet, and I believe that's based on the prior variance that was approved, but their actual site plan shows that it's 94 point and then it's illegible.

Um it looked maybe 39 94.39 feet.

I just want to make sure what the actual request is.

They're requ I mean their request was um oh it went off base based on their request.

Our site plan showed you know that's the 94 is the site plan.

Right.

So when I looked at it, I thought, well, that gives them a little bit of flexibility in case the site development standards have to change and they wouldn't have to come back for another variance.

All right, that's fine.

And it wasn't clear to me which sign is actually asking for the increase in the square footage in the sign area.

Um whenever there's a uh sign that exceeds 50 square feet, basically that excludes the possibility of additional signs.

So whenever there's other signs that on the site that exclude that exceed 50 square feet, that that that gets put into the variance.

So basically the way that the sign code is written is that if you have if you're allowed to have multiple signs, then you can reduce those multiple signs to one large sign.

Right.

And so whenever the whenever you have a sign that exceeds 50 square feet on the property, in order to have another sign, basically we we just include that into the variance just to cover all the bases.

Maybe that's the source of my confusion here because um I looked at the original approval, the A through E signs, and I uh E is now off-site, I understand, and D is in the right-of-way.

So it looks like B is existing and C is the new pylon sign.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And then the sign to the north is the one that exceeds 50 square feet per face.

So the one at the very corner at at Hoyt, almost a hoy in Del Mabry, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, understood.

And then finally, the um the sign that is now in the right-of-way due to the taking.

Um I I'm gonna turn to the county attorney's office and ask them if you have, and I understand the applicant's position that they didn't you advised them of it and uh they didn't want to address it.

But what is that liability in terms of the county with a sign that is now existing in the right-of-way due to the taking?

Um what do you mean by the county?

Is there any um is there any action that needs to be taken to remove the sign because it is in the right-of-way to ask them to move it?

Um I am sorry if I should know the answer to this, but is what's the jurisdiction of the road?

It's uh Dale Mabry Highway.

Okay, so it's it's a state.

Okay, that's what I thought.

I just wanted to double check.

Um, have we let the Department of Transportation know about it?

No, we have that that that's their road, right?

Right, we have not uh let them know.

But whenever if you look at the air, if you look at the way this the road is designed, I mean it it was clear that the sign was there whenever the taking took place and that the way the road is configured.

I don't know how and it's a very large sign.

So I just I just don't think that it was ever overlooked.

It it however we got to this place, we're here, but now that we have this action, I've just my my question is is there any requirement from this uh now that we're looking at all the signs and the property to ask them to move the sign into their property and not in the right-of-way.

That's my question.

Right.

I mean, I would think that the Department of Transportation, I mean, they have policies and procedures dealing with those types of issues.

So you know, my counsel to the county would be to devise the to advise the department of the um encroachment into the state right-of-the-art.

Okay, all right, thank you.

That was my only question.

Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning, Addie Mentry 1326 Bird Drive.

I am here on behalf of HCA Healthcare and Northdale Development.

Um we are seeking three sign variances.

Thank you, Sam, for your presentation.

Um, to uh for the related sign variances to the proposed HCA North Tampa Freestanding Emergency Room located at one 15403 North Dale Mabrie Highway.

This slide shows a general location of the subject properties.

We're looking at the north of the county.

The site is located along North Dale Mabry, one of the primary transportation corridors within Hillsborough County.

The surrounding area consists of mix of commercial, retail, office, and residential uses that heavily rely on visibility from North Dale Mabry.

This shot this slide provides a clearer look at the subject parcel.

The property is a part of a larger commercial development.

Um because of the original design, the parcel contains existing parking fields, drive aisles, access points, and sign locations that were worked around with the redevelopment of the freestanding ER.

The site is not being developed as a brand new green field, rather, HCA is adapting the existing commercial to provide the emergency health care services.

So we are requesting three related sign variances.

Um first, we're requesting a reduction in the required monument sign from 19 feet to 8.6 or 8.5, so 8.5 or 8 feet six inches.

I know that was a question that you had.

Um the second, we're requesting for an additional sign to increase um in the allowable monument sign to 43.

So the proposed sign meets the 50 square foot requirement for a sign, but as Sam said, because there is additional signs at the site, it maxes out the addition the required sign.

Thank you.

And finally, we are requesting relief for the 150 foot separation to allow approximately a 90 foot uh 90 feet between signs.

I know that was an another question that you had.

Um the 90 feet will allow us, as Sam said, to be flexible in the placement in the island in case there is um any uh uh foot or two off that we need to kind of move it.

This is the overall site plan.

Um as you can see, the site contains existing parking internal circulations, access and development infrastructure.

The available frontage area is already constrained by the required improvements for the ER.

Um, those conditions significantly limited opportunities for the location of the signage um while maintaining site functionality.

Uh this is a zoomed-in version.

So on this slide, you can see uh the uh northwest corner of the parcel.

That's where HCA is being developed.

Uh this is a closer look.

So the sign that is to the north in green that is existing, and I have an exhibit to sh uh photo to show you.

Uh the red is where we are proposing the HCA monument signal.

Uh this side depicts the proposed monument sign.

The sign is designed consistent with HCA's branding standards uh used throughout the region.

The overall design is professional, architecturally compatible with the redeveloped building and appropriately scaled for the corridor and the land development code.

Uh the sign will provide clear identification for emergency medical services without creating visual clutter.

Um, as shown in these renderings, uh these are the existing signs.

So this the sign that is on the left side is the most the southern sign at that entrance, and the sign on the right is the most northern sign that we're seeking the separation from.

On these, um, both of them don't provide adequate um visibility or size for emergency services.

Um we are also providing the uh proposed monument sign is in a location that an existing sign was in.

Um so this is what the building looks like now.

It used to be a CVS pharmacy, and the site has been redeveloped to bring the HCA building there.

Uh this is what the sign would look like as you're driving north on North Dale Mabry.

Um, and you can see that in relation to the existing sign that is to the north that we're asking the separation from.

Ms.

Betri, let me just before you leave that point.

Yes.

So that was not clear to me either.

So your new HCA sign replaces one of the signs we just showed.

Yes.

I see.

Oh, no, it doesn't replace one of the signs we just showed.

There was um an approved uh pole sign for CVS that was in this location.

That is the sign that it's been removed.

Um it was um it was degradated the the cabinet and the pole.

Um so that sign has been removed because of the redevelopment, and it would be replacing this sign.

I see, thank you.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um, and this is what the sign would look like on HOT Road, um, the visibility um in line with the northern and the southern um entrance sign.

So the um I want to go into the the variance criteria.

Um so the unique hardships, uh the hardships associated with this request are unique to this property.

The site was originally designed for a different use and it and contains existing parking circulation and development infrastructure that limits sign placement options, which is also why we're proposing it in the exact location of uh the sign.

The parcel is also part of the larger development that already contains existing monument signs that were approved in the 2008 variants.

Additionally, the proposed location reflects a continuation of that previously approved location.

Strict application of the code would deprive the property of visibility common enjoyed, commonly enjoyed by similar health care facilities.

Emergency medical facilities rely on clear identification and visibility to effectively serve the public, and we do not believe that the existing multi-tenant signs would be an adequate representation of the medical and emergency services that need to be provided for the building.

The requested variants will not adversely impact neighboring properties.

The sign remains appropriately sized and compatible with the surrounding corridor.

The reduced sign separation does not create uh visual clutter because the sign serves different functions for the emergency medical services.

Um, and one sign identifies the overall development, while this proposed sign specifically identifies those emergency health that emergency health care use.

The code seeks to promote public safety, um, effective site design and orderly development.

The proposed sign directly supports those objectives by improving visibility for the medical services and the request balances the code compliance with the practicalities of the site and the already approved variants for the site.

The need for this variance uh we don't believe was self-created.

The constraints results resulted from the inherited site conditions, existing development patterns, and operational requirements associated with the emergency health care.

These circumstances existed prior to HCA's redevelopment efforts, um and the proposed sign location continues, uh reflects a continuation of the historically approved condition.

Uh the approval of this variance provides substantial public benefit and substantial justice.

The sign improves visibility and accessibility for emergency medical services.

Patients seeking urgent care can benefit from clear site identification and improved wayfinding.

Denying the request would create operational hardship while providing little corresponding public benefit.

And the last thing I have is the average daily driver count for this corridor or this section of the corridor on North Del Maybrie, which is 58,000 average daily dryers.

So it carries substantial daily traffic, and for health care facility, particularly a freestanding emergency room and is heavily, you know, uh residential outside of the main, you know, thoroughfare.

Um it's it's essential, and the proposed monument sign helps ensure that patients and visitors can quickly identify the facility based on the unique site constraints, historical sign approvals, operational needs of the emergency health care facility, and the six significant public benefit provided by the improved visibility.

Uh we respectfully request your approval.

I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um you've answered the majority of my questions through your presentation.

So thank you for that.

Just one thing.

I just because I raised it earlier, I would just want to raise it with you.

That sign that is in the Del Maybury right-of-way.

Just want to get your take on that for the record.

Yes.

So I do know that FDOT was um they worked with the owner, and they do know that that site sign is there.

And once construction happens, they will have to remove the sign.

For now, they are not.

But if there is a road widening, um, and then like any um utility work has to be done, they are aware, and F DOT is aware of the sign, and they will have to remove that sign.

So, not this construction for your client.

It not that construction, but yes, future construction or roadway.

Yes.

I see.

Okay.

That was my only question.

Thank you so much.

Don't please sign in.

All right.

We'll now turn to anyone that would like to speak in support.

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one.

Miss Marshall, anything else?

Nothing further.

All right.

Um, Miss Dorman, any other comments regarding that sign before I move on.

Um, I don't have any other comments if you don't have any other questions.

I don't.

Thank you, though.

So appreciate it.

Miss Mentry, you have the last word if you'd like it.

All right, thank you then.

With that, then we'll close variants 226-0856 and go to the next case.

This brings us a section H variance requests.

Item H1, variance 260584.

The applicant is Eric Langston.

The request is a variance to fence and wall requirements and staff findings will be provided by Sierra James.

Good morning.

Good morning, Sierra James with development services.

The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum fence requirement in the front yard of two feet to permit a six-foot high fence within the front yard.

The site is currently under code enforcement violation for a fence greater than four feet within the front yard.

I'm available for any questions at this time.

Um just a quick question.

Yes, ma'am.

Um there was a letter in the file in opposition saying that uh or of concern, I guess, saying that the notice was not in order for a May hearing.

And I just want to confirm for the record that this uh adjacent property owner notice is in order.

If we can we can do that, I know that you don't personally verify that.

So if we can do that while we move along in the hearing, Miss Marshall, I appreciate it.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

All right, uh, is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Uh hi, my name is Morgan Lingston.

Um, I'm here on behalf of ETL contractors.

Addresses 6109 Hastings Copeland, Plant City, Florida, 33565.

Um, so the subject property is a corner lot along Glenn Harbaugh Road and Fritzke Road.

Um, for those that know the area, that road is frequently used as a cut through route to highway US 92 when I-4 is congested.

Um, as a result, the roadway experiences high um traffic volume, including semi-trucks and excessive um cars traveling at exp excessive speeds.

Um, so we are requesting a two-foot variance to the four-foot fence requirement to make it four six feet in total.

Um, the homeowner does have kids and pets.

Um, so this does impose um a vi like to keep the family safe.

All right.

Do you have a picture of this fence?

Uh yes, it should be.

Give me one second.

Oh, yeah.

Are you gonna show me a picture from your phone?

Uh no, ma'am.

I don't have one.

Okay, all right.

Can you describe it?

Because as I read the application, it looks like just the masonry columns.

Yes, ma'am.

And it is aesthetic to um the house, so it matches the same colors.

Um it is masonry block with um wood boards going across, um, so it matches the aesthetic of the house.

Is it only the columns that exceed the four feet?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um did you hear from any of the neighbors as a part of your we did not hear anything back from them directly, yes, ma'am.

Okay, that's the only question.

Thank you so much.

I forget to sign in.

Yes.

All right.

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

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition.

All right, Miss Marshall, did we confirm the notice?

Yes, so um it wasn't noticeed for May, but it was noticed properly for June.

And in order for June.

Perfect.

Did you have any other comments before I move on?

Nothing else.

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

All right, thank you.

Then with that with that, we'll close variants 26-0584 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H2, variance 260704.

The applicant is Angelos, Florida properties.

The request is a variance to landscape buffering and screening requirements.

Staff findings will be provided by Michelle Montebano.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Multiboto Development Services.

Uh the applicant is requesting a variance to buffering screening standards.

So we have a required six-foot wall within a type C 30-foot incompatible use buffer for a proposed warehouse.

Um section 606065.

It states the screening standard C requires a masonry wall, six feet in height and finished on all sides with brick stone or painted pigment and succo.

Uh the variants requested to eliminate the required six-foot wall to result in a 30-foot type-C buffer along the southern property boundary without a six-foot wall.

Uh the type-C buffer is required because the property to the south is zoned RMC20 and occupied by multifamily use.

Uh the multifamily property does have an existing six-foot eight-foot wall along that boundary, but since the finished grade of where that wall is placed is four feet lower than the finished grade of the warehouse.

Uh that existing wall was not considered sufficient for the required screening for this new use.

Is the wall on the subject property or the adjacent property?

Uh the adjacent property.

Okay.

All right.

That was my only question.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

Uh Tim Atkinson, uh, 6550, uh St.

Augustine Road, Jacksonville, Florida.

All right.

You just tell us a little bit about your request.

Uh well, we've got a um uh warehouse project.

The um uh the reason we thought uh we'd qualify for a buffer uh variance is we the existing wall is eight feet on the property line.

Um we still have the 30-foot setback, and we have the um we've met all the planting requirements.

Um we we're just asking for a variance for the second wall that'll be you know 25 feet away.

Really, the architect um first brought up the biggest concern.

Uh we have windows on the south side and offices, and basically the view from the office will be the new wall we put in, and that's our request.

So you want to use the uh existing wall that's on the adjacent property to the south?

Yeah, it was on the property line.

Um have you heard from that property owner to the south?

Uh no, I got one call uh with a question about what the variance was about and uh kind of explained the what I just said, and that was that's the only call I received.

Okay, that was my only question.

Thank you so much.

You could please sign in before you go.

Okay.

All right.

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

See no one, anyone in opposition?

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

Do you have anything further before we close?

Anything else to add?

All right, thank you for that.

We'll close then variants 26-0704 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H3, variance 2670.

The applicants are John S and Susanna M.

Moyler.

The requested variance to fence requirements, and I'll present the staff findings.

The applicants requesting a variance of two feet to the maximum fence height of six feet to allow an eight-foot high fence within the rear yard of the property.

Happy to answer any questions.

Uh none at this time.

Thank you so much.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh yes, uh variant increase um in height for a rear fence, rear yard from six feet to eight feet.

Um, and the reason for that is there's uh new neighbor uh in our backyard that uh is uh creating uh quite a bit of uh privacy issues.

Significant ongoing impacts for noise, visual screening that cannot be mitigated by standard six-foot fence.

In addition, this rear yard is sometimes used for outdoor activities.

For example, they had a religious ceremony with a large tent in their backyard.

Lots of speakers and noise going on all day.

And our neighbors support us and the HOA supports us.

All right.

Sir, if you could give us your name and address real quick.

I'm sorry, John Mueller 2506 Oak Landing Drive.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Just a quick question.

I read I read all the backup and your reasons for this increase in fence height.

And I just wondered one of have you talked to that neighbor?

You talked to them about this?

Uh the the neighbor has rented it to uh a large uh party.

I see and we've sent letters to the uh the owner, but we haven't gotten any response.

All right, and have you talked to code enforcement about this issue?

Because that's a single family zoning district that that property is in.

Yeah, that was going to be eventually another stop, but we we started with this first.

Understood.

Okay.

Uh, I think that was my only questions.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it if you could please sign in.

All right.

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

Anyone in favor?

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request?

No one.

Ms.

Marshall.

Nothing for the okay.

Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it.

Yeah, anything else to add?

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close variance 26-0710 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H4, variance 260724.

The applicant is ice dream shop LLC.

The request is a variance to the LUTs rural area development standards, lot development standards, sign requirements, dumpster and recycling collection space requirements, accessory structure standards, and landscape and buffering requirements.

Staff bindings will be presented by Sierra James.

Thank you.

Morning.

Sierra James of Development Services.

The applicant is seeking a variance to the LUTS rural development standards, lot development standards, and maximum building sign sizes to accommodate requirements triggered by the requested improvements to the current development.

They are requesting a variance to 30906A to eliminate architectural features, including roof pitch, external cladding, and design features.

A variance to 30906B2 is requested to eliminate fencing and wall requirements in commercial and office districts to allow for a chain link fence without 12 inches between spanning members, a variance to the maximum, the permitted maximum sign area of 154.5 square feet to permit up to 200 square feet of sign area on the southern building facade and of 230 square feet to permit up to 300 square feet of sign area on the western building facade.

A variance to 309092 to the location of parking between the building and right-of-way to permit parking between the principal building and U.S.

Highway 41, a variance of five feet to permit a front yard setback of 25 feet, a variance of 15 feet to permit a five-foot front yard setback for the dumpster and enclosure, a variance to eliminate the required eight-foot buffer along the western property line to allow for an unrestricted area between the off-street vehicle use area and right-of-way, a variance uh of the required eight-foot buffer along the driveway to allow for an unrestricted adjacent, unrestricted area adjacent to the driveway, and a variance to the 20-foot type B buffer where the property abuts residential uses to allow for the primary structure and septic drain field to remain within the buffer area without additional screening requirements.

I'm available for any questions.

Um just quickly um in reading this, it seems to be easier to describe what they might comply with rather than what they want a variance from.

So do they comply with any of the loot's rural area standards?

Are there some?

Um to my understanding, I do not believe so.

This is an extra um existing building that they just wanted to do internal renovations to, but since it was since they are doing the internal renovations, the loot's rural development standards are now required since they want to do all right, understand.

That weren't required before.

Thank you.

That was my last question.

Appreciate it.

Uh is the applicant here.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh Brian Wilkes with KCI Technologies here on behalf of the owner, Ice Dream Shop.

Address is 150, Kelsey Lane, Tampa 33619.

Um, I do have some images to show.

Okay.

Um, we can get somebody to help you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Might help the explanations.

I appreciate it.

Uh pictures, yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so this is in response to uh this is a structure in a site that was constructed in 1974.

Uh, and it's been a commercial, general commercial use since our uh client, the the new owner uh simply wants to change it to an ice dream shop, their third location.

Uh and in doing so, uh we were sent through the uh site plan review process with Hillsborough County, and current land development code standards were applied, including the uh loot rural redevelopment standards.

So as you can see, this is the existing uh building here.

Uh uh in say probably the past 10 to 12 years, it's been a combination of things.

Uh you can see here is with a barbershop and a uh rug and carpet outlet.

Um, and uh more recently it was a uh service center for ARNA, so it had uh service vehicles in and out all day and storage on the outside.

Uh this is our proposed site plan.

Uh and in doing all we can to bring up the current standards, we are uh cutting in landscaped islands for additional landscaping uh next to the parking areas.

Um we are for safety moving the existing connection to 2nd Avenue southeast as far east as possible to allow uh for you know more safety between the intersection and our turn in.

Uh DOT has asked that we shut down the full access connection along US 41, but we are allowed a one-way in county has requested uh required a dumpster and enclosure uh that we can put on the south side of the building.

That's the the red cloud there.

Um and otherwise uh we're in we're intending to uh comply with uh as much of the landscaping requirements as we can, giving the placement of the existing building, which is around three feet from the property line.

Um and also uh safe uh circulation for transportation requires a 24-foot drive aisle to the connection that we have relocated further east.

Uh and that's kind of pinpointed by the uh delivery trucks and solid waste vehicles to navigate in, pick up solid waste back out, and then come out that second so second avenue southeast.

So the as you can see in the the existing picture here.

Um we have a we have a roof, we have uh sides of a building.

We just want to uh we just want to use uh you know keep it uh keep it there.

Um the sign variances we have requested because of you can see the uh the the top of the building built into the in there is a um uh uh uh two-foot wide sign that goes the length of the building, and we're also showing history of using a wall for art and advertising as well.

Um site plan.

This is typical of their signage, they use the windows for the uh the uh the stickers and and wall art.

Uh the sign is typical there, um, but we did want to allow for them to not have to re uh you know demo a portion of the building that wouldn't be necessary to to get them to have what they what they need there.

Um so that uh um and then the additional signage along the south of the building, they uh anticipated a um like a community mural, excuse me.

Uh and uh we have an example we did uh a neighboring property to uh two blocks down last year, in which they did something like this on their south side of the building.

Um so that'll be incorporated into the south, where you can see here where some give it a little more community look to it.

So uh that is what I have.

Um here for any questions you may have.

No questions at this time, thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign it.

All right, is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition?

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything further?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

Anything else?

All right, thank you.

Then we'll close variants 26-0724 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H5, variants 260763.

The applicant is Oscar Romero Amant.

The request is a variance and minimum lot size by available utilities.

Staff findings will be presented by Orlando Boris.

Good morning.

Morning.

Um this is Orlando Borras with development services.

Uh this time the applicant is seeking a variance from the land development code section 60106 minimum load size by available utilities.

That section of the code states that you will need to have at least um one acre of upland if you're located in the Will Hill Protection Area, which is the case for this property.

Um applicant is looking to split the uh property into two more lots.

Um therefore he's um seeking a variance to reduce the minimum upland requirement by 0.75 acres, resulting in a 0.25 acre of upland on each lot.

Um it is my understanding that the applicant also has gotten a permit from the um department, uh sorry, the health department of the state um for well and septic.

Uh I think that concludes my presentation.

I'm not sure if you have any questions, but more than happy uh to answer them.

Thank you.

Just one quick question.

Um understanding uh that the applicant is doing as I read this, the applicant is doing this to subdivide the property, but taking a step back, would the variants be required if they were not subdividing the property just to develop it in accordance with the yes, because um the whole property before being split, it's going to be about point um 51 acres.

Um it's still below um the one-acre requirement for a well and septic.

All right, thank you.

That was my only question.

Appreciate it.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Morning, Ms.

Finch.

I'm current porto for the applicant, Mr.

Mott, Mr.

Mott's here with me today.

All right.

Um Your Honor, in this particular case.

Sir, could you give us your interest as well?

Thank you.

Sorry.

You know.

Um, in this particular case, we had uh subdivided at 0.51 acre lot.

We had all the approvals we had EPC come out, no wetlands, uh nothing, no surface water.

Um and the permit for the set septic system was approved and installed, it's new and in good order.

The tie-in is about 700, 710 feet.

Um it's probably worth more than the the lot uh in expense to do so.

The adjacent properties, from what we can tell, are not tied in.

Um, but but I don't know that for sure.

They appear to be an age um uh far older than when the actual uh sewer line was installed and they began requiring people to tie into it.

It's the main thrust of the argument about tying into the septic, I believe, is related to the common well that's in the neighborhood, why they're requiring a four-acre um minimum for having a septic system.

Uh I I don't particularly know the impact of that, but the EPC did not reject our application.

And the county approved it, and we relied on that to install it recently.

So now we're now we're posed with a very large expense that we did not expect.

We would have made uh additional changes in our plans for developing this property had we known, but we were not.

We were not no one seemed to know the county or anyone else.

I'm not saying that's a requirement, but it seems like it should be.

So we're asking for variants to allow the septic as is brand new in place, having been approved.

Um, and we're asking for the waiver of us having to spend approximately 100 to 125,000 to actually trench and tie into the the uh sewer line.

Anything you want to add?

No, sorry.

Okay.

All right.

That's it.

Thank you.

Um I just want to confirm a couple things.

One is you said uh it's about 710 feet to connect, and you're alleging that uh some cost to uh associated cost with the connection.

We estimate the cost to be about 125,000.

Have it done professionally and approved by the county.

And as I read your uh application and the reasons for the variance, it I just want to confirm again that the alleged hardship is your inability to subdivide the property if this is not granted.

Is that correct?

Uh no, ma'am.

I don't I don't think that or is your hardship based on financial costs?

It's based primarily on financial um hardship.

The the property was subdivided properly, so it was split in half.

It's um their mobile home or manufactured home lots, the community.

Um that 0.51 acre was a rather large lot for uh double wide manufactured home.

Now that it's split, it will be able to have two.

We're not asking for a variance on the second, just on the one that was installed that we already expended the or had the expanse of putting in the the septic system.

So it's a it's existing now based on the permit from the health department.

Yes, ma'am, it is.

I see.

All right.

Uh I think those are my only questions.

Did you put your address on the record?

Did I hear that?

No, I did not.

Okay.

My have the applicants.

Mine is it's current Porto, C U R R A N Porto P O R T O.

I'm at 410 South, where W A R E Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

33619.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

If you could please sign in with the clerk's office.

All right.

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

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

All right.

Um, Ms.

Dorman or Ms.

Delfino, let me just ask you about um justification for hardship based on uh financial cost.

Um Madam Hearing Officer, I believe that that's a consideration that you can consider, but I don't I think that there's case law that states that that being a sole ground is not adequate for the um granting of a variance.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

All right.

Then um, Ms.

Marshall, did you have anything else you wanted to add before we move on?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

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

Anything else you'd like to add?

Your Honor, at a minimum, the reliance by the county should be an offset for any cost that we have to install.

Uh there is precedent that if the county um uh approved the permit and that we expended or relied upon that approval to do what they're telling us we had to do, that we should at a minimum be able to reduce the cost that we should have in um and in tying into the line.

So I don't know, this is a new case for me.

I've never had one of these before, where there's new construction, a new septic in place.

It it just seems very awkward to me that someone would be after the fact uh imposed upon such a hardship without any knowledge of that at the beginning.

Um we do rely on the county, and the county does have a duty to tell us what costs we may incur in the future if we build on a specific um plan that they approve.

Uh and we did everything we were supposed to do.

We did not really cause or have any culpability in this mistake.

It is just something that came up kind of after the fact.

So I don't think the case law really applies to this specific scenario where we relied upon everybody in good faith to do what was an approved plan.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Then with that, we'll close variants 26-0763 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H6, variants 26070.

The applicant is David Wright, TSP companies incorporated.

The request is a variance to accessory structure requirements and lot development standards staff findings will be presented by Logan McKay.

Good morning.

Good morning, Logan McKay Development Services, variance 26070.

The applicant is requesting a variance to lot development standards for the purpose of constructing an accessory structure on the property.

Per section 61104 and 60101 accessory structure shall not be erected in a front yard except at 50 feet or twice the standard setback for the RC6 zoning district.

The standard setback is 25 feet, therefore is still a 50-foot front yard setback.

The applicant is requesting a 40-foot variance to this setback, resulting in a 10-foot front yard setback for the accessory structure.

Additionally, per section 61104, accessory structures exceeding 15 feet in height shall meet the primary structure setbacks.

Just two quick questions.

And wondered if the applicant was advised and chose not to address that in this case.

I'm sorry.

Excuse me.

Yes, sir.

Um I bought the house as is.

Those setbacks have been changed after that.

Hold that thought just one second, sir.

Respectfully.

Um let the staff answer and then I'll call you up.

But you can stay right there.

It's perfectly fine.

Um that was not addressed during the uh variance review process.

The uh applicant was not advised on it to my knowledge.

Okay, thank you so much.

Go ahead, sir.

Give us your name and address to start.

Ramiro Compagnoni, property owner, 12015 North Oregon Avenue, Tampa.

Um those setbacks have been modified since that house was built.

That house was built back in the early 70s.

I bought it in uh 2018.

I haven't we didn't move the house.

Okay.

We didn't move the pool.

They moved the line.

All right.

That was my question.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else you want to add before I move on?

Uh no, no, ma'am.

All right.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

If you could please sign in at the clerk's office, thanks.

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

Seeing no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

All right.

I did have uh that there was uh part of the applicant's team that was participating virtually.

Is that someone that wanted to speak?

Is online I don't see that person on our queue.

So all right, then with that we'll go back to development services.

Anything further?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

You have the last word as the applicant anything else you want to add?

Um here to answer any questions you have.

All right, none at this time.

Thank you so much.

Then we'll close variants two six-0770 and move to the next case.

Next item is item H7, variance 26074.

The applicant is Glenn Otley.

The request is a variance to lock development standards.

Staff findings will be presented by Chris Gert and Leonard.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Chris Granard, development services.

Here to present variance application very uh VAR 26-00074.

It's for a residential property located at 13318 uh ranch road.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a three vehicle attached garage addition.

Uh specifically, the variance applies to the side yard setback requirement within the AS1 zoning district.

The land development code requires a 15-foot side yard setback in this zoning district.

The applicant is requesting an eight-foot variance, resulting in a seven-foot setback along the northwest property line.

Uh that concludes my report.

Will that answer any questions?

Uh none at this time.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Is the applicant here for case uh variance two six-zero seven seven four?

It's agenda item H7.

All right, Miss Marshall, any word on the applicant.

No, we can we can try to give them a call.

Okay.

So let's do this.

We'll hold this case uh and come back to it once we figure out the status of the applicant, and we will move on to the next case, H eight.

Side of H8, variance 260793.

The applicant and Susan's Chandra.

The request is a variance defense and wall requirements, and I'll present the staff findings.

The applicant's requesting a variance of two feet to the maximum four foot wall height within the front yard to allow a six-foot high wall.

Property is designated as a Hillsborough County Historic Landmark.

Certificate of appropriateness review COA 2026-05 has been approved with the following condition.

The variants must be approved for the increase of wall height.

If not approved, the wall shall be limited to four feet in height in the front yard.

Happy to answer any questions.

Good morning.

So this area has become uh substantially more um heavily trafficked after this claw.

This applicant's been here for about 55 years, they said.

So in this area, they've done what they could to provide a buffer to the uh Lake Magdalene Boulevard connection between Florida and Bears Avenue.

Um being as there's a school, a church, and substantial traffic flow in this area, the uh applicant is now facing uh substantial impact to their uh sound and uh um looking uh to mitigate that with this wall.

Um they are allowed the four foot wall, but felt that the additional two feet was necessary to continue to help support their um well-being and their ability to um stay on the property as long as they've been here.

Uh you know, at no fault of their own, the growth has just continued to push more and more uh visible impacts in the morning and in the afternoons to their area.

Uh uh when asked to provide the very you know to request the variance, um, they said that they want to comply with everything um expected of them.

They're even going as far as to leave their hedges and things up to keep the wall behind the hedges.

Uh they do recognize that the area does have similar uh walls that are above the four foot requirement, uh within a thousand feet of their property.

The Abla uh community is right behind there and has a beautiful eight-foot wall that stretches the majority of this roadway um across the street from them uh around the bend.

There is a uh community that has another wall that has both four and six foot walls.

Um the hope is to uh put a similar wall there, block wall, um, maintain their columns every 15 feet and keep uh the same aesthetic in the area to make it still be as um presentable as possible for the county, um, but also to gain that benefit of the uh uh sound mitigation and uh privacy and just the impacts to their their use of the property as as the owners.

Um at this point, I think uh Colleen already identified the certificate appropriateness.

We've gone through the process and got the approvals that we need, and uh we're uh respectfully hoping that uh the county approve the additional two feet.

That's all I have.

All right, thank you so much.

No questions at this time.

Appreciate it.

All right, is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support?

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition?

No, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

Anything else from you before I move on?

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close variants two six-0793.

Uh any word on that applicant, or are we still searching?

I think we're still working on it.

Okay, all right.

Then we'll go to H9.

Next item, item H9, variance 260809.

The applicant is Mayra Lira.

The request is a variance to la or to accessory dwelling requirements.

I'll present the staff findings.

The applicant's requesting an increase in the maximum accessory dwelling living space to designate the existing mobile home as an accessory dwelling in order to build a new principal dwelling on the subject property.

A variance of 60 square feet is requested to increase the maximum living area within the accessory dwelling to 960 square feet.

The property is 43,571 square feet in size, and the proposed principal dwelling is 3,840 square feet in size, therefore allowing for the subject variants to be requested.

Happy to answer any questions.

Um yes, I just had a quick question.

Uh if the um existing mobile home is designated as the accessory structure, is there a time limit for them to construct the principal structure?

The for it to be designated as a accessory dwelling, they'll have to have the permit in review for the um the principal dwelling.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Good morning.

You give us your name and address, please.

Myra Lera 1222 begin drive and Riverview, Florida.

Thank you.

And just tell us a little bit about your request.

Um I'm just I did the variants just so I'm able to keep the mobile home and still be able to build a home in front.

Okay.

Yes.

Pretty straightforward.

All right.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Anything else you want to add?

No.

Okay.

Don't forget to sign in.

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

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition?

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

All right.

Uh Miss Lira, anything else before I move on?

Good.

All right.

Then with that, we'll close variants 26-0809 and go to the next case.

Next item is item H10, variance 26845.

The applicant is Miladice Guevara Lorente.

The request is a variance to lot development standards and staff findings will be presented by Logan McCay.

Morning.

Morning.

Logan McKay variance 260845.

The applicant's requesting a variance to lot development standards for the purpose of permitting an existing home and addition on the property.

For section 60101, a minimum of five foot uh front yard setback is required in the RSC in the RSC9 zoning uh front yard.

Um five foot side yard setback, excuse me, is required in the RC9 zoning district.

Applicants are requesting a one foot variance requesting any resulting in a four foot side yard setback and a minimum twenty foot front yard uh setback is required in the RC9 zoning district.

Applicants requesting a 10 foot variance resulting in a 10 foot front yard setback.

Uh we have no further findings available for any questions.

Uh no questions, thank you so much.

Is the applicant here?

Good morning.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Um I pull that down.

Yeah, yeah.

Perfect.

Okay, I'm translating for the applicant.

Okay.

Can you give us your name and address?

Yes, Yaleen Torres, Artola, 3015 West of Dallas Street, Tampa, Florida, 33607.

Thank you so much.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Oh, you can give your address, yes.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um yeah, so the applicant is uh requesting a reduction of the right setback from five feet to four feet and a reduction of the backyard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.

Um the applicant purchased the property uh existing the way that it is, and um see here uh the strict uh application of the territorial uh development code um would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the property as it would require the demolition of the existing additions that have been used as a part of the dwelling, um and this would impose uh unnecessary burden on the owner the lemon delay is in the gas.

Okay.

Um the owner's name is Mercedes Escalante.

The uh property address is 7227 Donald Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33614.

Um so she has met with uh architects and an engineer, and they're going to do everything up to code.

The only thing that they're asking for is for the structure.

Um, you know, that they don't have to do any demolition of the existing structure, but everything else will be up to code.

All right.

Just to confirm on the record, when she bought the property, this addition was already there.

Yes, it was already there.

All right, that was my only question.

Okay.

Thank you both so much.

I appreciate it.

If you could both sign in.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

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

See no one, anyone in opposition.

Yes, sir.

Come forward.

Give us your name and address, please.

Uh good morning.

My name is Milo Page.

And uh my address is 7218 North Himes Avenue, 33614.

And I I have lived there since uh 2014, and this property uh uh uh is adjacent to the subject property here uh on Donald Avenue.

Uh my backyard intersects their backyard.

Uh and so I'm I'm here as a as a concerned neighbor, having uh received the letter and having read as much of the information that that I uh that I could about this.

And uh if I I'm seeing an argument here that um a variance to the setback is is going to provide reasonable use of to the property, and I'm I'm wondering if if reasonable use of a single family home is what's alleged here in the code um enforcement complaint that this house has been converted into a four-unit rental property, it has been listed on Airbnb.

So I I just would want to register register that concern and uh and question.

All right.

Um it I appreciate your comments.

It's it's not the process is not for you to ask me a question, but um if you can certainly state your concerns and views regarding your opposition on the record.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Well that that that's why I'm here to simply reflect what uh what I'm reading, and that it is a concern uh to have a uh a home that is zoned for single family to as alleged here be converted to a four-unit rental property on uh on Airbnb, and one could argue that that perhaps does alter the character of the the neighborhood when the surrounding houses are uh are single family.

Okay, all right, does that conclude your comments?

Oh, it could.

I I don't know if this just as a supplemental in terms of any any personal uh personal impact here.

Request permission to walk around.

May I?

Uh what would you like to do?

Oh, I no sir.

Um we have an over an ability to show something overhead, but we don't take evidence by a phone or a tablet because you can cannot submit it.

It's not something tangible you can spend to the other.

Okay, well, I I won't uh bother with this uh other than just to to describe it.

Uh what I uh photographed on Friday night was a a blinking almost like a strobe light from the back of the uh it it's the uh addition uh that goes into the backyard.

And um when when this uh uh this unit is occupied uh when that light is on, it's because it's so close to the back fence, it it has a kind of strobe light effect.

I uh that uh that could actually uh uh penetrate through the blind of one of the bedrooms.

But uh again, that's a trivial personal concern.

The reason I came down here was as a as a concerned neighbor concerned for the neighborhood.

All right, thank you, sir.

I appreciate you coming down in your testimony and don't forget to sign in.

Anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

Hold on one second.

All right, uh seeing no one, Ms.

Marshall, if you could address the gentleman's concern about the potential rental of this property for multiple units, so the the property zone RC9, which would just allow for single family residential um as far as rentals, um we don't have any restrictions in the land development code that would prohibit renting the property, um, but it couldn't be divided into multiple units.

Um that would change the use.

It could not be divided into multiple units.

Correct.

Correct.

All right, thank you so much.

Did you have anything you wanted to add before we move on?

Anything else?

Um, you'll get a chance.

Hold on one second.

Um the only other we with single family the rental, um, it does have to be at least a week or more.

Um it doesn't allow less than a week.

Okay, excellent definition.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right, if you want to come back.

You have uh five minutes for rebuttal.

Just give us your name again just for the record.

Uh Yaleen Torres uh and then Meladi Sgarvara.

Um we just wanna say that the owner is aware of you know the situation and um she is going to stop uh renting the property.

Um like I said before, she's gonna comply and you know do everything up to code.

Um so the property is no longer going to be Airbnb'd.

All right, I think I say, Yeah, she's she just has to fulfill um the current uh reservations until but she is closing the you know she's not gonna have an Airbnb anymore.

All right, and just to for the record, you are the owner of the property.

No.

No.

Uh she's representing the owner.

Okay.

So but your your testimony is the owner of the property is aware that this will stop.

Yes, understood.

All right.

Uh, yeah, she said that the owner spoke to the department of zoning and they did explain to her, you know, for in order to rent the unit for vacationing that there has to be a minimum amount of days.

Right.

That was Ms.

Marshall's testimony.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Anything else before we close?

No.

All right.

Thank you both so much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

With that, we'll close variants 26-0845.

Before we leave the variance section, I just want to touch back face on that applicant that was not here.

A word?

Yes.

Um, we were able to get a hold of them and they are on virtually now.

Okay, then we'll go back and open case uh agenda item H7.

And how far did we get along?

Did we get the staff testimony?

Yes.

I believe we did, right?

Okay.

So is the applicant available online?

Case number variants two six-zero seven seven four.

Is the applicant available online?

Mr.

Glenn Otley.

Looks like he is showing up on the meeting.

Yeah, if I hadn't talked, I would make sure it works good.

Advanced updates on the phone.

It gotta work good.

Mr.

Otley, are you there?

Yes, I'm here.

All right.

You have to turn on it's a policy of the county that you have to have your camera on as well.

Let me tell it.

Let me turn it on.

And then could you start by giving us your name and address, please?

Yes, I'm here.

All right.

I don't see your camera on yet.

Let's give me a one check.

All right.

I do see you.

If you could give us your name and address for the record before you begin.

Okay.

My name is Glenn Otley.

And my IDS is 7011 Alafia Avenue River View.

Uh 33578.

All right.

If you could just tell us a little bit about your variance request.

Um I apologize for not being present because I got an email from I just found out it's a scammer that tell me the process was done, and they actually requested a four thousand dollars payment.

Which fortunately we haven't paid as yet.

So our request is for um seven a reduction in the site setback of the property, which is I think that was 15.

I would want to reduce it to uh eight or seven.

I don't have a document with me because I actually was on the road.

I did start by um and it's for in order for to build a three-car garage because the owner has um a lot of equals from his job, recreation because I don't like the idea of um pocket is because outside of the neighborhood.

Um there's a limit of the height of the of a detached garage.

Um and you have also has uh a post that you don't want to park on the outside.

So you want to enclose everything at the same time.

You try to keep the aesthetics of the property of the building, the house the same so that it doesn't affect the uh market value of the adjacent properties, etc.

So we had done uh for showing the garage and the attachments.

It looks like it was not it's not done after talk to the building to the house.

It looks like it's part of the structure um initial design.

So it fits in, it it gives that kind of um look with the uh garage doors and everything just already have some garage on the other side.

So it's just uh it's basically the residue is the properties now zone as architect or residential and not most residential property um set back of seven feet is not really detrimental as well as the as both the adjustment neighbor, and they don't have really have a property a problem with the issue as long as um everything is done the way we show it on the drawing.

uh garage doors and everything just already have some garage on the other side so it's just uh it's basically the resid the the properties now zone as architectural residential and not most residential property um setback of seven feet is not really detrimental as well as the as both of the adjacent neighbor and they don't have really have a property a problem with the issue as long as um everything is done the way we show it's on the draw all right um I does that complete your presentation Mr Otley does that conclude your comments is that everything you wanted to say let me see if I can switch my wifi because I'm not here in class I didn't get the last um what was that just to ask just to ask if that was the uh if that concludes your presentation can you hear me now have we lost the connection with him yeah we are lost in the comment I don't think we've lost it if he replies that he lost it um okay um all right Mr.

Ottlie can you hear me now yes I okay perfect I just had one question the uh variance criteria response that you completed in your application talks about a future land use change from agricultural to residential is there was was there an actual application made to change that future land use category or are you think are you thinking just in terms of the actual land use of the property uh let me see if I can get the meeting on my phone but come on on my iPad on this patchy I think the question was um the future news I'm not sure I didn't get quote because it's patchy um uh future landers is residential I'm not sure what the question is but I know that um if that is possible to change the zone is the is it a resident uh the owner would like to do okay all right that was my only question I appreciate it so we'll move on with the rest of the hearing is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support of this application anyone in opposition no one miss marshall anything else nothing for that all right Mr.

Otley you have the last word before I move on do you have anything else you'd like to say I um I hope that uh you guys consider because he's trying to make the neighborhood uh look a little better and um I spoke to a few neighbors uh that called me and I explained to them what we plan to do and they each didn't have a problem because what they didn't want is for him to install any kind of like manufactured the uh garage that was um aluminum uh buildings uh most of the neighbors kind of um don't want that so when I show them the rendering of what we intend to do they each said that um it only has the neighborhood and uh so I hope you guys can take that into consideration and at the same time the other things that I wrote in my uh information is that um sometimes he books from home and he has fool yard cases as kind of a convenience to have the more people uh on site so that he can you know uh do family business while his wife's put it with that stuff like that.

So that's all I think.

All right thank you very much for your testimony I appreciate it.

With that then we'll close variants two six-zero seven seven four that concludes the variance portion of our hearing so I think given the next case it's probably appropriate just to take a quick five minute break and then we'll come back by the back of the room let's just say uh 1030 we'll resume the hearing thank you very much

All right.

Welcome back, everyone.

We are out of recess for the June fifteenth, twenty twenty six land use hearing officer hearing.

And with that, then Miss Marshall, we are ready to call the next case.

Item I one, special use twenty-six zero, four, three, zero.

The applicant is native foundation incorporated.

The request is a special use for school.

As you recall the uh special uses, the applicant goes first, so we are ready for that section.

Good morning.

Good morning, Ms.

Finch.

My name is Mark Bentley, four hundred North Ashley Drive, Tampa representing NADIP Foundation, the foundation behind the proposed APEC school.

Before I get started, um, would you be amenable to granting up to an additional five minutes if necessary?

Uh, we will do that because uh it seems like there's a significant amount of opposition to this, so I will give them the same courtesy of an additional five minutes.

Absolutely.

Go ahead.

So the client is seeking a uh school private school, kindergarten through eighth grade, up to a thousand students is a special use under the LDC.

There are only two criterion that apply to special uses.

Um in the conditions, is our client has agreed to as a result of some feedback from some of the surrounding neighborhood not to light the athletic facilities.

So there's a condition number five that references lighting for athletic facilities shell, and I'm paraphrasing not have an adverse impact, etc.

So that should be changed.

There are no objections from any review agency.

The school board didn't weigh in our comment on this application.

Both the Planning Commission staff and development services staff have recommended approval with conditions.

Just briefly, Apex Academy is a K through eight, provides an educational opportunity unique to Hillsborough County.

Uh to a certain degree at your own pace.

Through the Florida Empowerment Scholarship Program.

What I provided you at Tab 2 is a greater description and more detailed of the school itself.

One of the founders of the school is ASHOC Bagdi, and ASHOC was apparently the most high demand school in Hillsborough County Charter School is Patel High School at USF, and ASHAC was one of the founders of that school as well.

I guess they get about a thousand applications a year, and they only accept 200 or 250.

As I mentioned, there's staff recommendations for approval, development services, special use meets all requirements, including compatibility, planning commission finds the special use consistent with the LUTS community plan, the overall county comp plan, LUTES design standards, and section 3.09.

And there's a paragraph that kind of sums up, I think the compatibility situation that's on page four at the bottom of the planning commission report says quote the school section of the plan identifies education as a high priority for the community and emphasizes that the planning design and development of schools should reflect and be compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

As proposed, the school incorporates site design operational measures intended to main compatibility, et cetera, et cetera.

Therefore, the request is consistent with the goals and intent of the LUTS community plan and on and on.

Since this isn't a rezoning, the the law is a little bit different.

I know you're familiar with it, but just to get this on the record, is uh a special use carries a presumption of being a permitted use under Florida law, and that was established in both the Irvine case and Dusot case, and I'm giving you copies of those in the backup.

Those are at 9B and 9A.

Uh so it's different than rezoning.

Special use an applicant simply has to meet their burden of proof is to demonstrate that the number one, the use is allowed, and secondarily that the use meets the articulated criteria.

Once the applicant does that, the burden then shifts to any third party or the local government to demonstrate with substantial competent evidence on the record at the proceeding that the use does not, in fact, meet the criteria.

So in this case, the government has conceded that we've met our burden.

Also, important component from a legal standpoint to this proceeding.

These are appellate cases found at 9D and I.

Staff reports of professional staff based on facts are considered substantial competent evidence to support the approval of special use.

And here again, both planning commission and development services.

These professional planners prepared very thorough, fact-intensive reports, opining that the application meets all standards and criteria articulated in all the applicable plans and codes.

Therefore, the positive staff reports by these experienced professionals are sufficient in and of themselves to support our burden.

However, we intend to bolster that through some of the documentation already provided you, which are expert reports, resumes, case laws, staff reports, and also we're gonna have the testimony from our transportation engineer and professional planner.

Tab one, Ms.

Finch, these are previously approved schools through special use process, and this is in the range of from 2023 to 2025.

There are 10 schools all approved.

Eight of the 10 requirement transportation design exceptions are variances because of access to substandard roads, which it seems like a pretty common issue with schools.

So this is similar to our situation where the county engineer Mike Williams has conditionally approved a design exception for Holly Road, which is the northern boundary of the northern street off Dale Mirbury.

So from my perspective, our project is virtually indistinguishable from most of the prior cases, and there appear to be no rational basis to disregard staff's recommendations in this case.

Here are some major project characteristics.

75% of the 24-acre parcel will remain open space.

Four acres of tree farm with mature trees will remain in the northeast portion of the project to provide significant buffering to residential in a horse farm located to the east on the east side of Holly Lane.

The project's utilizing only 50% of its FAR, no lighting of the athletic fields.

Project is providing more than double required parking.

No waivers or variances to the LDC are being sought.

The evolution of the site planning process, that's at uh exhibit three, and I won't get into that.

Needless to say, this has been going on for a while, and there have been different iterations of the plan.

Our clients really made a good faith effort to reach out to the community, and most of the changes are a result of input from the neighbors.

And just generally speaking, what what's transpired over the last several months through these different designs is most of the act, the buildings in the areas of activity have been shifted westward toward Dale Maybury.

And that's where on the northeast corner now that are four acres for the existing tree farm retention ponds in athletic field, but no actual activities or parking or anything like that.

Exhibit five letters and support.

These authors were opponents until our client engaged in dialogue and made as many changes as reasonably possible to get their support.

The supporters generally cited our clients' community engagement, Holly Road improvements, relocation of project components, and preservation of the four-acre tree farm is the basis for the support.

In fact, if I could get to the Elmo is these opponents were on the east side of Holly Road in the highlighted area, and as a result of our client making changes to the project, they have written these two owners letters in support, and they're in your binder.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Finch is it's fair to say if anybody was going to be adversely affected by the school, it would be that property directly to the east.

First expert, Steve Henry, principal of traffic and mobility.

He's been a transportation engineer since 1985.

Steve worked with the FDOT in the county concerning access to the subject property, queuing, and that type of thing, along with preparation, submittal of the approvable design exception to Hillsborough County.

Steve will testify regarding stacking, queuing, access, and render his opinion concerning offsetting Holly Road impacts in meeting the intent of the technical manual.

Steve Good morning.

I'll use the Elmo here.

And then on Holly Lane.

As you can see, and in addition to that, the access is built to be able to force everybody only inbound from Del Maybury and then outbound towards Del Maybury.

In addition to that, they've committed to having staff at that entrance during the drop-off and pickup to ensure that that occurs at that location.

And then as uh we have met with both DOT and the county, and the DOT is in agreement with our right-in access to Del Maybury.

We're also proposing to signalize the intersection of Del Maybury and Holly Lane.

We're working with the DOT on that, and that meets the spacing criteria for a signal, and DOT is supportive of that.

Obviously, we'll have to go through the permitting process for that.

And then in addition to that, we've also received a design exception that's been deemed approvable by the county engineer, showing the improvements to Holly Lane from that standpoint.

So that in that that is also in the staff report, that design exception and uh the county engineers uh email to saying that it is deemed approvable, and he will approve it once this is approved by the land use hearing officer.

Uh in addition to that, um this identifies the uh again that this is the Hillsborough County um roadway classification map, and I'll blow it up for you just so you can see here I put the dot here where we are.

So the the site is actually located again on Dale Mabry Highway, uh, which is a principal uh arterial according to the roadway classification map.

And we can talk a little bit about the the school itself as indicated on the site plan.

This is actually copies of the site, but I just highlighted that that the uh client has committed to staggered hours uh for both uh the a.m.

and p.m.

peak hour, and it's about a 45-minute separation between the uh staggered hours for the school.

Uh in addition to that, it's agreed to an annual monitoring condition.

And so this is on the site plan and also in the staff report as a condition.

And then finally, uh agreeing to a gate condition.

And what what we've seen in a lot of schools that you've seen in as queuing, they provide the queuing on site, but then they have a gate, and and based on that gate, doesn't open until the bell rings, you have queuing out onto the road.

What we've committed to here is to opening that gate at least one hour prior to the gate.

So that way, if parents do arrive early, either in the morning or in the afternoon, the queuing is available for those residents for the parents.

And then finally, talk about the on-site queuing.

So per the code, we'd be required to have about 6100 linear feet of stacking.

We were actually providing about 71, a little over 7100 feet of queuing of queuing.

Now, in addition to that, the way the code is set up, it's based on the total number of students.

It does not take into account staggered hours.

So the reality is if if the code did take into account staggered hours, we'd only need about 3300 linear feet of queuing.

But we're providing it per the code over 7100 square linear feet of queuing available for the site.

So from my standpoint, you know, based on the locational criteria, we meet the the uh section 6118 of the code for the locational criteria.

Thank you.

Just one quick question, Mr.

Henry, before you go.

That access from the site to Holly Lane, the the full access.

Um, when you say it's uh designed so that you uh it's a it's a westbound exit.

Um tell me how is that done?

That's just not drawn on a plan.

There are curbing and things that encourage that.

Is that correct?

Correct, correct.

This this will actually be this is uh type F curb this this is type F curb and gutter.

So it will restrict anybody from being able to turn, and again, not only that, but we will have staff out there at that location.

So not only is it done with the curb, but also with personnel to ensure that that doesn't happen.

All right, that was my only question.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

All right, is there someone else you wanted to make a presentation?

You've got about a little less than six minutes left.

Okay.

Um just want to mention on Holly Lane.

Actually, we were widening and dedicating right-of-way for that, and there's gonna be four lanes, and I think it's described in the staff report.

The next expert is Russell Ottenberg.

Russell's been a planner, primarily working in Hillsborough County for about 40 years.

In fact, he was the planner of record on the the Lutz community, uh, excuse me, the Lutz Elementary School in 2005, went through that process.

Russell Good morning.

Good morning.

Russell Lottenberg Planning Incorporated, 3737 Lake Joyce Drive, Landa Lakes, Florida.

Um my full report is an exhibit in uh Mr.

Bentley's binder, and so this is just a summary of what is found therein.

The subject property, as you have been told, has a flu designation of res one, it's owned ASC1.

Again, private schools are a special use under the county code.

Uh it's a classic residential support use allowed in almost all districts per the um table of allowable uses.

Property is in the rural service area, it falls within the Lutz Community Clans, but outside the Lutz historic downtown area.

It is currently a tree farm, but otherwise undeveloped.

Of the various goals, objectives, and policies in the Hillsborough County future land use element, we have identified 18 that are applicable and for which the project proposed project is consistent, and those are listed in my report.

The Loose Community Plan is intended to extend and refine the general consistency criteria found in the future land use element.

There are several criteria in the Lutz community plan applicable to the proposed private school, and the private school complies with all of those as well.

The future land use element also provides general consistency criteria for all projects, whereas the LDC is the implementing code for the comprehensive plan.

As such, compliance with the LDC not only ensures consistency with the comp plan, but also compatibility with surrounding land uses.

Special uses are presumed consistent and compatible, provided they meet the supplemental criteria found or pertaining to that specific special use.

If the criteria are met, then the applicant is entitled to the permit or the approval.

The two supplemental criteria for schools as a special use are as follows.

And this is directly from the code.

The site shall have direct access to a roadway shown on the current MPO long-range transportation cost affordable plan at the time of special use application, and the location arrangement and lighting of play fields and playgrounds will be such as to avoid interference with the use of adjacent residential property.

The proposed private school meets both of these criteria and is therefore presumptively consistent, and that is reflected in uh section 7.2 of the development services staff report.

So not only is the project consistent, it is also compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Uh both the county comp plan and the uh LDC have a definition of consistency.

I won't read the whole thing, but a portion of it says compatibility does not mean the same as.

Rather, it refers to the sensitivity of development proposals and maintaining the character of existing development.

As previously noted, the proposed project satisfies a special use criteria for schools, therefore it is not only presumptively consistent, but also presumptively compatible.

The LDC contains numerous other development uh requirements applicable to the proposed private school.

Those additional requirements, which are conditions of approval per section 7.1 of the staff report, such as parking and queuing requirements as well as buffering and screening, are codified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed project complies with those requirements, further ensuring the project remains compatible.

In addition to the above, the DPRM further expounds on special uses, stating special uses must meet more stringent development standards than principal permitted uses.

It goes on to reference the special use criteria for schools found in the LDC.

These more strict stringent development standards have been satisfied and thus the school is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Additionally, and I'll put this on the Elmo in reviewing other similarly situated special uses.

Just letting you know you got a minute left.

Okay.

In reviewing other similarly situated special uses, uh, similarly situated from a regulatory standpoint, they have all been approved, they've all been found consistent and compatible.

And that's my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

There's another expert report.

It's at tab five SN lighting, which is not an issue, as I mentioned.

And then just to conclude, the client agrees to all conditions.

Staff reports are substantial competent evidence of compliance, and the permit shall be issued to our client.

Testimony and evidence provided by our experts, Steve Henry Russell Ottenberg and Daniel Sutyak, the lighting expert.

Confirm compliance with all codes and plans promulgated by the county pertaining to special use permits for schools.

The adjacent property owners support to the East of Holly Lane is in support of the project.

I talked about prior precedent.

And if you have any questions, yeah.

I'll be wrong, I guess, on rebuttal, hopefully.

I have one quick question before you leave.

You mentioned you opened with uh a mention of zoning condition number five regarding the lighting.

Did you propose a language change to that?

No, you know, it's it's in our narrative that we said we would not light the athletic fields.

Okay.

And never move.

But you're willing to commit to that on the record that there'll be no lighting on the field.

Certainly, yeah.

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Appreciate it.

All right.

So now we will go to development services.

Um start saying we have no objections with updating that condition number five to reflect that to no lighting shall be provided for the recreational athletic areas.

Thank you.

The special use request is to allow the applicant to develop approximately 24.52 acres located at the southeast corner of North Del Maverick Highway and Holly Lane in Lutz for 1,000 student K through 8 private school with a freestanding gymnasium, garden center, active play areas, and associated sports fields.

The area is primarily comprised of a single family resid of single family residential uses with various lot sizes.

There's a PD approved to for a swimming pool adjacent to the property on the southwest corner of the subject parcel.

To the north, separated by Holly Lane, the property is zoned ASC1 and developed with an existing church.

The surrounding properties to the east and south are zoned ASC 1 and RC2 and developed with existing residential uses.

The properties to the west on the western side of North Del Maverie are zoned ASC 1 and BPO.

Further south of the property along North Del Maybury are property zone PD and CN.

In addition to meeting the required buffers and screening, the applicant is proposing a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the eastern property line adjacent to Holly Lane.

This, in conjunction with the large portion of the existing tree farm remaining untouched in the northeastern portion of the property, will provide buffering and screening to the residential properties on the eastern side of Holly Lane.

Additionally, two large stormwater retention ponds and a 25 foot wide landscape buffer are proposed along the south and southeast portions of the property, which will provide further buffering screening of the school and sports field from the adjacent residential properties to the east and south of the project.

Should this application be approved, the the site will be subject to site development review request requirements.

Staff finds the special use requests, complies with LDC section 61188 for schools and recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

All right.

We'll ask now for anyone who would like to speak in support.

Anyone in favor of this application?

Either in the room or online.

Seeing no one.

It's just the planning condition we oh, you know what?

Thank you.

No, I appreciate it.

It's a good call.

Uh normally they don't, and so in schools they do, so we will now go to the planning commission.

Who I understand are you going to do that?

Good morning, Alexis Myers Planning.

Oh, yes.

Good morning, Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

On the subject site is located in the residential one featuring the land use category.

It is in the rural area within the limits of the Lutz Community Plan.

The addition of the K through eight school in this area will provide a gradual transition between the proposed use and the surrounding uses currently present and is therefore consistent with future landing section objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.2.

With the use being a residential support use, having adequate mitigation measures and compatible site design layout.

The proposed special use would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and existingly use pattern of the area based upon those considerations.

Planning commission staff finds proposed special use consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the proposed restrictions by the development services department.

Thank you, Miss Myers.

I just had a quick question before we uh turn, and that is to confirm on the record that the planning commission has determined that the school is a residential support use.

Is that correct?

Yes, it is.

And therefore permitted in the residential one future land use category.

Is that right?

Yes.

All right.

That was my only question.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Well, once again, call for uh those who would like to speak in support.

Seeing no one uh online or in the room, we'll call for those that would like to speak in opposition.

As I mentioned, when Mr.

Bentley asked for 20 minutes, we will also give uh Jermaine.

We will also give the opposition 20 minutes, but we will hold that to a firm timeline.

So good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Jane Graham, attorney at Sunshine City Law 16703, Early Risers uh suite 272 Lander Lakes.

I represent Demelsa Hayes, a neighboring property owner who owns a house approximately 225 feet away from the site, and also preserve rural loots, which is a nonprofit composed of members who live and own property and the immediate affected area.

Both parties are especially injured by the loss of compatibility with surrounding rural uses and degradation of community character, diminished quality of life, flooding impairment of emergency access, decrease in property values, and other injuries detailed in the attached letter and package of evidence, which I'll be submitting into the record.

Joining me today are Eric Houston, who is a certified land use planner with 18 years of experience.

He is online right now.

He'll be testifying virtually.

Section 5.2.1 explains that special uses are certain uses that would not generally be appropriate to zoning district without compliance to more stringent development standards or conditions.

Here, even though the applicant has attempted to make accommodations and conditions, which we do appreciate, the you the application does not work.

And the reason why, which you'll hear notably, is that to address impacts on access to Holly Lane, there's a suggested entrance on Dale Mabry, but your staff report acknowledges that this entrance will be removed once the frontage road is built.

And I have in this package of evidence information that FDOT owns over a hundred acres of land in the nearby area and a 2006 report that speaks to the fact that the frontage road is something that is on the books, and and we haven't seen evidence to say it isn't.

To the extent that the applicant says F DOT is okay with the signal, we would like to see proof of that in the record as well.

We have not seen that in the record.

Likewise, by turning Holly Lane into a local road into a four-lane collector, it's fundamentally altering the character and quality of life.

The applicant has the burden to show that it meets the requested standards and codes with competent substantial evidence, and it fails to do so, and every application must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Here, as Mr.

Houston will explain, it heavily conflicts with the rural policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Lutz Community Plan.

Importantly, while the use of a school itself is okay on paper, it's the proposed size, mass, and scale of the proposed buildings that are larger than any of the surrounding properties.

The proposed 135,000 square feet versus the 7,000 square feet of neighboring watermelon swim or the church to the north, which has around 6,000.

There are also single-family homes in the area and surrounding charter schools like Lutz Prep on 41 and Sun Lake Math and Science are also less than half the size.

The application fails to meet these code requirements for direct access on a roadway in the long range plan looking forward.

And while right now on paper they have that access, it's already illusory because of this frontage road.

We've also had an independent traffic engineer to review the traffic report who found fundamental flaws in the counts, and we have that in the evidence as well.

I hand it over to Eric Houston and reserve the rest of my time in the end.

Thank you very much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Thank you.

Mr.

Houston, are you online?

Yes, I am.

Can you hear me?

Good morning.

Yes.

If you could give us your name and address, please before you begin.

Yes, my name is Eric Houston, 5357, Oak Big Drive, Jacksonville, Florida.

Thank you so much.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Do I have the ability to share my screen or no?

Yes.

Okay.

Sharing my screen.

Good morning.

My name is Eric Houston.

Okay.

I'm a certified planner through AICD with 18 years of experience.

I own a planning and mobility firm called Connected Current.

I was brought in to take an independent neutral look at the application SU-SCH-26-0430.

The applicant's request to build a PEX Academy, a 1,000 student day through eight school on about 24 and a half acres at the corner of Northville Mabury and Holly Lane and My Job is pretty simple.

Tell you whether this proposal as written today meets the criteria for approval, and my honest answer is it does not.

Let's start with the land itself.

This parcel sits in the rural area outside of the urban service area, is designated residential one zone agricultural, and it falls inside both the Northdale Mapry Overlay and a Whalehead Resource Protection Area.

The neighbors are big lot homes, a church, a working tree farm, and Trishous Swim School and Brooker Lake.

North Dale Mapry out front carries about 43,000 cars a day.

Holly Lane, on the other hand, is a little rural road, only nine feet wide, 25 miles per hour with no sidewalks.

That's the setting we're talking about for 135,000 square foot campus.

Your decision runs on the nine factors in the code, section 10.2.3e, and the proposal has to line up with the comprehensive plan and the loot's community plan.

Here's where the tables do most of the talking.

As you can see, I'm sharing my screen, and I will zoom out to see if you can see the whole uh the whole screen.

Okay, perfect.

My written report submitted to you today includes four tables to demonstrate consistency across the regulated documents for your convenience today.

I have a compiled a one-page fact sheet summarizing the tables and showing the top ten arguments against approval.

Table one lines the proposal up against the loot community plan by point.

Just about every line says no.

Keeping the area rural, no.

Keeping big intensity inside the urban service area, no.

Protecting rural roads, also no.

Table two, the overlay is more of a mixed bag.

The applicant earns real credit for the parkway buffer and the walking path, but the whole point of that overlay is keeping Dale Maverick functioning as an arterial.

And that's exactly where the proposal falls short.

Now, traffic.

A licensed traffic engineer reviewed the applicant study and found real issues.

A trip split with nothing backing it up, traffic from the east on Holly Lane left out, a thin turn lane analysis, and reliance on signal that the state has not yet approved.

Table three ties it together.

You can't push 4,000 plus daily trips onto a nine-foot rural lane without turning it into a four-lane road.

And that's the exact outcome the policies were written to prevent.

Last year there was a comprehensive plan amendment, which the county's planning staff and commission found inconsistent based on transportation impacts.

And that only added 1,347 trips a day.

Instead of the additional 3,651 trips a day that will be added with this project.

Table four summarizes up the nine factors, eight ways against approval.

The ninth is only partial.

So why does this all matter?

Three reasons.

First, scale.

This is a regional scale campus in an area the plan deliberately keeps rule.

Second, transportation.

The one study offered to show the network can handle this use, isn't reliable, and the receiving world cannot handle the additional number of trips.

Third, public service.

The whale head, the storm water plan is missing.

And the fallback well and septic idea runs straight into the rules protecting our drinking water.

Now I want to be fair.

The wetland and the lake are both protected.

The environmental agency signed off on that.

The buffer and the lighting commitments are real, but those are not the things this decision relies on.

My report also addresses concerns about the event-style parking and the impacts of proving this plan, as is will have on future growth in the area.

So when the whole record, and I'll wrap this up before you start checking your emails, my recommendation is denial.

Bring it back, scale to fit the rural context, or put it somewhere the rules can actually handle it.

And that's a different conversation.

As it says today, this proposal runs crossways to the plans, the roads, and the rules all at once.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

I think thank you very much.

Yes, I want perfect.

Thank you.

Just so you know, he stopped the clock for you.

And it's uh 10 minutes and 47 seconds left.

Thank you so much.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you.

Okay.

My name is Demelza Hayes and uh Dr.

DeMelza Hayes and I live at 407 Hillary Circle, which is about 250 feet away from the proposed school development.

My husband, daughter, and our expected newborn are residents of this community.

And I am here on the behalf of Preserve Rural LUTs, which is a nonprofit with 300 members that oppose this special use application.

We have raised thousands of dollars, and we have a Facebook community page with 300 members.

I spend an hour every day commuting for work so that my family can grow up in a rural area.

I came here last year and presented my opposition to a townhome project.

Interestingly enough, that project was gonna bring less track uh less traffic than this project is intended to.

And this project, even though the applicant says it is compatible with the Hillsborough Community Plan, I did want to point out a few things.

First of all, this property is located in the rural area, which is intended to provide areas for long-term agricultural use.

It has large lot rural residential uses and undeveloped natural areas.

Also, uh, as the applicant quoted, um, that the characteristics of different uses, activities, or designs which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony is the definition of compatibility, but some of the other elements, this is the rest of that that that quote and criteria, some of the other elements that impact compatibility include vehicular traffic.

Um, and when we look at how intense this development is bringing in um a thousand students plus staff, so potentially 250 staff plus deliveries and events.

Um, this is going to be even more intensive of a development than the townhome project that was rejected rejected last year.

Um, I want to say it's not compatible with the Lutz Community Plan.

So that plan was made in 2001, 2011.

It was um supported by the community and by the planning commission and adopted by the county.

It states that the area west of Highway 41 and east of Dalmabry is a rural area with single family residential homes on half acre or larger lots.

Um I just want to show a quick chart.

So if you look, this is this is Brooker Lake, and up here where it says B, that's gonna be where the um Holly Lane meets Dalmabry.

That's it's that big corner up there above the lake.

As you can see, every single road going off of Holly Lane is a dead-end cul-de-sac.

So if we have car pooling or if we have any traffic backed up on Holly Lane, no one from our community will be able to get in or out of their home.

So this is for us an access point, it's an access issue, it's a safety issue.

I also want to show what it looks like.

So right now, parts of this road are uh 12 feet wide.

Um, this is a picture with a school bus on it.

A school bus is the only thing that can fit on it if a school bus is going down Holly Lane.

We cannot fit two cars, one car has to pull over to the side.

Um I'm gonna go ahead and skip this part, but it is in our evidence, and I'm gonna pass this on to Micah, the owner of Watermelon Swim to continue.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Okay, good morning.

Good morning.

Micah Seal, 1950.

Excuse me.

19509, North Dale Maverick Highway.

I'm the owner of Watermelon Swim, the property and business directly south to the proposed project.

We specifically negatively feel we will be affected by this proposal based on restricted access, emergency concerns as a swim school, and associated business losses.

We opened it in 2005 after completing the rezoning process because of safety concerns.

I was limited to one entrance and one exit.

I was not permitted a turn late, and was required to meet strict compatibility standards for the Lutz community.

We teach more than 2,000 children a week.

Our classes are back to back, short 30 minute classes.

Sorry.

Back uh 30 minutes for groups and 15 minutes for private.

The mornings are a peak time for young children.

So our students will be uniquely impacted by traffic from the school.

10 minutes will make a difference.

Our building sits just 54 feet from Dale Maverick Highway.

Families already wait significant periods of time to exit our property.

There are frequent accidents in front of our facility, and we have even had a vehicle crash into our building.

Twenty years ago, I purchased the property.

There were huge traffic and safety concerns, which justified major restrictions on our project.

Since then, this community, which has been extremely supportive of our business and our mission, has grown substantially.

The traffic has increased dramatically, and those safety concerns have only magnified.

Adding a school that will generate thousands of additional trips each day will only increase these risks.

These safety concerns matter.

For the safety of our children, our families, and existing businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I appreciate it.

Was there one other person?

I believe.

Yes, ma'am.

Good morning.

There's about almost four minutes left.

Good morning, Jennifer Miranda, 1422 Williams Road.

Uh a dead end approximately 0.7 miles from the proposed project.

I'm a third generation Lutz resident.

Uh we still operate one of Lutz's original family farms, and I respectfully oppose this application.

While Lutz is still mostly rural, reckless urban sprawl to the north and south has made our roads a passage for a staggering number of commuters daily.

The Lutz Lake Fern North Del Maybury intersection and its surrounding roads are unsafe with egregious amounts of traffic and dangerously long life flight cycles.

Because of this, my worst nightmare came true on September 12, 2023, three years ago.

A loved one had a cardiac event in my front yard and nearly died.

The reason it took me 15 minutes to go 1.2 miles to HCAER.

Shown, shown here, if we can show.

Section 100203E requires a showing that the surrounding transportation network can support the school.

The transportation network is already strained.

An additional 4100 commutes to Lutz will bring the worst for our community.

I ask that you please deny this permit.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Please sign in on your way.

Passed.

All right.

Let me we there's a minute 53 seconds left.

Sir, are you the last speaker?

I don't know.

Is there hang on one second?

Jermaine, if you could stop for just one second.

Is there anybody else that wants to speak?

I just want to make sure we can accommodate in the time remaining.

All right, it seems that you are.

Go ahead, sir.

How y'all doing?

Good morning, everybody.

My name's Julio Moran.

I live at 920 Lake Borker Court.

I've been there approximately 20 years.

I'm a retired fire captain with Tampa Fire Rescue with over 34 years of uh experience as a story that you're just hearing now in the pictures.

I don't want to repeat myself, but I know I got a short time.

They're trying to uh show us how they're gonna exit on um holly right across from the church.

Uh, you guys know, and I know just from doing this from fire rescue, this that's gonna be impossible without them hiring off-duty law enforcement.

We're seeing it on 41 at Lutz Prep, we're seeing it at Sun Lake.

The roads are backed up four or five miles south of Van Dyke.

It's just the location of where they're wanting to put this school on top of Hillsborough County already having eight plus schools.

You've got Lutz Elementary where my kids went, McKittrick, Martinez, Steinbrenner, Swartzkoff.

I don't see the need for this school other than it's gonna take away um what is it, a thousand dollars or eight thousand dollars per kid for a voucher when we have all the schools that we still have room to put schools in.

I have my sister's a teacher at Lutz Elementary, so I I'm just in total disagreement.

Getting back to the thing, this is a life safety.

The roads that you've seen the pictures with a school bus, don't do it justice until you guys drive that street and see how narrow it is.

We've got joggers, we've got more kids than we've ever had.

When Mike, when I moved there, I only have two kids.

My two boys were like, there was they're out everywhere.

They're rolling the strollers.

It's it's it's good to see.

But this is the life safety.

There's no um, there's no sidewalks at all on Holly Lane.

And I just having a hard time that DOT is approving this, and then trying to say that they're gonna be able to come out and make a uh left-hand turn heading east.

I'm sorry, heading west to Del Mabry.

I just don't see that happening at all without law enforcement being there unless they exit onto Del Mabrie.

But there's a light at Lutz Lake Fern, and there's a light at I got can I still go a couple minutes?

Just wrap it up, please.

Okay.

Well, the bottom line is just life safety.

There's no hydrants.

You the emergency responders responding from station 24 having trouble.

There's nowhere for people to pull over that are on Lutz Lake Ferns.

That's I'd just like to ask the board to deny it also.

I just don't see how it's even possible.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

All right, don't forget to sign in, sir.

All right.

Then that concludes the opposition portion of this testimony, or of this hearing, rather.

We'll go back to Ms.

Marshall if you have any comments based on today's testimony.

I don't have anything.

All right.

Um we will go to Mr.

Bentley for rebuttal.

Thank you, Ms.

Finch.

Just a couple things.

Ms.

Graham's an attorney, and she was uh rendering her opinion concerning flooding, transportation, traffic impacts, property values, etc.

And under Florida law, she's she's an advocate, and that doesn't rise to the level of substantial competent evidence.

Okay, conclusive statements of a lawyer.

So I think those should be disregarded or stricken from the record.

The uh planner Eric Houston from Jacksonville, he misstated the width of the pavement on Holly Lane.

It's gonna be four eleven foot lanes.

Right now it's 18 feet.

Apparently he's not too familiar with the area.

Also, he testified as to he mentioned the license transportation analysis, and he didn't identify who this other planner was for what it's worth.

Concerning demand, that's not one of the criteria, whether there are enough schools or not enough schools in any event.

Um notwithstanding that's not a criterion for your consideration.

We have at tab 10 a demographic study report demonstrating a need for this type of school.

I'd like to turn over to Steve Henry now and address a couple transportation issues, and then Russell.

Morning, Steve Henry again.

Uh, one of the comments was that uh that when Del Mabry is widened with the front end road, there'd be no more access.

That that is not in fact the case.

We would have access to the frontage road system, which is still Del Mabry.

Yes, it wouldn't be direct access to that, but no one will have access to Del Mabry.

It will be to the frontage road system of Del Mabry.

So we still have the access to the arterial system uh from that standpoint.

Do you have any information on the timing of that?

There is no timing on it.

There's there's no it's not budgeted.

If there's DOT has no plans to do it, it it is just a PDE study that was done.

DOT did acquire some right-of-way in in the past, but there's at this point there's no point or no plans to do any of the widening.

There's no funding for the construction of it.

No, thank you.

There's not and we've met with DOT specifically on that that issue.

Um, and then also that you have shown pictures of a school bus on Holly Lane.

That's the section, the north-south section to the east of us.

As we indicated, we're not putting any traffic on that segment of Holly Lane.

The portion that we're putting traffic on, which is from Del Mabrie to our access, we are improving that to four lanes to be able to accommodate the traffic that we've got.

In addition, they're talking about the access.

You know, we are proposing a signal at Del Mabry and Holly Lane to allow that traffic to flow in and out of that area.

And what is there was a question about the uh conversation with DOT about that signal.

What is the status of that?

It meets the spacing criteria for the location.

We'll have to go through the permitting process, which would include both a signal warrant analysis to be done as part of the permitting, and then also what they call an intersection configuration evaluation.

So we'll also have to go through that process.

But as far as the concept of putting the signal that they don't have any issue with that because it does meet the spacing, we just got to go through the permitting process for that.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Russell Ottenberg again.

Uh I'd like to address a few things.

One of the uh one of the comments made was that there is more stringent criteria for schools, and that's under section 5.2.1.

That is correct.

Uh those are listed in my report, and it's documented how those more stringent criteria are met.

I summarized that earlier.

Um, so that is that is uh that is taken care of as part of this application.

Um with this with respect to it being in the LUTS community plan and in a semi-rural area.

That is correct.

However, the LDC establishes the implementing criteria for that, including the special use criteria and all other criteria.

This project will meet all of those criteria and thus is consistent with the Lutz Community Plan.

Furthermore, the planning commission has stated that this is a transitional use along Del Mabrie between the Del Mavrie Corridor and those properties to the east.

So again, it is consistent and compatible.

Uh there was also some discussion about well head protection and some other things.

Um again, those are uh more LDC criteria, and those will be addressed uh definitively during permitting, and so those those will be uh satisfied as well.

Um lastly, Mr.

Moran said that there are no fire hydrants in the area, there isn't the infrastructure out there.

That is correct.

There will be an on-site storage tank for firefighting, it's required, it will be provided.

That is all.

Before you leave, I just want to confirm there are no waivers requested for this application to the land development code.

That is correct, no waivers.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

That was my only question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Bentley, there's about 45 seconds left.

Hey, thank thank you so much for the additional time today.

Really appreciate it.

Um concerning the waivers, uh, the only modification, I guess you could say, is the design exception, which has been approved by Mike Williams and in your backup.

So just all things considered, uh, as I mentioned early on, is that the burden on any third party to local government is to demonstrate that we did not meet the criteria.

I haven't heard any testimony or evidence that says we we have not, and it's really not a battle of the evidence.

Once we demonstrate, which we have through the staff reports, our experts, et cetera, that we meet the criteria, we're entitled to the permit under the law.

So appreciate your time.

Thank you very much.

Have a good day.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

All right, then with that, we'll close special use 26-0430.

We're gonna go to the next case.

If you all could exit the room quietly, because we do have uh an agenda to finish, I'd appreciate it.

All right, it seems like Ms.

Marshall, I think it seems like we can call the next case.

Next item is item I two, special use 260538.

The applicant is Templo, Philadelphia incorporated.

The request is a special use for church.

And I will present the staff findings after presentation by the applicant.

All right, good morning.

Something for the overhead.

My name's Catherine Coyle at Boggs Engineering 607 South Alexander Street, suite 101 plant city.

I'm here representing Templo, Philadelphia for a special use permit.

I'll be brief with my comments, and I'll simply walk you through the site plan.

The zoning, the properties located in 5700 block of State Road 674 in Wai Mama.

Properties under RSC six.

Future land use is OC20.

The surrounding uses include vacant land to the north, also owned by another church entity, uh laundromat and a retail convenience store at gasoline immediately to the east across 4th Street.

To the south, there's an office with a food trunk vendor and a couple single family residences.

And to the west, there's vacant land and a mobile home.

There was a special use approved in 2014 for this site.

Same owner for a church.

At that time, they were unable to build the facility.

So they've come back around, they've raised the money, they're ready to go now.

But in the intervening time in 2021, the Y Mama overlay was adopted.

So we did have to change some of the orientation of the building for the new building and the parking, uh, which you can see on the plan above you, and I'll walk you through that.

What they're proposing is a 15,279 square foot sanctuary with 354 seats.

The red line that you see there is the right-of-way preservation uh for 674 from FDOT.

It's 22 feet into the property.

Um the building isn't right up to it.

There are some on there's an awning here and a little uh element that comes out, so that is sitting at the 22 feet.

This is the historic resource on the property.

We did go to the historic resources board and they did make a finding of no adverse impact.

The building is placed at the front along 674 and at the front of 5th street, which is required by the Wimama overlay district.

The entrances are on Fifth Street here with an awning as required by the overlay.

There is an entrance here with an awning for the overlay, and then there is an entry porch here where there's a walkway to it.

So people can come in three different places along the street because they do have people that drive, but they also have a people in the area that walked to the church as well.

There um are 111 spaces provided, all of which are grass parking, the drive aisles are paved.

Only 107 are required, so there's no variance of the parking requirements.

There are five ADA spaces paved immediately next to the building.

Let's see, access to the site is from 5th and 4th streets.

Uh this is the one point of relief that we're asking from the code, and it's not the special use criteria, it's actually in the overlay district that requires when you have over 300 seats.

You have to have access to a principal street arterial.

And unfortunately, due to the right-of-way preservation, the location of the historic resource, and the mandate from the overlay that we place the buildings at front, and we have to hold 70% of it along the front.

It just didn't seem right to actually place it on 674.

It seemed counter to the code to the code requirement and the design.

So the access points are on uh to the rear.

And I'll show you really quickly the building.

This is the front.

Mr.

Coyle, can you bring that microphone with you?

There you go.

This is the front of the building where I mentioned there's one of the main entrances here with the awning.

This is the porch feature with there's two doors here walking into the sanctuary.

And they've added um the windows and the ornamentation on the building per code.

We're asking for no relief from the overlay standards uh at all, actually, except for the access.

This is the eastern elevation where that porch feature is.

This actually faces the historic resource.

The other entrance, I'm sorry, the other face to the west.

This is the face that fronts fifth, and this is the main entrance with the window, or I'm sorry, with the door and the awning, and then the glass at less than 20 feet separation.

With that, I have available for any questions, and we respectfully request your approval.

I just had a question about the variance component for the frontage to an arterial collector.

Um, what is the what's on the property right now?

The church is at the corner, the historic church is at the corner, right here.

And there is a the parsonage, which the pastor lives in is back here, but that's being torn down.

The rest of it is vacant.

Okay.

And where is the access currently to the property?

It's kind of all over.

It is it is on the side streets though, mainly.

And it appeared maybe on 674 as well from the aerial.

I haven't been onto the property.

It could be, it's not as defined, I would say.

I see.

Okay.

All right.

And I think that was my only question about the access.

Does that conclude your presentation?

Yes, ma'am.

I'll hold any comments for uh my ending.

All right, thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

All right.

Um we will go to development services.

Um just wanted to point out I realized that there was a typo on page one.

Um the request for uh regarding the access is a waiver and not a variance.

So under the additional information, um they should be flipped, it should be a waiver to the land development code and no variances requested as part of this application.

So the the um it's a waiver for uh against they don't propose access to a collector and arterial and that that's a waiver and not subject to the six variance criteria.

Correct, yes, because it's part of um 611.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

The proposed special use request is to allow the applicant to construct a new church building on the property of the Waimama Church of the Nazarene, which has been designated as a historic resource.

The 2.25 acre property is located on the north side of State Road 674 between 4th Street and Fifth Street.

Due to the church exceeding 300 seats, the applicant is requesting a waiver to LDC section 611 25C to allow access to be taken from 4th Street and Fifth Street, which are designated as local roads.

Staff has no objection to the proposed waiver.

Parcels are located in the downtown Waimama area on the north side of State Road 674 between 4th Street and Fifth Street.

The area is primarily comprised of single family residential uses with many commercial uses to the east and west of the property along State Road 674.

For the elevations provided by the applicant, the design and location of the new building will meet the requirements of the downtown Waimama overlay district.

This will help create a mixed-use walkable and pedestrian-friendly downtown district, which is in line with the intent of the of creating the small town feel of the downtown Waimama overlay district.

The subject property is designated as a historic resource on the Hillsborough County Historic Resources Inventory.

As such, the proposed new church sanctuary was reviewed by the Historic Resources Review Board at its May 19th, 2026 meeting.

The historic resource review board determined that the proposed new church poses no effect on the historic resource.

Staffines proposed special use approval subject to the recommended conditions.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

We'll go to the planning commission.

Yes, Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is located in the Office Commercial 20 feature land use category.

It is in the urban service area and located within the limits of the South Shore Area Y Systems Plan and Wimama Village Community Plan.

Given the existing development pattern and the diverse mix of surrounding land uses, the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent properties and consistent with the established character of the community.

Therefore, the proposal is consistent with future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3.

Future main section objective 4.6 recognizes that uh neighborhood serving uses, specifically residential support uses are an allowable land use in any residential, commercial, or industrially use plan uh category.

A church is classified as a residential support use based upon those considerations.

Planning commission staff find the proposed special use consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the proposed rest uh restrictions by the development services department.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

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

See no one, anyone in opposition.

Miss Marshall, anything else?

Nothing further.

Miss Coyle, you have the last word if you'd like it.

Just really quick.

How do I zoom in?

Uh we'll send in help.

Hold on.

Zoom, zoom.

I see Zoom.

There we go.

Ooh, boy.

Sorry about that.

Making us dizzy.

Yeah, this uh in answer to your question about the access points, as I mentioned, they're not overly defined, but you can see that there's an entrance here and one to the parsonage.

So there's two entrances that people are using along Fifth Street.

It looks like they're entering and exiting off the rear where the new driveway, defined driveway will be on fourth.

And it does look like they do currently come kind of in the center by the tree.

But again, not overly defined, and the new development obviously concrete aprons and accessing the property correctly.

And less access points than currently.

Understood.

Understood.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close special use 26-0538 and go to the next case.

Next item is item I three, special use 260699.

The applicant is Juan Camilo Mayha.

The request is a special use to COP alcoholic beverage permit with distance separation waivers.

Staff findings will be provided by Jared Fullen after presentation by the applicant.

All right.

Good morning.

Hello, good morning, everyone.

And thank you for everybody's time.

And I'm Juan Mejia, 4559, Amberley Oaks Court, Tampa, Florida.

Thank you.

And we're here for uh the location 14614 Nordale Maybe Highway, Tampa, Florida, 33614 for the special use 2 COP alcohol beverage permit with this stand separation waivers.

Um we've been having this establishment since 2004.

It's a Latin food 2024.

Uh it's a land food restaurant.

Um is the third one that that the family has.

Um we would like to apply for this permit so we can provide the extra services that our clients are asking for.

Uh one of the other restaurants already have uh the license, so we know the responsibilities of having it.

Um regarding the location.

Um there you go.

So we could zoom that out.

That's it.

No, that's that's perfect.

Thank you.

Um this is a very commercialized area.

Um we're located in the big plaza, and there's plazas all over across the street next to uh site Jason.

Uh there's a good amount of establishment that have the permit.

Um so I'm um I'm assuming we're not the the last ones asking for one since the area keeps continuing to grow.

Um, but I just wanted to show that that there is a few establishment, and we want to continue to grow up in that area.

Um I have some photos um of the establishment.

Uh this is the outside.

Um the inside, as you can see, is a very family-oriented.

Um we serve food from all lower Latin America.

Um, and this is the last photo.

So just kind of get a feel it's a small family restaurant.

We serve a lot of food.

Uh that's our main uh thing.

Um, and again, this is just provide extra service to our clients.

Okay.

All right, does that conclude your presentation?

All right, thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Don't forget to for both of you to sign in.

Okay.

Development services.

Good morning.

Good morning, Jared Fallin with Development Services.

Uh so this is a request for a two COP alcoholic beverage permit with separation waivers to allow the sale of beer and wine at the subject property.

This permit is sought for restaurant use with about 1,579.5 square feet of indoor area.

The site complies with separation requirements for community uses and residentially zoned property, but does not meet the requirements for being within a thousand feet of three or more approved alcoholic beverage permits.

The subject restaurant is located along Dale Mabury Highway, which is a six-lane, which has six lanes with 200 feet of right-of-way, and is within a highly commercialized area, being an appropriate location for the use.

While over three alcoholic beverage permits are located within a thousand feet of the proposed wet zone, all are primarily concentrated within four large shopping centers.

Additionally, the nearest residential use is located over 500 feet to the north and is separated by a large wetland area.

Staff finds the proposed wet zone does not pose significant impacts to surrounding land uses and is and the necessity for the specified distance requirements is negated.

Stack for recommends approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Uh none at this time.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

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

Anyone in favor?

See no one, anyone in opposition.

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

Sir, you have the last word if you'd like it.

Um we've been operating for eight years uh with our original location.

So we had the BNY license at our original location on Hills Road for eight years.

So um, so yeah, so we you know we act everything correctly.

So all right.

Thank you.

Thank you for your diamond testimony.

Appreciate it.

We'll with that we'll close.

We'll close uh special use AB26-0699 and go to the next case.

Next item is item I four, special use 260859.

The applicant is La Cecilia Restaurant LLC.

The request is a special use for C O P R X alcoholic beverage permit with distance separation waivers.

Staff findings be presented by Chris Grand Linard after present presentation by the applicant.

Good morning.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Terry Haley.

I reside at uh 108 Clock Tower Drive, number 160, Brandon, Florida.

33510.

Excuse me right off the bat.

My southern tongue might not roll enough to pronounce a couple of these names, but I'm gonna try my best.

I am representing uh La Celia Restaurants LLC, and they're going to do um business as a visa.

And what they are, they are a restaurant.

They have leased property on at 210 East Fowler Avenue.

Uh basically uh and to zero in on it, it's on the north west corner of Fowler and Florida Avenue in a sense.

Uh it's a unique situation because the it is a hotel.

My clients have leased only the restaurant.

They they will be the only uh prepared food on uh site, however, they do provide no room service or anything like that.

It's it's open to the guests of the hotel as well as patrons off the street.

Um, however, they have extended the request into the back area of the building, which is basically the pool area.

They will provide service, both food and beverage to to the existing pool area.

The hotel itself was built in 1972, so it's been there a while.

Um it is a very highly traveled road and community, but behind it on the north side, our waiver is for some distance, a distance uh request.

Uh would you not meet 150 feet from the residential?

It's it's actually only 20 feet.

Okay.

Something I wanted to talk about though.

Uh I I do have a picture if if you want to put it up.

I'm not used to doing this, but do you just lay it on there?

Yes.

And then when you you could talk about it if you want to move that microphone too.

Okay, perfect.

Let me get pin on.

Okay.

So uh the uniqueness about the property is um I'm having to get two zoning requests.

One is from you guys to county, and one is the city, because right through the middle of the property is the county city break line.

Okay.

So you guys, the county are labeled as A there, the pink area, which the B is located in the city, uh, is the actual building.

But however, the kitchen and the back of the building lies in the city.

So the complete zoning is both the the pink area and the blackened area B.

Okay.

Um, I wanted to mention in the back, the residential is there.

Um, it would be above the A section to the uh proposed variants, or excuse me, the waiver we're asking for.

Um I had mentioned that there was you know a lot of natural uh buffer and there was fences and such, but I guess one of the owners, prior owners of the property, went ahead and uh removed a back driveway that was there.

That was basically the 20 uh feet distance, and now they've extended uh landscape, and I I assume the new owner of the hotel is gonna keep that.

So there is no back road around the building.

Basically, you can come to the edge of uh each side, east and west, where I've labeled the pink area, if that makes sense to you.

It does.

Okay, but so what we're requesting is simply that waiver for residential properties, only 20%.

I I should have looked this up, I did not, but I I actually think this building and this uh business was here prior to the residential, but don't quote me on that.

Okay, and um I I mean that's about it, really.

And it's a 40 uh 4 COP SFS, which is special food that at least that's the way it's labeled with uh alcoholic beverage uh department.

But what basically what it requires, they are going to be a restaurant, which they must sell 51% more food, uh or 5100 percent food versus alcohol.

So alcohol is basically just uh an amenity to the restaurant.

So any questions or anything else to be glad to answer.

No questions at this time.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Don't forget to sign in.

Development services Chris Kremlinar, development services.

Um presenting staff report for special use application uh AB 26-0859 uh for uh La Cecilia restaurant located at 210 East Fowler Avenue.

The request is for a four-cup RX classification, allowing the use uh the sale of beer, wine, and liquor for on-premises consumption in connection with the restaurant.

Um the property is zoned commercial general, which supports the existing hotel and restaurant use.

The applicant is requesting a waiver from the required 140-foot separation from residential uh zone property.

Uh the closest residential to the north range uh for the north is uh about 20 feet to the closest um from the proposed wet zoned area, several physical features buffed for the restaurant uh from the resident residences, including an eight-foot block wall fencing, existing drive aisles and uh well former drive aisles and landscape screening.

Um the building and customer entrance are oriented south towards Fowler Avenue, directing activity away from the residential area with limited pedestrian or vehicle interaction between the two.

Um, given the long-standing commercial use of the property, uh the building orientation and the presence of these buffers, staff finds that the reduced uh distance will not create significant impacts, and that the waiver is supportable.

A recommendation is staff recommends approval for the four-cup RX permit with the requested waiver for a total wet zoned area of approximately 25,413 square feet.

Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it.

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

See no one, anyone in opposition to this request.

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

Sir, you have the last word.

I just wanted to wanted to throw in a couple things.

One is just to let you know that uh we we look like we're getting positive response from the city side of the issue as well.

So we hope that you consider approving us, and as a whole thing, we can have a nice business going.

The other thing on a personal note I want to throw out there, I don't know who I need to thank, but of my last seven hearings.

This is the first one that I'm not the last person up.

Okay, so thank you.

Not me.

So someone else.

All right, thank you for that.

Uh so we will close special use AB26-0859 and go to the last case.

Last item is item I5, special use 260863.

The applicant is Crystal Ball Pimentel.

The request is a special use two COP alcoholic beverage permit with distance separation waivers.

Staff findings will be presented by Tanya Chapella after presentation by the applicant.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh, my name is Christopher Pimentel.

I am the owner of Almoral Coffee LOC, located in 702 Verboge Street, and we're seeking approval for our uh two two COP beer and wine license.

Can he ask any questions?

All right, it looks like the waiver is to residentially zoned property, and I just wondered if you had heard from any of the neighbors after you sent out your notice.

No, there has not been any reply from any of the neighbors.

All right, that was my only question.

Thank you so much.

Don't forget to sign in.

Thank you so much.

Development services.

Good morning.

Good morning, Daniel Chapela Development Services.

Um, so this application um 260863.

Uh a request for a two COP alcoholic beverage permit for Amoret Coffee LLC located at 702 Railroad Street in Waimama.

The request would allow the sale and consumption of beer and wine on and off-premises as an accessory use to an existing coffee shop.

Um the proposed wet zone area is approximately uh 2199 square feet.

See no one, anyone in opposition?

No one, Miss Marshall.

Anything else?

Nothing further.

All right, sir.

Anything else before we close?

All right, thank you.

Then with that, we'll close special use AB 26-0863 and adjourn the hearing.

Thank you all for your time and testimony.