About the effects of single use plastics.

You can help reduce the amount of single use plastics by spreading the word and going green.

Or more information and to take the pledge, visit reduce your use Tampa Bay dot org.

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to this evening zoning hearing master hearing.

Which Susan Finch, another zoning hearing master for the county, will hear that one case.

So at this point in time, if you'd all please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

For which it stands.

Thank you.

You may be seated.

Good evening, Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

Also up here at the Dice with the County Attorney's Office to my left.

We have Mary Dorman and Jared Delfino.

With the Planning Commission staff, we have Willow Mickey.

And on the other side with transportation staff and development services, we have Richard Perez.

And we do have withdrawals and continuances from the agenda.

And then like you mentioned, one off the agenda.

Let's see, we have two applications that have been withdrawn, PD twenty-four-twelve fifty-seven, and major mod twenty-five-twel sixty-one.

The following cases have been continued to the July twentieth, twenty twenty-six zoning hearing master hearing, and that would be major mod twenty-six sixty-two.

PD 260437.

PD 26-0665.

And then the following two have been continued to the um August 24th zoning hearing master hearing.

And that is Major Mod 26-0154 and PD 26-0283.

We do have one off the agenda request for tonight.

And that would be agenda page 7, item D6, Major Mod 26-0553.

The applicant is requesting a continuance to the October 19th zoning hearing master hearing.

And this is not a matter of right request, so it has to be decided on by the zoning hearing master.

Okay.

At this point in time, they are given by the time they file the application.

How many months or days are they given?

Six months from the initial hearing date.

And where does this application stand?

Um they have until November.

Okay.

Right now is appropriate time to hear from uh the applicant.

Applicant, please, regarding the continuance only, not the merits of the case.

Good evening, Mr.

Lutz.

William Malloy, 325 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

Uh, we're requesting a continuance tonight because uh actually it's a little bit of an embarrassing transportation blunder we ran into with the final staff report.

I have a turnly and I need to account for that.

I do not have accounted for right now.

Okay.

And we're requesting the October date, sir.

Okay.

October 19th.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Thank you.

Anything else?

That'll do.

Okay.

Um is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak to the continuance?

See no one responding.

Uh given the reason presented by the applicant for the continuance, the need to go back and review traffic.

Uh I will allow for the continuance of this item to the October 19th ZHM at 6 o'clock p.m.

in these chambers.

Okay.

That concludes all the changes to the agenda, Ms.

Heimer.

Yes, sir.

All right.

I have a few instructions to read into the record regarding the procedures for tonight's hearing.

County Attorney's Office has a few uh instructions to read into the record, and then we'll get started with the first item on tonight's agenda.

Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by the zoning hearing master.

I will conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a recommendation within 15 working days after the conclusion of today's hearing.

Those recommendations are then sent to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the final decision.

Our hearing will be informal.

I will ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony.

I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate, and I will decide all questions of procedure.

I will take evidence but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant in material or unduly repetitious.

Evidence may be presented in written form, and all testimony must be under oath.

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

The order of presentations are as follows.

Heinrich of the Development Services Department will make a brief introduction for each agenda item.

And the applicant and their witnesses will have 15 minutes to present their case.

Then development services presents their staff report and findings.

They have five minutes for that purpose.

And the planning commission staff has five minutes to present their findings regarding consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Then those people that are in support of the application will have 15 minutes to present.

Then Development Services has an opportunity to amend any of their findings or provide additional comments.

And finally, the applicant has five minutes for rebuttal.

Regarding the time for proponents or opponents, the 15-minute time frame is the total time for each category.

If there are a number of people to speak, we'll add up the total number of people and the 15 minutes will be divided as equally as possible.

You may wish to designate a single spokesperson to more efficiently use the time.

When you come up to the podium to speak, please start by giving your name and address for the record.

The meeting is being recorded.

We want you to make sure we accurately document who is speaking on the record.

When you are done speaking, please sign in with the clerk's office with your name and address and the application number of the agenda item you are speaking to.

And there's a pad down at the end of the podium.

The clerk has the form right there where you come up and sign in.

At this point in time, the county attorney's office will now provide the legal requirements which govern your participation at the Board of County Commissioners meeting.

Good evening.

Mary Dorman from the County Attorney's Office.

Tonight's public hearing is the first step of a two-step rezoning process.

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

Any evidence presented tonight will become part of the complete factual record of each application, and no additional evidence can be introduced after the closing of each application.

The second step of the rezoning process is a public meeting before the Board of County Commissioners where the board will make a decision on each application heard tonight.

Tonight's applications are scheduled to be heard by the board at its a at its August 11th, 2026 land use meeting, unless a different date is stated by staff.

When considering applications, the board will only review the record and the recommendation made by the land use hearing officer for each application.

The land use hearing officer will file a recommendation for each application heard tonight on July 14th, 2026.

The Board of County Commissioners has established a policy that directs which rezoning and major modification applications are to be placed on the consent agenda of the board's land use meeting.

The following applications may not be placed on the consent agenda.

Applications that propose to add density outside the urban service area, applications on roadways with a failing level of service, applications that do not have consistent recommendations of approval, and applications that have had evidence or testimony in opposition provided to the record by non-opcupant parties of record, either prior to or at tonight's public hearing.

The board will allow testimony by any party of record at its public meeting to consider the land use hearing officer's recommendation for any item on the regular agenda.

Testimony by a party of record shall be limited to the record of the proceedings before the land use hearing officer unless additional evidence has been found admissible in accordance with section 10.03.04D of the land development code.

A party of record is an individual who fits into at least one of the following four categories.

First, someone who's present tonight and presents testimony or documentary evidence.

Second, someone who's been certified by the U.S.

Postal Service as having been mailed notice of tonight's hearing.

Third, someone who submitted documentary evidence to the master file at least two business days prior to tonight's hearing or fourth.

Someone who submitted documentary evidence by proxy at tonight's hearing.

The content of oral argument before the board shall be limited to the content of the testimony and other evidence submitted verbally or in writing to the land use hearing officer.

It's the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that only individuals who have met these requirements are allowed to speak before the board and to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is introduced or allowed at the board's public meeting.

For these reasons, please make sure that all information you wish you wish the board to consider at its public meeting is entered into tonight's record.

Okay, thank you.

All testimony must be provided under oath.

Therefore, if you wish to speak tonight, please stand and raise your right hand so I may swear you in.

So help you God.

Okay, thank you.

Maybe seated.

Before we get started, Ms.

Heinrich is there an overflow room tonight as well, or yes, we do have an overflow room available for any of the later applications that might have a large group.

Okay.

And where is it?

It is on the first floor facing the non-Kennedy side.

Okay.

And there's TVs down there.

There is, yes, and agendas.

Okay.

All right.

With that, that concludes all the procedures to read into the record for tonight's hearing.

I'll turn the hearing over at this point in time to Susan Finch.

All right, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Uh then we Miss Heinrich, we are ready to call the first case.

Our first application is standard rezoning 25-1026.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RSC 6MH to CG with restrictions.

Logan McKeg with Development Services has reviewed this application and he will be providing his staff comments virtually.

All right.

Good evening.

Good evening, Robert Martin.

Logan McKay, County Development Services.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the property.

Apologies.

Is that uh requesting to rezone the property from RSC?

Mr.

McKay, Mr.

McKay, I apologize.

Um we're gonna take the applicant first.

So if you could just hold those thoughts real quick.

Thank you.

Good evening, sir.

And as you know, this is a remand.

So if your presentation could include the reasons for the remand on the record.

I'm sorry, what's that?

The remand that the remand you're requesting.

If your presentation could include the reasons for the remand while you're back.

Okay, absolutely.

So to start off, my name is Robert Martin.

The address is 4512 South 66th Street, Tampa, Florida.

This is Leonardo Cologne, the property owner.

So the property was uh under your review at the last hearing.

It was denied by the planning commission and development services.

There was information that was found showing that the neighboring property to the north of Mr.

Cologne had 66 people write letters of recommendation allowing the rezoning for that property.

There was four people that opposed it.

None of those four people were the current person that's opposing his property as of right now, based on our research and everything else, and the planning commission, we seem to understand that the rezoning is allowed in that area.

Now they did CG zoning, but it was PD with restrictions.

So we've been communicating back and forth with development services to come up to an agreement that we're willing to also do CG zoning with restrictions.

However, we have approval from development services.

I've discussed the restrictions with him, he's okay with that.

The only opposition we have right now, other than the neighbor, is the planning commission stating that the property is more than 1900 feet from a major intersection, which is Hartford and 66th Street.

Based off of the report from the traffic department, transportation, they have no objections to the property being rezoned CG.

And they basically give us information that based on the traffic pattern during uh non-peak hours is 82 vehicles during peak hours, seven to eight vehicles.

Now he's not open uh 24-7.

I believe the paperwork said that he could be open from eight eight o'clock until 7 p.m.

And on weekends, uh 7 p.m.

to 4 p.m.

He's not operating on those hours.

He's not bringing in commercial vehicles, he hasn't increased the traffic pattern on that property at all.

And currently the business has been there for six years.

So again, when the property was re-rozoned next door, the neighbor didn't have an opposition to it.

And then the property's been under this category for multiple years, and he just came up with a complaint, I think, in 2024.

However, he's not one of the ones that complained about the other CG zoning.

So I brought the property owner to basically ask the planning commission what's the difference?

Because when I looked up their code on the community's uh commercial location criteria, there's nothing in your code that specifies that a property has to be less than a certain amount of distance from major intersection.

And this is straight from uh Tyreek from the planning commission.

So also, if you recall the last time we were here, they were asking about a commercial location criteria waiver, and that was my argument about the waiver.

Development services requested that I submit a narrative explaining why I feel the property would be okay to be rezoned, CG in the service urban service area, which I provided that.

This, according to planning commission, is the waiver because I sent this to the planning commission after sending it to the development services, and they sent it back to me saying this was the waiver.

Now, if you recall back in the day or March when we were here, they claimed that they didn't receive one back in October of last year because I'm the only one that submitted a narrative to development services.

Mr.

Cologne or Mr.

Turner did not.

So I just want explanations on if the commercial location criteria waivers what I submitted.

Development services has approval already with restrictions.

Explain to me what the 1900 feet from the intersection has any impact on the property being CG zoning when the traffic department has no problems with it.

Yes, ma'am.

Did you want to allow uh Mr.

Cologne to speak?

If any questions come up that I can't answer, he would definitely speak up.

Okay, absolutely.

All right.

Um I don't have any questions for you at the moment, so if you want to just sign in, we'll move on with the hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, now we'll go to development services, Mr.

McKay.

Good evening.

Apologies for that.

Uh applicant requesting to rezone the property from uh RSC uh from RSC six with mobile home overlay to commercial general with restrictions.

The property located excuse me.

Properties located in the area uh developed with residential manufacturing uses, manufacturing uses are developed to the west and open storage to the north, separated by open space.

Uh single families present to the south and east side of the site.

Um and to mitigate impacts, the applicant has agreed to a use which will not include high-intensity automotive or drive-through uses, provided hours of operation and enhanced buffering and screening.

The residential subdivision to the east was plotted in 1975 and did not extend to the 66th Street.

All development standards of the CG zoning district will be met or accept.

Um county staff recommends approval subject to the applicant's proposed restrictions.

Ms.

McKay, if you could for the record, as you're aware, this is a remand.

Uh that the as my understanding, the original request was for CG with no restrictions, and they are back to agree, they are now agreeing to restrictions that appear to be drafted by the development services department.

If you could say uh previously, obviously you were recommending um denial, and now you're recommending approval subject to those restrictions.

What do those restrictions do that resulted in the change of the staff's recommendation?

Uh the applicants uh yes, we are uh our previous recommendations was denial on commercial general alone with the included restrictions.

Uh development services believes that it is um not it will not be as impactful to the neighborhood.

The restrictions proposed um would be all CG zoning districts are permitted except for the following uh major and minor uh neighborhood servicing and auto repair uh scrutes, schools private and charter K through twelve, schools public, bank reception halls, uh convenience stores with or without gas sales, uh heliports, helistop vehicle uh auction and retail, wholesale distribution trade, freestanding emergency rooms, hospital, outdoor paintball, uh ambulance services, drive-throughs associated with any use.

Additionally, their restricted operating hours uh will be limited from 7 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

on weekdays and 10 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

on weekends.

Uh they are also proposing additional buffering and screening with uh additional 20 foot wide buffering and screening um along the eastern and southern property lines.

Uh type B screening shall be enhanced with additional uh staggered rows of evergreen shading, uh which are not less than 10 feet high time planting and a minimum two inch caliper and our space no more than 20 feet apart.

Okay.

Does that complete your presentation?

Yes, ma'am.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you so much.

Before I move on to the planning commission, uh, Ms.

Heinrich, I just want to ensure for the record, it looked like the notice that the property owner sent out for this hearing requested CG and not CG restricted.

I just want to ensure for the record that the the uh notice is in order.

It is if it's going to something more intensive, it is in order.

All right, thank you so much.

Then we'll call on the planning commission.

Willow Mickey, Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is located in the residential six feature lanes category, is in the urban service area, and was is within the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan.

The surrounding area is correct characterized by a diverse mix of land uses with varying levels of intensity.

Although the broader vicinity includes a range of moderate to high-intensity commercial and industrial uses, the immediate context of the site, particularly its direct adjacency to single family residences, creates a transition area where compatibility is a key planning consideration.

This request would introduce a use that is operationally intensive and visually impactful in close proximity to residential properties.

Additionally, during a site visit, staff noted areas of open storage, which is which is considered a commercial intensive zoning district use.

The request is to the CG zoning district.

It should be noted that the CG zoning district is not allowed for the consideration of open storage.

Flu's objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 further reinforce the requirement that new development and land use changes should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and reflect the area's predominant character.

The proposed rezoning would represent a significant increase in intensity and a fundamental shift in use, introducing open storage and pallet sales activities that are operationally and visually more consistent with industrial or heavy commercial environments.

The subject site also does not meet commercial locational criteria required by objective 4.7 of the comprehensive plan and planning commission staff recommends denial of the submitted request to rate waive the commercial locational criteria.

The site is in the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan, although the concept map generally identifies the broad area as industrial in nature.

It does not negate the importance of respecting existing neighborhood patterns or override adopted feature lanes designations at the parcel level.

Based upon the above considerations in the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

Thank you so much.

Ms.

Mickey, I have a couple of questions.

Have you or uh the staff of the planning commission reviewed this revised request?

I also do not see those in the most recent staff report.

I am not um positive if the planner um was aware of those restrictions that were added.

Um I can reach out to the planner.

Well, we don't have that opportunity tonight, and then the hearing closes.

So I do not see that in the record.

Um there was a change.

There is one sentence removed on page four in the um it's in the second paragraph down, and it addresses uh the sentence removed only addresses open storage.

So just to highlight that it doesn't appear that the changes were reviewed at all by staff to reflect and therefore the recommendation remains the same.

I just want to put that on the record.

Okay.

Um if you could address Mr.

Martin's questions regarding the uh commercial locational criteria and um the development services staff participation in the transportation review for the commercial locational criteria.

Um objective 4.7 um talks about the different feature lane use categories that are subject to the um commercial locational criteria.

So I'll read directly from the feature land use section in policy 4.7.2, 50% of the site in the front along a roadway with a context classification of suburban commercial, suburban town, or urban general.

Um another one to classify would be within a thousand feet of an intersection, both functionally classified as a collector or arterial.

And when looking at the subject site.

The um the nearest qualifying intersection that would be classified would be Hartford Street and 66 Street South, which is approximately 1900 feet from the site, which exceeds the maximum 1,000 feet distance.

And so therefore the um the site does not meet the commercial locational criteria, and planning commission staff felt um that the um waiver should be recommended denial due to the compatibility concerns with the site and the residential.

All right, and just to clear up the the issue, the development services staff uh transportation comments don't contribute to your review of commercial locational criteria.

That is correct.

Ours is a separate um policy.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Did you have anything else you wanted to add before I move on regarding Mr.

Martin's comments?

I do not.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you so much.

All right.

At this time, we'll call for anyone who would like to speak in support any proponents of the rezoning.

Mr.

Martin, if you'll have time at rebuttal.

This is for proponents.

Uh seeing none, then we'll call for opponents, anyone who would like to speak in opposition.

Well, Mr.

Shiff is coming up.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?

All right, seeing no one.

Good evening.

Good evening, Gordon Schiff.

Uh 4155 West Cypress Street, Tampa.

And I'm here representing Scott and Rebecca Hendry, H E N D R Y for the court reporter or the whoever takes the minutes.

Um I have a couple of handouts, Madam Hearing Master, and I would like to hand those or just one handout, but it's got a number of photos, so I'll make sure you want one, two, or three copies.

So we only need one, and you would submit it to the clerk.

You're welcome to show whatever you'd like on the elmo and then submit it to the road.

We'll do that.

All right, like I said, I represent uh Scott Hendry and Rebecca Hendry.

I'll first at the outset um say I don't think the applicant gave you a reason for the remand.

I I did not hear a legitimate rational basis for the remand, and in fact, I'll get into what actually happened in a few minutes.

Um but anyway, we represent our clients.

There uh we've just submitted a supplemental letter of opposition to this, and that sets forth our our legal and factual arguments why this should be denied.

Um this has been going on for a while.

Uh the application has been pending for one year.

It started as an application filed by Mr.

Martin saying the reason for the request is currently selling pallets and need the correct zoning to continue the business.

That was his application.

Proposed zoning not able to confirm was his second statement.

And there was an affidavit to authorize agent uh under oath signed by Mr.

Cologne, who's here today, and John Turner, one of the owners' authorized agents, and notarized by Mr.

Martin and uh the other authorized agent, which states under item four that the property constitutes the property for which a request for rezoning to CG from RSC six garage slash storage slash warehouse slash outside open storage nature of the request in parentheses is being applied for.

None of those uses appear to be permitted, per none of those uses are permitted today, and many of them aren't permitted in in CG, but that's what was filed.

Um it was treated as an application to rezone to CI, which actually makes sense because uh the CG would not allow the uses that they were applying for.

And it was um, but again, it's RC six.

So all that testimony you heard about uses and they've been there for six years, et cetera, they're all illegal for six years.

So there's no basis to to have the use there.

Um you heard the plan, you heard the uh hearing on January 26th.

You re uh you had recommendation of denial from staff, you had recommendation or inconsistency determination by the planning commission, and you recommended denial.

So it was scheduled for final hearing by uh uh before the board on um March 10, and uh over the objections of this owner, we were not allowed to be heard.

Uh the the uh application was remanded as being out of order, which it wasn't, and um we're we're um we're objecting that it was even remanded and we we um reserve the right to continue that objection.

So while it's been pending for remand, the application was actually continued some more, just to add a few more months to it.

And the they submitted, um I think it was referred to by in the testimony.

I'm not sure if that's what uh Mr.

Martin was referring to, but they assist they submitted an additional revised information sheet on or about June 2.

The additional sheet includes an attachment entitled Comprehensive Rezoning Justification and Staff Consistency Package.

I don't think it's any of that.

The sheet is not authored, it's and it has not been established, it's anonymous, it hasn't been established who the author is or whether qualified to be an expert witness in planning, transportation zoning, or any other land use area.

Additionally, it should be noted that there's no mention on the sheet of the proposed use, which this applicant is even proposing.

So you don't even have before you an application that says here's our proposed use.

Um statements of the sheet are unsupported conclusory statements, and some are speculative, have no probative value.

Uh in addition, the sheet incorrectly states in finding a fact number three that the property fronts are collector roadway, it's not, it's a local roadway.

Um, and then they say it's suitable for commercial access.

That's just a conclusory statement as no probative value.

South 66th Street is functionally classified as a local and is substandard, and that's what your that's what the plan the transportation staff noted.

It's a substandard roadway.

And it's also noted in the planning commission report.

They also have finding of fact number four, and this is incredibly important for your consideration.

The proposed zoning, this is their updated request.

The proposed zoning allows neighborhood serving low-intensity commercial uses consistent with surrounding development.

That's their request.

That's what's before you.

And then, and they also say all potential adverse impacts to adjacent residential uses can be mitigated through enforceable zoning impacts.

So let's get to the facts.

This is in your packet.

All right, if uh if the elmo's on, we'll go through these quickly.

This is exhibit A.

Sorry.

Exhibit A, as you'll see, there's a apparently a semi-park.

This is back in January, by the way.

When they already were CG and they already were saying they're not going to do open space.

I'm just going to go through these quickly.

There's uh pallets, trucks, trailers with tires in them.

We'll leave that here and just go on top of them.

There's the gate.

You'll see all the pallets piled.

That's 20 or 25 feet high, those pallets in that picture.

Another picture.

Now you can really see the pallets.

Here's a nice little dumpster of about 30 or 40 feet in the front.

Here's more pallets, more junk and a dumpster.

Another picture of the same dumpster.

Here's what a more pallets and other some things we can't even recognize what they are.

Here's where their employees were parking.

Here's another picture of an of a semi.

Here's a picture.

Here's the view my client has.

Another view of what my client has.

Those are pallets stacked way up in the air there.

Here's some more accumulations and junk.

More accumulations and junk.

More pallets, junk accumulations, and who knows what's in those blue barrels.

More old accumulation of pallets or junk, it's hard to say, but they're maybe both more of the same.

And here's an old boat stashed in a tree.

That's that red red.

That's a boat or was a boat, and probably is not seaworthy.

All right, let's go to fast forward to last week.

Let's see how much better it is.

This is exhibit B, starting with the first photo.

Those are industrial liquid tanks lined up along my client's property.

Who knows what's been in them?

Who knows what's going in them?

Here's some more pallets.

Here's some more junk, pallets, whatever.

Here's more pallets, semis.

Here's more pallets, and junk and accumulation.

Here's some more.

Here's the view from the front with their sign posted.

Pallets stacked 20, 25 feet up in the air.

Here's another view of those same pallets.

I don't know what the cones are be doing there, but they're not supposed to be there.

That's not a that's not permitted under the county code.

Here's some more cones.

So we don't know what they're doing there.

So that's our exhibits.

So that's the use on the property.

That's the use that's been on the property for now going on six years.

And none of that is permitted under CG.

So we have a situation here where you can put all the restrictions on that you won't allow a drive-through, but that's not addressing the issue.

The issue is they want to do what is a use that's not permitted in CG, and that's it should be it should be denied.

Now we've put we've put in the record, we'll remind you there are two code enforcement cases pending.

One of them is uh from 2025, and that is for four four of and the order was entered.

One accumulations, two, outside open storage, three, improper use of zone, improper use of zoning, and and commercial vehicles.

The those four things have not been addressed since 2025.

Code enforcement number case number two that we've submitted, uh, the order imposing a fine.

That was because the owner, Mr.

Cologne, um was this is that goes back in 2022 or 2023, decided he should do land alteration without permits.

And that has that order has been in place since 2023, three now almost three years, accumulating fines, and nothing has been done.

So both code enforcement cases remain pending.

Uh they were supposed to be accumulating fines uh in July on July 16 of this year.

The second one will be three years old.

Um overall, nothing has significantly changed since the original zoning master hearing, and this recommendation of and the recommendation of denial uh should stand.

The applicant is seeking approval of uses that are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and um and incompatible with the surrounding area.

Now I'll go through I have gone into detail with all the code sections and or the um comprehensive plan sections, but the proposed zoning is clearly inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

The uses and businesses being conducted on the property as to as described in the authorized agent sheets and the updated uh additional information are not permissible uses under the residential six category, that's for sure.

And the future land uh use map draws a clear line of demarcation.

If you look at the various categories, the there's a demarcation line to their north, and there's a demarcation to their west.

So this property does not have the proper land use, it obviously doesn't have the proper zoning to do the uses they want to do.

Um I've cited all the future land use sections.

I won't recite them again.

I've cited to them to you last time.

They're in the submittal I made, but there are numerous future land use sections.

The planning commission report is a detailed and thorough report.

It also is several pages long.

They go into great detail to explain why this use is not appropriate.

They talk about compatibility, a long comp compatibility discussion.

They talk about what objectives they have which are not being met.

It talks about future land use policies which are not being met.

And it talks about why the request for commercial waiver of the locational criteria should not be granted.

They also, and I don't know if it was pointed out in the staff report, they also looked at the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan, which is relevant and must be considered, and they point out that this is inconsistent with that plan.

The Planning Commission report concludes overall staff finds that the uses proposed are not allowable in residential six future land use category, are not compatible with the existing development pattern found within the surrounding area and does not support the vision of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan, and the proposed rezoning would allow the development that is the proposed rezoning would allow for development that's inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

And they made a recommendation that this is inconsistent.

I also have summarized what code criteria have not been met, but 66 streets of substandard roadway.

The property doesn't have water or wastewater.

The closest water connections 1,875 feet away, and the and the staff report failed to mention that there is a report by the utilities department saying that it should be in the it should be in the consideration of this.

There's no CG zoning in the general area on the east side of 66th Street.

The lot size of the subject property is way too small to include effective buffers and screenings, only a little over an acre.

The lot size of the of the property appears to be too small to allow for adequate commercial access, parking, loading, circulation, stormwater drainage, et cetera.

And so you can't even get a commercial site plan approved on this, I don't believe.

The code enforcement board special magistrate has determined that the applicant has violated multiple provisions of the code and nothing's been corrected.

The improper and unpermitted business operations being conducted to this day, including today, on the subject property appear to lack adequate fire safety, and there's no report on fire safety.

There's a pallet business.

Anyone who knows a pallet business knows it's a high fired hazard.

No fire safety.

So we looked at the compatibility of the staff report.

There's one paragraph in the staff report on compatibility.

And it with all due respect, it doesn't really say anything.

All it says is that the air how they believe the area is developed, which isn't actually accurate.

It just talks about manufacturing and residential.

There's plenty of other things.

It talks about where the manufacturing is to the west, but they forget to mention that there's no access to the manufacturing to the west, it accesses off a separate street to the west.

They um talk about single families present to the south and east of the site, but the applicants agreed to, um this is their words, agreed to use, which will not include high-intensity automotive or drive-thru uses.

Well, the this business is a high-intensity business.

So I'm going to go about another 30 seconds, and I'm going to let Ms.

I'm going to let Scott speak.

The staff does not the report itself doesn't even mention the pallet business.

How can you not look at how do you examine compatibility and not talk about what the compatibility issue is?

It's not even mentioned.

So there's no vested rights.

You know, if they get up and talk again about their uh idea that this is some sort of sort of hardship, it's no hardship, it's an illegal use.

And the and the restricted zoning district, if it were to be approved, must be limited to neighborhood serving commercial uses.

And there's a very important thing to look at here.

This use is not proposed.

If you look, and if it were proposed, it should have been analyzed.

And if it and since it wasn't analyzed, there is nothing in here that has any support for the use.

Scott, I'm going to let you speak.

With that, we request denial of this uh recommendation denial and and we've suggested some uh alternative restrictions, if in fact, which we disagree would disagree with, there's a there's a um some sort of restrictions put in on the uses.

Scott, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Shift.

There is about 15 seconds left.

I'll let you expand on that.

My name is Scott Hendry, I'm the neighbor directly to South 4608 South 66th Street.

I've watched this business, uh watched it when the property was bought out of foreclosure.

The man had a mobile home there, and no problem, started keeping a few trailers here, no problem, and it's grown to this.

Uh it it is certainly not compatible, and I'm tired of looking at it.

Thank you for your comments.

If you both sign in.

All right.

Seeing no one else in opposition, we'll close that portion of the hearing.

We'll go back to development services.

Ms.

Heinrich, if you could uh help address Mr.

Schiff's comments regarding the use on the property, and does the uh revised request, including the restrictions allow him to have a pallet business.

Uh Michelle Hyundai development services, uh, as the pictures showed, it appears to be an open storage type of business, which requires CI or M zoning or a PD that would allow that.

Um we have advised Mr.

Martin that the existing use would not be cured by a CG rezoning.

Only those uses allowed in CG in the in the use table with the ones that they've offered to restrict would be permitted.

So he at the prior hearing I recall Mr.

Martin stating that they proposed to have an enclosed building three sides and closed and store something enclosed to alleviate the open storage component of this.

Um I don't see any of that referenced in the restrictions.

Is that is that unnecessary because open storage in and of itself would not be permitted?

Uh correct.

And then also if they are having a warehouse type of facility, um, I don't know if they if he mentioned it would be a connection to uh principal use or that would be the only use occurring on the property.

Um but in our review of the CG zoning, you know, the uses that were restricted were the ones that we also felt would be most impactful to single family residential and work uh with manufacturing that's currently um happening on the other side of the street.

All right, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

And I did have just one more item, Ms.

Finch.

Um just to clarify the reason for the remand for you.

The notice for the zoning hearing master, which was conducted in January, the existing zoning was incorrect.

So that's why we were not able to bring it before the board and remand it back so that the correct notice could be done and the hearing could be done.

I see.

So that's when uh Mr.

Schiff noted in in his comments and also his documents that staff noted it was out of order.

Correct.

It was because they had noted in proper notice.

Right.

I see.

All right, thank you for that clarification.

I appreciate it.

All right, then we will go back to the applicant who has five minutes for rebuttal.

Mr.

Martin.

Thank you.

So we did look up the 4.7 and the 4.71.

Only thing I could find online was a draft, and half of it is literally blotted out.

Ms.

Martin, can you put that document on the overhead so I can see what you're talking about?

We are referencing commercial locational criteria.

Okay.

So uh as we mentioned before, yes, originally we were asking for the CG zoning, and then when they came back with the restrictions, we were okay with that.

Based on the outside open storage as a violation for CG zoning, we were planning on building a warehouse.

The reason I brought Mr.

Cologne is because he's now in the process of eliminating the pallet business altogether.

So that's what he's gonna speak on right now.

Okay.

Good evening.

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

Leonardo Golon, 4512 South 66th Street.

Thank you.

Um I'm being trying to get rid of of my tenants from that property with the pallets, but I have to follow the law.

I cannot just get there and get out and go.

So I'm on that process.

Um pretty sure it will take me less than a month if I don't get no five back, let's put it that way, from them on the legal matter.

And once they get out, the property will be clean.

And my plan is to go back to the property and leave my business in the property.

All right.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Yeah, based on what he said earlier about the uh land alteration.

For some reason there was permits pulled.

What year was it?

You pulled the permits to build a retention pond in the back.

Now he dug the retention pond, and then somebody in county staff came back after it was already done and gave him permission to fill it back in, which would have been the buffer in the back.

And based on the photos that he showed, there's a 20-foot buffer at least on the south side of the property from his neighbor that gives him a the 20-foot buffer.

However, the objective here is to get the CG zoning with restrictions.

He's going to eliminate the pallet business, and then whatever he needs to do from there on, he'll just move forward from there.

All right.

Does that conclude your comments?

Yes, ma'am.

All right, thank you so much.

Then with that, Ms.

Finch, I'm sorry.

Um, just to clarify um so that the applicant has all the information that he needs.

If this is rezoned to CG, single family will no longer be permitted on the property.

I understand that.

Thank you for that clearing.

Okay, just to make sure, thank you, Smith.

Yes, thank you.

It's an important point.

Thank you.

All right, then with that, we'll close rezoning 25-1026, and I'll turn the hearing back over to Harry Master Luce.

Thank you, Ms.

Finch.

And Michelle, if you could introduce the next item on tonight's agenda.

Our next item is item C1, standard rezoning 26-0786.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RSC4 to RSC six with restrictions.

Sierra James with development services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

Good evening, Kayla Harrell, uh, with Tampa Civil Land Use Planner.

I'm representing the applicant this evening.

Um, I'm at 2841 Executive Drive, Clearwater, Florida.

Um, and I have been sworn.

First and foremost, I just want to thank staff for working with us collaboratively to get us here today.

Um the request before you today is just a standard re rezoning request from RSC four to RSC six for the flexibility and development standards of constructing single family homes.

Can you see the screen?

Not if you've got a there it is.

There it is.

All right.

All good.

This is just an area of the property to provide context of the property's location.

It is 1.8 acres in size.

It's located in northwestern portion of unincorporated Hillsborough County along Leisure Avenue.

The site is located approximately one half mile west of North Boulevard, one mile west of North Florida Avenue, and approximately one half mile south of West Bears Avenue.

Additionally, the site sits along Lake Newlands.

The current zoning is of the property is RSC four, as seen here with much of the surrounding area designated RSC six.

This is the future land use of the property and the surrounding area, as you can see here.

It is R4.

Just want to provide a quick overview and summary of the request.

Again, the property is 1.8 acres in size.

It's in the Greater Carrollwood Northdale Community Planning Area, located within the urban service area.

This request to rezone from RSC4 to RSC 6R is for flexibility and lot standards for single family homes.

The development will be limited to the four dwelling units per acre to remain consistent with the R4 future land use.

Minimum lot sizes of minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet, and we are not doing any impacts to the wetlands.

In addition to staff support for approval and consistency, this rezoning is compatible with several goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and common components of the livable communities element.

We respectfully request your approval and uh available for any questions.

No questions at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Development services staff.

Good evening, Sierra James with Development Services.

The applicant was requesting to rezone the parcel from RSC four to RSC six with the following restriction.

Development shall be limited to four dwelling units per acre.

The RSC four zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with a width of 75 feet, while the RSC six zoning district permits a minimum lot size of 7,000 feet with a width of 70 feet.

However, the districts maintain the same setback and maximum height requirements.

The subject site is surrounded by residential development, primarily zone RSC four and RSC six.

The properties directly north, east, and west are zone RSC four, while the property directly to the south was rezone RC six with the same restrictions on density.

Based on these considerations, staff find the proposed rezoning approvable.

The revised staff report corrects the typos and the introduction summary and compatibility where the future land use designation was referred to as destination.

I'm available for any questions at this time.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, planning commission staff.

Willaminke planning commission staff, the subject site is in the residential four feature landings category, is in the urban service area and is within the limits of the Greater Carrollwood Northdale community plan.

The subject site is surrounded by existing single family residential development and vacant residential land.

The proposed rezoning maintains the site's single family residential character and does not introduce a new or incompatible land use into the air area.

Therefore, the request is compatible with the surrounding development pattern.

The proposal satisfies the intent of feature land use section objective 4.4, which requires new development and redevelopment to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.

The surrounding area is characterized by established single-family residential development, similar densities and lot configurations.

While the proposed RSC6 restricted district allows reduced slot dimensions compared to RSC4 zoning, the applicant has indicated a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet and a maximum density consistent with the Res4 featured landings designation.

The proposed development pattern represents a logical residential infill opportunity that complements the existing neighborhood while maintaining compatibility with adjacent uses.

The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Greater Calewood Northdale community plan as it maintains the residential character of the area, supports appropriate infill development within the urban service area, and is compatible with the surrounding residential development pattern.

Based upon the above considerations of the following goals, objectives, and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan, subject to the restrictions proposed by the development services department.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Yeah, applicant opportunity for rebuttal.

No, no need for rebuttal.

All right, with that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, are ready for the next item?

Our next item is item C2, standard rezoning 26-0892.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property from RSC4 to BPO.

Logan McCague with Development Services has reviewed this for development services.

AIM will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

Applicant, please.

Hello, application.

Good evening.

Bryce Penson with Half Associates 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 900, Tampa, Florida, here representing the owner and applicant.

Okay.

The subject site is a.87 acre site located in the Greater Carrollwood Northdale community plan area.

The future land use is residential four, and it has a current zoning of RSC4.

The request is to rezone to BPO.

It is located at the intersection of Rawls Road and Hutchison Road, both of which are classified as collector roadways.

There is single family to the north and east of the site.

There's a cell tower to the west of the site with associated infrastructure.

There's also a nursery to the southwest or northwest of the site, and another office building located less than a quarter mile southwest of the site.

BPO offers a good transitional use between the single family and the collective roadways and more intensive land uses.

The development services staff report also said that due to the property size dimensions and location along the major roadways.

Use of the property as residential is not as viable as office or low-intensity commercial uses.

Staff found the request compatible with the surrounding area, and planning commission also found that it was consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan.

So I'm here if you have any further questions.

Just one minor question for you.

I think you showed a graphic that showed the surrounding uses.

Could you bring that up back up on the ammo?

Where that cell tower is, there's looks like there's a uh a warehouse type building.

Do you know what that use is?

Um it just said wireless communication facilities.

I don't really know exactly what the thank you.

Okay.

All right, development services staff.

Good evening, Logan McCay.

Uh development services rezoning 260892.

The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from residential single family conventional to business professional office.

The subject uh property surrounded by residential and agricultural zoning uh and uses uh which can support BPO uses.

Additionally, due to the property size and dimension and location along a major roadway, use of property as a residential is not as viable as office or low intensity commercial uses.

Development standard of the BPO zoning district will address any compatibility with the adjacent residential uses, such as setback building height, buffering and screening requirements.

Uh staff recommends approval is available for any questions.

The same question I had from the applicant of the the use that's across the street from the subject site.

Yes.

Do you know what that might be?

Yes, that was that was noted in our uh initial review.

Um it appears to have been a uh utilized as a uh small-scale business at some point in the past was cited for code enforcement violations related to open storage.

Um as of now, there's no commercial operation that we can identify on the sites.

Um and it pretty much functions as um for lack of a better term, an oversized garage for the residential property uh to the south of uh not the property south, excuse me, the residential structure to the south of it on the same property.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Well, the Mickey Planning Commission staff, the subject site is in the residential four feature language category, is in the urban service area and within the limits of the Greater Carrollwood Northdale community plan.

The residential four feature lanes category allows for the consideration of agricultural residential neighborhood commercial office uses and multi-purpose projects.

It allows for a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

The proposal is consistent with uses allowed under the Res4 category.

The subject property is currently vacant, and surrounding land uses consists primarily of single-family residential development with some public quasi-public uses to the north and west, and like commercial to the south.

Collectively, these existing land use patterns establish a predominant predominantly residential context that supports the proposed development.

The proposal satisfies the intent of objective 4.4, which requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

Policy 4.4.1 specifies that any increase in density or intensity must be compatible with existing proposed or planned development, and that development or redevelopment should be integrated with adjacent uses through the establishment of like or complementary uses.

But business professional office uses are lower in intensity compared to many commercial uses.

Overall, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the existing development pattern found within the surrounding area.

The proposed rezoning would allow for development that is consistent with the goals of directives and policies of the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

Yep.

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Anita Kong.

Um actually the back neighbor, my fence divided.

That's a joint property that's gonna be paid.

Um 15704 Woodshed place.

Um you guys are from our neighborhood too, so we're all here for that.

Okay, you guys go ahead and talk.

Yes, I live um 15602 right in front of the property.

Um the trough is extremely heavy.

And your name, please for Arturo Talwood, 15602, Hutchinson Road, Tempo, Florida.

I leave right in front of the property.

Um the truff is is exaggerated to add uh office building there.

It will just create more traffic, is right on the cross road.

There's at least three to four accidents a month to add more traffic to that road.

I think it's just not suitable for that.

And the also it will just draw by property price badly, and um if you guys can just not allow that to happen, we will really appreciate it.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Could please sign in.

Next, please.

Good evening.

Alan Schobert, 15604 Hutchison.

I live immediately across from the property, and I've lived there for 28 years.

Hutcheson Road is busy enough.

There's office spaces on the road that aren't as far as I know aren't fully occupied already to begin with.

And there's plenty of commercial enterprises and space at both the corners of Hutchison and Earlake and Earlake and Lynn Turner.

Um and the cell phone tower is a very quiet neighbor.

Thank you.

My name is Marcy Victor.

Um, I live just across from the property.

Your address, please.

My address is 5234 Rawls Road.

Um, and just live across from the property, and um I'm very concerned about the traffic and the there are several accidents which I witnessed, and just in front on the uh, I mean the Sharif or the uh police officers are right in front of my property, and it's object uh just uh like it just when I get to work, uh it's actually it's a problem.

Like I cannot do it's always like my driveways are always blocked, so it's really causing hazard, and I'm a nurse at the BA hospital, so it affects my work.

So it's really causing hazard, and I'm a nurse at the Bay Hospital, so it affects my work.

Okay, too.

All right, very good.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thanks.

Um my name is Linda Kent.

I live at 15708 Woodshed Place, and my property is right beside um Ms.

Kong's.

So I'm concerned about what's going to happen to that property that's so close to our properties.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

In a very residential area.

Thank you.

Just one, it's my back.

I'm sorry, Anita Kong again.

15704 Woodshed place.

It's my backyard.

It's that fence that's behind mine and there.

So I'm just worried about what's gonna happen there.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Good evening.

Evening.

Stephen Suarez, 5224 of Rawls Road.

I'm about 300 foot east of this property in question on the south side perspective.

I've lived out there for 51 years.

We moved out there as a kid in 1967.

Um I'm opposed to this zoning tremendously, uh, from that RSC4 to the BPO business professional office.

It's all residential around there.

I I don't think we need to put a business at this address for several reasons.

I mean, you're gonna have access according to what I read on the application, the not going to have access on Rawls Road, it's strictly gonna be on Hutchinson, which is great.

But Hutchison, it is a curve there.

And as Mr.

Talbot said, there's probably two or three accidents a month there.

Their entrance and exit or ingress negress is gonna be on that curve.

And it's just it to me it's gonna create more of an issue.

Traffic says that it's gonna be an increase of somewhere around 200 vehicles for the day, plus 200.

I I think that's kind of adds quite a bit.

Another thing that I happen to note within this property, it's 0.87 acres.

Okay.

When I was was a kid when I out there, it was a residential house that was there, then a daycare went in there, it went vacant.

To answer your question on that building that is across the street for that cell tower, HSW and associates who fought to get that cell tower there, we were against that as well, has a property at 5305 Rawls Road, and it was incorporated that warehouse.

That warehouse was basically for his car collection that he had.

So it was the only reason he got that is because it is part of that residence.

And I hope he never tries to split it because I'll be here fighting that again if he tries to make it like commercial.

Talking about like commercial, they're saying it's point two five south.

It is.

That used to be the Hills Balk Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, District 3 office.

It was put there for that.

When District 3 decided to move the gun highway, for some unknown reason, it's still PD.

There's businesses like business running out there that's vacant most of the time.

So I don't even know why we need this additional light commercial BPO zoning when there is plenty, you have that place, but also on on Earlick Road, which is less than a half mile away, you have everything you could ever want.

There's no need to add a business professional place here, which is going to increase traffic.

The other thing I noticed on traffic is they talk about the long-term plan.

They're gonna do they're gonna four-lane Rawls Road, I mean Hutchinson Road.

They're gonna need 23 to 25 foot of ride away.

That's gonna take that.87, it's gonna move it down to the point seven one or point seven of an acre.

So we're gonna have business center if that ever goes through.

It may be like the other right-of-way that they've never done anything with.

I'm not sure.

Um, I'm covering everything here.

Yeah.

I mean, planning commission states it is consistent.

I I don't know when we do this.

I know we have all our planning stuff.

People, do they ever go out there and actually look at what's there?

There are no businesses there.

There's a nursery that's agriculture, he's been there forever.

Okay.

I used to manage a property that's now home to Rawls Road.

It's not it's not consistent for our area.

So I'm kind of disappointed with the zoning saying there's no objections to that as well.

So, you know, and in their application basically um saying that it's consistent, it's not really consistent to that area.

Maybe to the south.

You go down to Earlick Road, there's plenty, you got that.

Unfortunately, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office that was turned into that to me.

That that should have never happened, but it did.

Um, and then the other thing is on the notifications, and I know they get the notifications from the planning or somebody here when they do the zoning for for who gets it.

But what I didn't notice, the or one of the organizations that was not notified was the country place community association, which actually abuts this property.

So I'm just kind of wondering, you know, that was that just an oversight or what?

It's still listed on on on online.

You can get to that.

I'll ask staff in a moment.

Let you conclude your comments and make sure that uh HOA's got notified.

All right, so I think that that pretty much.

And what is what is considered quasi public institutional when it comes to the is that like the playgrounds and stuff like that?

Ms.

Heinrich, maybe you could expound on what quasi public means.

Uh quasi public, um, which is also found in the comprehensive plan, is typically uses like a university, a college, a hospital, things that are mainly open for the public to serve their needs but are privately owned.

Okay.

I mean, I don't know that there's any of that up there other than the playground in a country place, so that may be what it is.

Okay.

Okay, I think that pretty much covers everything I have to say again.

I am in opposition of the zoning change.

It needs to stay residential.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh does that conclude all those that wish to speak in opposition?

Okay.

Um staff, anything further?

What about the uh community association?

Uh sure.

I have the notice pulled up here, and the uh registered neighborhood associations with Hillsborough County that were sent notice is Carrollwood Meadows, HOA, Bell Mead, HOA, Keystone Civic Association, North Dale Civic Association, and the Lutz Citizen Coalition.

Did you mention the one that he just mentioned?

No.

They have to be registered with at the beginning.

These are the ones that are registered with Hillsborough County, therefore they do get our notice.

Okay.

You can certainly have an HOA or civic association, um, but not have it registered with the county for notice purposes.

All right, thank you.

Um, Country Place has about 1,500 homes.

Um, so I mean, I don't really know why they wouldn't be on that one on that list.

It's it's initiated by the HOA or the Civic Association, they're not designated by the county, they would come to the neighborhood services division to become a registered neighborhood association or civic association.

Uh no.

Okay.

Okay.

A registered neighborhood organization.

Thank you.

All right, at this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

William Malloy, 325 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.

Uh Mr.

Lutz, I believe most of what we heard the concern about was transportation and traffic related.

I have Michael Yeats with me, who I think can shed a little bit of flavor on the situation, particularly right here.

Okay.

Good evening.

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

Just want to go through a couple of the comments to uh address those on the record.

Um, I'm gonna reference the staff report because this is a Euclidean zoning.

We did not do a traffic study, but the staff report does go through and address the level of service on Hutchinson as operating acceptable level of service that is operating at level of service D.

Uh both Hutchinson and Rawls are collector roadways, and there is a signal at the intersection there at Rawls and Hutchinson.

Um the right-of-way preservation is noted in the staff report.

Uh, I think if not all, most of that right away has already been dedicated to the county.

So that has already been set aside, and whatever is not part of that will be as part of the requirements of this zoning uh for any future expansion of the roadway.

Uh and then also related to the access as a staff report notes.

Uh we have ample frontage on Hutchinson for and access.

The Rawls frontage is limited to about a hundred feet, and so we would not meet connection spacing standards there, but we would on Hutchinson, uh, given the location of the driveway, probably on the northern end of the property.

Uh, I do not see site distance being being an issue.

I know that was raised with the curve there.

Say that again.

I do not foresee site distance being an issue related to the curve uh on Hutchinson that was raised, but we will go through site engineering when we develop a site plan for the project, and that will be one of the requirements that we need to address.

Okay.

Um you said Hutchinson's currently operating at a level of service D.

Correct.

All right.

Background plus project, will it still operate at level service D?

Correct.

Okay, will you have to do a southbound left turn lane into the project?

If we exceed 20 cars uh per section 6.0404 of the land development code, if we exceed 20 cars, we would need to do a southbound left.

Uh but until we get to the point of doing the what the anticipated use is, the square footage, and then generate the number of trips with a distribution.

Um I foresee probably it will be limited to B below that threshold for the 20 trips.

Well, so will there be a northbound right turn into the site?

Uh that is uh anything greater than 50 cars.

Uh we will not be anywhere close to that.

Okay.

The only one that would be the potential would be the southbound left, but my I I would anticipate based on the uh size of the property what they're gonna be able to yield in square footage, they are gonna be below that left turn line warrant.

Okay, but that will be a requirement of site permitting.

Okay.

All right, anything else?

I think we're good.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

With that, that concludes this application.

Ms.

Einrick are ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D1, Major Mod 26-0063.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to IPD one number uh 90-0097.

Sam Ball with development services will provide staff bindings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

The applicant, please.

0063.

How am I going to get it again?

There you go.

Thank you.

Good evening for the record, Elise Batzel, on behalf of Ashley Furniture, the applicant for this application tonight.

I am here with our development team, and I do have a few documents to submit into the record with your approval.

That's fine.

Uh this is an existing PD that we are asking for a major modification for.

It is located at the southeast corner of I-75 and East Broadway Avenue, east of I-75, west of Williams Road, and north of Columbus Drive.

It is within the urban service area, uh, is within the Brandon Community Plan area, and it has direct interstate frontage and regional access from this site.

The property is currently zoned PD, that's 90 zero zero nine seven with several PRSs and modifications.

The future land use is CMU 12, which allows 0.5 FAR.

Right now, there are many tracks, A, A1, A2, B, and C, with a mix of commercial lodging, and industrial entitlements.

If I can switch over just for a moment to the Elmo, I think the area will be helpful.

That's okay.

I can move it.

That's fine.

So just for your edification, this stormwater retention pond is being moved further to the south.

Right now, this is a development pod that's fully entitled.

The development pod is moving up closer to the intersection here so that it's further away from the residential development.

So this is really simple.

Um we're consolidating all of those tracks into one larger track to expand the warehousing uses that are already permitted on the site.

We are asking for the addition of approximately 52,000 square feet for warehouse distribution center.

There's an existing Ashley Furniture Distribution Center there today.

In the conditions, we worked with staff to clarify what light industrial is precisely.

Um the can old condition was written a little oddly, so it clarifies that M district uses are permitted, but heavy industrial uses are not permitted on the site.

And again, relocating that lake further uh to the south, closer to the residential property.

This application does not have any kind of variations and no waivers.

This is sort of a colored site plan so that you can see the areas.

The shaded out portion is all existing development.

The new development pod is the red the larger, darker red there, and of course the blue is where that pond would now be relocated.

You said a moment ago that they're adding a new connection point.

Yeah, so it's an expansion of the building.

If you see the gro the um the shaded out red area is oh, connection point.

Yeah, Broadway Center Drive.

Let me see if I have a good graphic of that.

If not, I'll point it to you in the staff report.

Uh so Broadway Center Drive, uh, you can see here the there's a connection midway up, Steve, and then there's an existing connection.

It's grayed out, so it's hard to see, but it comes off the road as it starts to curve around to the south.

Can you see that?

Not well.

I think so.

At this point in time, I'm gonna turn it over to David Smith and get you a better graphic on the access.

Okay.

David Smith, 401 each Jackson Street, Director of Development and Zoning for the applicant.

Uh as Elise is indicated, this is uh an existing PD that's substantially built out.

Uh the only unbuilt entitlements were uh for an area south of the existing uh retention pond.

Uh that's being relocated to uh centralized on the north uh portion of the site uh the uh industrial uses, which are essentially in this particular specific plan is warehouse uses.

Um we have CMU 12.

Um CMU 12 allows substantially more uh FAR than we're proposing in the overall development plan.

Um also should be noted that uh the far northern townhouse development that's uh shown in this graphic was is part of the PD, uh was built as part of this.

It could have been industrial or multifamily.

So really by relocating the um industrial area as it's approved today further north, we're protecting uh the residential development that's not within the PD from additional uh traffic.

Plan commission found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and and various um not surprisingly various policies because this has already been approved uh at these uh intensities, uh, but for the 52,000 square foot expansion.

This is an in-fill development in the urban service area.

It's gonna more efficiently use the infrastructure.

Um we've already established buffers that already exist to protect the industry um the residential areas.

We're not asking for any variations.

Um we've gone through a separate process with EPC uh to review the impacts, and APC is uh not objecting to the plan uh that's proposed.

It's in the Brandon Community Plan, it's in the industrial area, uh, so we're clearly consistent with the Brandon Area Community Plan.

The if I can get my arrows to work here.

There we go.

So this is a little bit uh better graphic there.

The two access points in in the development are essentially in the new plan, will be similar to the one that's located now that you can see clearly, but then there is an additional one that is midpoint on this curve here.

So we're trying to distribute the the two um pods essentially of development, splitting it to two access points.

There's a detailed plan in the uh Mr.

Smith.

I looking at an area, I think where you say new, doesn't that already exist?

What I'm saying is that there's a reconfigured in the plan of development that is in there.

There's there were two access points.

They asked us to clarify those locations.

What was that?

Okay.

It is existing.

It's the northern ones gated.

That's that's the difference.

Right now it's a the northern one is gated and the southern one is open.

Both of them will be open in the new configuration of the site plan.

Okay.

Sorry for the confusion on that.

That's why we bring Steve all on.

He straightens out a strengths out when we get off base.

Um looking at it overall, uh, this is a more compatible plan with the existing residential.

Um by the site plan moving uh to that consolidation, the two access points that currently exist, all the truck major truck traffic will be exiting and going north onto the site.

It will not be dragging it further from the south.

Uh the reason we're asking for 52,000 square feet, um that we did not want to take any entitlement potential from the already developed parcels.

So therefore we gave them full FAR, and once we got uh through doing that, we determined that we needed 52,000 square feet for the consolidated plan.

So it's very minor uh increase.

Um so with that uh we would request approval.

At least we'll have some closing comments.

Be glad to answer any questions.

Yeah, it's really not per se uh you know zoning issue, but moving forward with site development.

You're moving the pond to the south.

And you're going to have to work around uh and in a regular configuration to put the pond in.

Have you how far have you gotten in terms of a site plan review process?

So um EPC has approved all of the wetland impacts.

That's at that process is actually finished.

Um with respect to engineering, this hasn't been all fully engineered, so timing of how that's gonna work is to be determined at this point.

But you're right, it's an odd oddly shaped and configured site, so it's gonna be challenging at times.

Okay, and in an event they can't stormwater engineer it, they won't be able to get as much square footage.

Pardon?

In the event they can't engineer it to work, right?

Less square footage actually furniture would have to scale it back.

Absolutely.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, this is just a great sorry.

I wasn't yeah.

Uh I'm not going to go into traffic.

Steve Henry is here.

This is just a graphic representation from your staff report and your staff, and we would respectfully request approval.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, development services staff.

Uh good evening, uh, Sam Ball of Hillsborough County Development Services.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 90-0097.

That would uh modify the development track configuration access, uh clarified light industrial use, and increase light industrial entitlements by 52,817 square feet uh to accommodate a warehouse and distribution expansion.

The property covers approximately 54 acres and is located at the southeast corner of I-75 and east uh Broadway Avenue.

Uh uses in the immediate vicinity to the east of I-75 include uh conventional single family, uh multifamily, uh, mini-warehouse, an industrial flux space development and uh religious institutions uh to the west of I-75.

Uh these uh Hillsborough Community College and City Corporate Cass.

Uh if approved, tracks A1 A2 and a portion of track B would be consolidated into a into a new tract A, which would be permitted up for up to 620,610 square feet of light industrial use, um, which would be the uh M district uses except for the uh the ones that fall under the definition of heavy industrial.

Uh any occupancy proposed for another allowed manufacturing use would be subject to a trip cap for tract A.

Uh lodging would no longer be an allowable use.

Uh the existing lake would be relocated.

Uh entitlements in the remaining portion of track B would re be reduced from 800,000 to 300 307,209 square feet.

Uh the number of access points on uh Broadway Center would be uh altered uh change total two.

Uh the proposed warehouse distribution building would be uh limited to 300,000 four hundred and sixty-three square feet.

And the building area would be confined to the warehouse building envelope as shown on the general site plan.

Uh the applicant is not requesting PD variations or waivers to the LDC.

thousand to three uh three hundred and seven thousand two hundred nine square feet uh the number of access points on uh Broadway Center would be uh altered uh change total two uh the proposed warehouse distribution building would be uh limited to three hundred thousand four hundred and sixty three square feet in the building area would be confined to the warehouse building envelope as shown on the general site plan uh the applicant is not requesting PD variations or waivers to the LDC uh based on the immediate proximity of I 75 and the northerly shift of the allowable light industrial uses away from existing residential development staff finds proposed modification would reduce the impact on neighboring residential properties and would be compatible with the zoning and development pattern the area based on these considerations staff recommends approval subject to can um to conditions that concludes my report if you have any questions yeah if you could there there's a graphic in the staff report and I'm just gonna hold it up but it it cross hatches a track in the south east corner of the site could you explain to me I can't see it um the area of modification Steve that is for the PRS that was an area of modification and then uh the next page had what they did on the area of modification okay it was related to a prior action correct that was the the ex it's the latest site plan but the PRS dealt with that teeny little area and then the next page has a detail.

All right so that cross act cross hatched area is not part of this rezoning it's part of go ahead sorry that she's correct it it is not part of the modification area okay all right thank very good thank you planning commission staff will a Mickey planning commission staff the subject site is in the community mixed use 12 feature landings category is in the urban service area and within the limits of the branded community plan specifically the light industrial character district the surrounding area consists consists of a mix of land uses including light industrial vacant land residential and public quasi public collectively these land uses establish a development pattern that supports the proposed use and is compatible with the surrounding area the CME 12 feature landings category allows for the consideration of agricultural residential commercial office research and corporate park light industrial multipurpose and clustered residential or mixed use developments the maximum residential density is 12 units per gross acre and the maximum development intensity is a 0.50 floor area ratio the proposed development intensity is well below the maximum threshold permitted for the site correspondingly the proposed major modification is consistent with the range of uses and development intensity permitted the proposal satisfies the intent of objective 4.4 which requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood according to the revised site plan the applicant will comply with the required landscape buffering standards the proposed major modification complements the surrounding I'm sorry whoever's got a phone that's beeping uh please um an announcement for everybody in the room please turn off your your alarms so we don't have to hear it anymore thank you I'm sorry for interrupting you according to the revised site plan the applicant will comply with the required landscape buffering standards the proposed major modification complements the surrounding development pattern and appropriately integrates with adjacent land uses the subject site is located within the light industrial character district of the branding community plan which encompasses this northwestern portion of Brandon and is primarily devoted to business parks light industrial and government uses the proposed major modification to the existing light industrial use is consistent with the branding community plan based upon the above considerations and the following goals objectives and policies planning commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department okay thank you this point in time is there anyone in the audience I wish to speak in support of the application responding anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application see no one responding staff anything further no sir okay applicant an opportunity for rebuttal only one clarification for the record Sam mentioned that the warehouse built in building was 300 and something square feet that's the additional building footprint potential there's an existing 300 plus thousand square feet on there today so combined it's over 600 thousand if it was fully built out okay thank you so much very good thank you with that that concludes this application is Heinrich ready for the next item our next application is item D2 PD 26-0095 the applicant is requesting the rezone property zone PD 850325 and RMC20 to plan development Caroline Pedal with development services has reviewed this and I will present her staff findings okay applicant please good meeting Mr.

Luce uh Jesse Blackstock with Black Stock Engineering 1646 West Snow Avenue Tampa Florida uh here on agent of record for the applicant uh Mr.

Jester Disco, which is also in attendance if there's any questions for the owner.

As Michelle was saying, how do we get this go down?

There we go.

The project overview, it's uh roughly 2.49 acres.

It's located along North Church Avenue, and the entrance is will be through the existing Church Arbor Avenue, uh, which is part of the first phase of development that was developed quite some time ago.

Uh the current use is a vacant multi-use family uh land uh to the rear or to the west, which is considered phase two, which is what the proposal is really uh we're here to talk about tonight.

Uh phase one as I said is an existing uh residential units.

The current zoning is RMC 20 as well as PD and the uh future land use is R20.

The project is located within Igib Lake planning area, and the purpose of this pro uh PD rezoning request is to allow for a total of 35 town units, uh, 10 of those be existing within the phase one eastern portion and a total of 25 within the uh phase two western portion.

Uh our resultant destiny would be uh 14.06 dwelling units per acre.

As far as the site plan itself, there are no EPC slash uh Swift Model jurisdictional wetlands on site, uh, which have been have been reviewed and approved by EPC, and so there are no impacts or anticipated mitigation required for the site, and this would be uh associated with the western undeveloped portion.

Uh we went through several uh sufficiency rounds to address staff's concerns.

Uh the project will be served from an entrance standpoint, ingress egress from North Church Avenue to the east.

Uh there will be a secondary access to our west to North Grady, uh, but that will be limited to EMS and uh 911/fire access, it will be gated with an ox box.

Uh the unit sizes as proposed again for phase two, which is the proposed portion of the project, the western portion, uh, the minimum sizes of the actual lots will be 22.46 by 83.2 feet uh for phase two, and the maximum of three stories based on the RMC20 allowance.

Uh the existing units within the phase one portion, again, there's no proposed changes to the phase one portion, but as far as the overall P since we are accessing phase one as far as I mean points access, it is part of this PD request.

Those existing unit sizes are 15 by 36 feet.

Again, the uh phase one is more of a condo product in that the unit sizes are based on the actual building units.

There are a large overall folio as part of phase one that is not part of the fee sample ownership.

So the phase one is a condo, phase two will be fee simple traditional townhome development with lot sizes uh as I said.

See the existing site, uh the proposed site is providing a 10-foot setback along the northern perimeter of the PD and a five-foot type A buffer along the southern perimeter of the PD.

These are both listed in our requested waivers and are based on the minimum size requirements for the units as well as the internal private drive that we are proposing.

Uh this is in the City of Tampa service area for water and sewer, and as such, the project will be served by the City of Tampa for water and sewer.

The uh as far as off-site applicant commitments, North Church Avenue is substandard.

The project has been granted or not granted, but found to be approvable for a design exception by Mr.

Williams from Hillsborough County for the TTM on based on North Church Avenue.

And what that consists of is approximately 255 linear feet of off-site sidewalk that will be constructed along the west side of Church Av that will connect essentially and fill in the gaps for existing sidewalk that is not there currently.

There is an existing sidewalk south of West Idleweld Ave to our south.

Uh and again, we're putting in 255 feet from that project's entrance up to our existing sidewalk that is on the north side of our driveway and the driveway against existing for the phase one portion that's there now.

Uh as far as the project in summary, uh the partial zone RMC 20 and PD currently with a future land use of 20, R20.

The proposed zoning is PD to allow the 35 townhome units as depicted on the site plan.

Uh the project's density is a resulting 14.06, which is well below the 20 dwelling units allowable based on future land use category.

Uh the project is consistent with the county comprehensive plan.

Uh the project is not within a special zone, it's not within a coastal high hazard area, it's not a cultural resource zone, nor is it a surface water resource protection zone.

And the project does not have any designated historical landmarks or historical or large sites within its PD boundary, uh, with one or 50 150 feet of the PD boundary.

The project is not within a scenic corridor or adjacent to one.

Again, the project uh in conclusion is requesting the PD rezoning based on the 35 townhomes, 2025 of those being proposed, 10 be existing.

Uh I would request uh your proposal, your approval tonight, Mr.

Luce.

Thanks.

Okay, I mean it's clearly one zoning application, but is the track that's already developed?

Yes.

Is that under the same ownership as the piece that's vacant?

No, it is not.

Okay.

But they both signed off on the application.

That is my understanding, correct.

So you're working with both of them?

Yes.

You represent both of them.

Yes.

Okay.

And the driveway connection is to church.

Yes, sir.

And it'll go through the existing portion and then serve as a back portion as well.

Correct.

And is there any amenities within the front portion?

The front portion has an existing clubhouse.

And so there is a proposal to kind of give that a facelift, if you will, but as far as the square footage of that clubhouse, there's no intent to change that's proposition.

And the folks that live in the vacant area today, once developed, they'll be able to use the clubhouse.

Is that the end of the day?

The phase two would use the phase one clubhouse.

Yes.

Correct.

So it would be developed as one unified plan of development.

Correct.

The only caveat was what I mentioned about the first the eastern portion being more of a condo type unit.

It didn't have dedicated lots that they own.

It's one overall common HOA-owned property.

All right, got it.

Thank you.

All right.

Um development services staff.

Michelle Heinrich development services.

Staff reviewed a rezoning request for properties zoned RMC 20 and PD 850325 to a new PD to allow for 35 townhome and condominium units.

PD 850325 is currently approved for 18 multifamily units and has already been developed with six of those units.

The RMC20 property is currently developed with four units.

Will bring the total number of units to 35.

The site is located on the west side of Church Avenue, south of Pinecrest Manor Boulevard, which is located in the urban service area and within the RES 20 future land use category.

The surrounding area is developed with both single family and multifamily developments.

Existing single family resident residential is found to the southwest.

The PD's layout is primarily the same as approved in 1985, with the difference being the number of attached townhome units and the dead end on uh to Grady Road becoming a emergency only access point.

The project proposes a 20-foot wide buffer with type B screening.

We're abutting the residential single family to the west.

A five-foot buffer with type A screening, we're butting the single family to the south as proposed, which requires a PD variation request.

Staff would note that the 1985 PD also provided the same distance of five feet from the property line due to the internal roadway, which is not changing under this PD.

The project will comply with RMC 20 front yard setbacks and maximum height will be limited to 35 feet, which is 10 feet lower than what's permitted in the RMC 20 district.

Staff receive no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Okay, no questions, thank you.

Planning commission staff?

Willamickee planning commission staff.

The subject site is in the residential 20 feature liners category, is in the urban service area and not within the limits of a community plan.

The surrounding area contains a mixture of residential and institutional uses.

Collectively, these uses establish a mixed residential development pattern consisting of varying housing types and densities.

The proposed townhome development is residential in nature and provides an appropriate transition between the lower density single family residences and the existing multifamily developments in the area.

Rise 20 is intended to accommodate high density residential development at a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per gross acre.

The applicant is proposing 25 townhome units, which is below the maximum density permitted under the REST 20 designation.

The proposed townhome development is compatible with the surrounding mix of residential and institutional uses and provides a logical transition between the existing single family residences west of the site in the multifamily developments to the south and east.

Staff have not identified any compatibility concerns associated with the request.

Therefore, the proposed plan development is consistent with objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1.

Based upon the above considerations and the following goals of Jacobism policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

Okay, thank you.

This point in time, is there anyone in the audience wishes to speak in support of the application?

So no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

See no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.

None.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

That concludes this application.

Ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D3, PD 26-0270.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property, currently zone PD 94060 and RC6 to a new plan development.

Chris Graham Lenard with Development Services will present staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Applicant, please.

Hearing officer, this is Todd Pressby.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, there we are.

And let me share my screen.

Can you see the PowerPoint?

Hello.

Yes, we can see that.

Okay.

This is application 26-0270.

We come forward with all the services supporting.

Excuse me.

Did you announce your name and address?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Excuse me.

Todd Pressman, 200nd 2nd Avenue South, number 451 in St.

Petersburg.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Left that out.

Development services supports planning commission is consistent.

No agency objections, no public opposition, which I did check earlier today.

20 persons have been notified.

We are in the Brandon area.

And uh along Falkenberg at a small crossroad, Lynn Avenue.

I'll show you a little closer.

Falkenburg here, Lynn Avenue, abutting on the north.

It's these two parcels which would be brought together in unified PD plan, which is parcel one and parcel two, comprises a.27 acres, commercial building, and six-foot enclosed fence.

Issues of PD rezoning with variations conditions for the specific use of a contractor's office with open storage.

Condition is that the use on site will be restricted to a contractor's office with open storage.

The use of Sun Coast Development, families, uh full service family owned site development company utility contractor, license for the state of Florida underground utility excavation contractor, also the state license for fire license.

PD plan shows that at Falkenberg and Lynn, access on Lynn, the existing one story will remain with open storage as noted in these two spots, cross-hatched.

So same one-story building and two open storage areas.

This is probably the most important slide to make you aware that the site is surrounded by M zoning.

And as well under the future land use map.

UNU 20, which is intensive category, which is urban intensity and density of uses.

Typical uses include commercial and light industrial.

So on street level, uh these are the M's, the abutting warehouse structures to the east and to the south, and then across west on Falkenberg is Hillsborough County Elections Office, Sheriff and County Warehousing.

As you can see, noted Hillsburg County warehousing is included with the uses and a large antenna for the sheriff's office, which is shown here further.

Now also importantly, uh across Lynn Avenue, abutting to the north, the applicant or one property owner owns both parcels and is in support.

And that is in the record.

This is a copy of the record indicating from that property on the north that he is in support.

The variation has to do with accessory open storage in view of a street screening shall extend the terrier minimum of 100 feet, which obviously would be very difficult.

Actually, it would be impossible to do.

It is supported by staff in that the opacity still achieved the full compliance would be impractical.

Development services note the area does consist of uh light industrial institutional uses, building height overall development intensity remain low.

Transitions between the project area and surrounding parcels in a manner is consistent along North Falkenburg.

Planning Commission notes.

Uh it is located within the limits of the Brandon Community Plan, specifically in the light industrial character district.

Uh it is located within the limits of the Brandon Cleaning Plan, specifically in the light industrial character district, the existing single story, which is 11 uh 1,132 square feet, well within the allowable densities and will complement the area as it is located off the Carnegie Art Roadway with other non-residential uses that meets the intent of the character uh district.

Balkenberg is heavily traveled at 22,325 vehicles per day.

And the county transportation report notes this would be a reduction of 40 trips in the 24-hour two-way volume and reductions in the AM peak, uh AM and PM peaks.

So with that, we appreciate your attention.

Happy to answer any questions you might have.

No questions, thank you.

Uh development services.

Good evening.

Mr.

Alan Right.

Oh is it on?

Okay.

Planet with development services.

Uh I'm presenting uh PD 26-0270, which is a request to rezone two parcels totaling approximately 0.27 acres at 2601 Falkenburg Road to a unified plan development.

Uh the proposed PD would allow a contractor's office with associated open storage using the existing commercial structure on site as a principal building.

The site is enclosed by a six-foot opaque fence, and the proposed plan establishes setbacks of 10 feet along the North Falkenburg Road, 10.5 feet along the south and east, and three feet along Lynn Avenue frontage.

Uh the property is surrounded by a mix of uses.

Um there's a single family residential to the north and east, and uh to the where's a warehouse and industrial uses to the south and west.

Uh to address compatibility, the applicant uh maintains the existing building footprint, limits storage to a designated interiors of the site, and uh provides full visual screening along site boundaries.

The building height is limited to uh 14 feet and maintaining a low intensity profile that complements uh the nearby residential.

Uh variation is requested to reduce the depth of the required street-facing screening for the open storage area due to the size of the site, uh meeting the standard would not be feasible.

And the alternative screening maintains the required opacity while accommodating the parcels physical constraints.

Uh development services finds the request approvable, uh subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Includes my staff report.

Uh, answer any questions you might have.

Okay.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Will the Mickey Planning Commission staff?

The subject site is in the urban mixed use 20 feature landings category, is in the urban service area, and within the limits of the Brandon Community Plan, specifically the light industrial character district.

The UMU 20 care category is intended for urban scale residential development at a density of 20 dwelling units per gross acre or non-residential development at a floor area ratio of 1.0.

The existing single story building as well within the allowable intensity.

The surrounding landings pattern is comprised mostly of single-family residential, light and heavy commercial uses, light industrial uses, and public quasi public uses.

The proposed development will complement the area at is as it is located off of a county arterial roadway with other non-residential uses.

Although the applicant is requesting PD variations for building setback and landscape buffers, the applicant is still providing mitigation measures given the legal non-conforming location of the building on the northern boundary.

The proposal includes a six-foot opaque fence surrounding the perimeter of the site and a three-foot landscape buffer on a northern boundary, providing screening from the single-family residential.

The subject site is located within the limits of the branding community plan, specifically in the light industrial character district.

This area is intended to be devoted primarily to business parks, light industrial, and government uses.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Rod Fisher, 2506, Orient Road, Tampa, Florida, 33619.

And I'm in favor of the uh proposal for the uh rezoning.

I own the uh commercial of the eye on the uh residential properties to the north and the east side of the proposed property.

Okay, very good, thank you.

Thank you.

Is anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

No one responding.

Anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application.

So no one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.

I think we're good.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Hearing Officer.

You're good.

Yes, sir.

We're good.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

All right, with that, that concludes this application.

Our next application is item D4, PD 26-0422.

The applicant is requesting the rezone property from AR and plane development to a new plane development.

There are two comprehensive plan amendments associated with this rezoning, and all three are scheduled to be heard at the August 13th BOCC CPA public hearing.

Chris Greenlinard has reviewed this for development services and provide staff findings.

Okay.

Applicant, please.

Good evening, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson representing the applicant homes by West Bay.

Subject property is off of Lithia Pinecrest in the Lithia area.

We're located within one half mile of a fire station.

We have a sufficient school capacity in the CSA or adjacent CSA concurrency service area.

We have parks and recreation opportunities within three miles of the site.

This is the PD.

It's just for single family homes, it's 280 single family homes.

And then this is a rendered conceptual plan.

And what this actually shows is we are supporting putting conditions into the record this evening of where in the purple area requiring 90 by 130 lots.

And then we have a vertical screening area shown on green in green on uh below the purple, and that's a 20-foot vertical screen, and we're keeping that uh in the conditions, but we are adding the ability to keep existing vegetation.

There are some nice trees that we do want to retain, and so we're just uh proposing that as a condition, and I'll pass a copy to Michelle and then put a copy in the record.

So again, those are measures that we added after the staff report.

The staff has found the request for minimum 60-foot lots to be consistent, both the planning commission staff and development services, but in hearing some of the concerns of the residents, we thought that we would um make an additional effort and provide the 90-foot lots on the south side.

And with that, I'd ask like to ask our planner to come up and make a presentation.

Okay.

Um although there is a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use of the property to res two, which would allow for up to two dwelling units per acre.

Our actual entitlement ask of 280 units amounts to a density of 1.47 dwelling units per acre.

This development is a natural extension of the existing suburban pattern to the west, and it mirrors the scale and the feel of Fish Hawk to the north.

Um, particularly to the south.

Like Ms.

Corbett already mentioned, we are proposing a 20-foot landscaping and vertical screening area to the south and um and to the east and to further reinforce compatibility.

Um we are also offering 90 by 130 foot lots, um, specifically to create a more gradual transition to neighboring larger lot properties.

Approximately 54 percent of the site is open space with our current concept plan and natural features like ponds and wetlands provide further separation.

Um towards the bottom of the slide, you can see a rendering of what the landscaping and vertical screening area could look like.

It it's important to note that this type of transition is not unique to this project.

In fact, this is a very common and well-established development pattern in Hillsborough County, where different lot sizes and densities coexist successfully.

For example, in southern Hillsborough County, the South Shore Bay subdivision is currently under construction where townhomes are directly adjacent to single family residential properties, ranging from one to ten acres in size.

Another example in oh, I'm sorry.

This is an example in Wamama, where there was recently an urban service area expansion, reinforcing an already established growth pattern and avoiding the need for significant new off-site infrastructure extensions.

We see two-acre lots located directly adjacent to much smaller 40-foot wide lots, demonstrating that significant differences in lot size can and do exist compatibly when properly planned.

Another example in Northwest Tillsboro shows five-acre lots coexisting with 65-foot wide lots.

These are separated by vegetated buffers that create a cohesive development pattern.

And the graphic to the right shows how a semi-rural neighborhood with 70-foot lots was designed in harmony with rural style development.

This example also demonstrates how property with residential to future land use can exist in harmony with AR 1 to 5 future land use.

This is only a preliminary finding.

Should it happen that at the time that we go to file a preliminary plat, there is not adequate capacity.

Hillsboro County has a proportionate share process where we proportion we pay our proportionate fair share of a student station.

We pay that ahead of time so we can establish concurrency, and that's also mandated by state law.

Also wanted to just point out the regional infrastructure investments.

It's finally being funded.

It's in the CIT.

FDOT has set aside a hundred million dollars programmed over the next five years for this expansion.

The county is also doing uh improvements at Lithia Pinecrest and County Road 89.

You could back back up.

What's the segment of Lithia Pinecrest you're talking about?

I will ask Mr.

Henry to give that detail to you.

Okay.

Um and then there are intersection improvements at Lithia Pinecrest and County Road 39, and that's a 10 point nine million dollar investment.

And then there's regional infrastructure investments uh with one water that are coming along this same corridor.

Um and Mr.

Henry, if you could come up and speak to the segment.

Good evening.

Steve Henry Links and Associates 5023 West Laurel Tampa 33607.

Right now, the plan is for it to extend down to the Fish Hawk Ranch Boulevard and then taper.

Where does it start?

It starts up at 60.

Basically, you know, it'll go from 60 all the way down, uh, basically a four-lane section from from there down for where it's not four lanes today.

It'll extend down to Fish Hawk Boulevard at Fish Hawk Boulevard is proposed to be a roundabout at that location.

Uh, and then it'll transition from there back down to the two lanes south of there.

But it's basically from from it'll be four-lane from 60.

The other the actual start of the improvements are south of that, but basically it would be a four-lane section from there south to Fish Hawk Boulevard.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Once again, development services has found this uh application supportable, and the planning commission has found it consistent.

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

And if you don't, we do have five minutes remaining.

I'd like to possibly reserve that for rebuttal if it's needed.

Thank you.

Development services.

Good evening.

Chris Gramanar, Development Services.

Um presenting PD 26 dash 0422.

Uh request to rezone approximately 190 acres along with the uh Pinecrest Road to plan development that will allow up to 280 single family detached homes.

Uh the rezoning is accompanied by a comprehensive plan amendment uh to place the property within the urban service area and change the future land use designation to our uh residential two.

The surrounding area consists primarily of single family residential and agricultural uses.

Development has been designed with residential lots uh concentrated uh towards the interior of the site, while the perimeter includes open space, landscape easements, and a wetland conservation area.

Uh development standards uh include uh minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet, minimum lot widths of 60 feet, and front side and rear setbacks of 25 and 15 feet respectively.

Building height is limited to 35 feet.

Uh these standards help maintain a scale compatible with the nearby residential areas.

Environmental features have been incorporated into the plan, including protection of wetlands, uh required conservation setbacks and retention of significant trees where feasible.

Uh the wetland boundaries uh will be integrated into the future site plans and environmental permitting will incur during later review stages.

The planning uh development services uh recommends approval subject to the King's staff report.

Uh be glad to answer any questions you might have.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Planning commission staff.

Hello, Mickey, Planning Commission staff.

The site is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

The requested rezoning is concurrent with plan amendments HCCPA 2605 and 2606, which are amendments to expand the site into the urban service area and change the future land use to residential too.

Therefore, this rezoning request is reviewed as if the amendments are approved.

The current area is largely agricultural and residential with lower density rural style development occurring to the south and east of the site, and denser residential occurs to the north and west of the site within the urban service area.

This category allows for a maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre or a 0.25 floor area ratio.

The proposed plan development is for 280 dwelling units, which is an allowable use in 100 units under the maximum allowable density.

The proposed plan development will provide additional single-family housing within a predominantly residential and agricultural area.

The lower proposed density of 280 units will provide for a gradual transition of density between the agricultural and rural areas to the south and east and the denser semi-rural areas to the north and west.

The proposed lot sizes is 6,000 square feet or approximately 0.13 acres in size.

While the lot sizes proposed are much smaller than the lot sizes in the rural area to the south, they are extremely comparable to the lot sizes abutting the property directly to the north, which are approximately 0.11 acres in size and with within the USA in the residential to future lanes category.

The smaller lot sizes will also allow clustering of residential units to preserve the wetlands and open space currently on the site.

Policy 4.4.2 requires that neighborhoods be designed to include an efficient system of internal circulation and street sub-outs to connect adjacent neighborhoods.

At present, the main entrance to the proposed plan development is via Lithia Pinecrest Road.

There is an additional access to the site from Dorman Road.

However, this entrance is proposed to be an emergency access only to protect the existing rural neighborhood to the south of the site.

The proposed plan development meets this policy, and as the proposed access is oriented towards the ex existing semi-rural neighborhoods with additional access into the rural areas that is restricted to control traffic impacts while still providing for potential feature connection.

Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

If you could, you what's the status of the plan amendments from AR to R2?

Where is it in the process?

It has been heard by the Planning Commission and is coming to the Board of County Commissioners with an official finding of inconsistent from the planning commission members.

Inconsistent.

Inconsistent.

So the Board of County Commissioner will hear this on July 13th.

And from rural to urban, what's the status of that amendment?

That is concurrent or con uh joined with uh land use change.

And so they will be heard together.

Okay, but was it voted on separately or um let me guess it's not done really substantially matter, but but the inconsistency also is attached to go from rural to urban.

I believe so.

Let me double check on that for you and then I'll let you know.

Okay.

Um okay, so the planning commission has voted to find it inconsistent, but your recommendation is consistent.

The PC staff did recommend consistent on the plan amendment.

Um, however, planning commission board recommended and consistent, correct.

But you you find the current application that's proposed consistent.

The PD we we are finding consistent as well because we are um viewing the rezoning as if the amendment has been approved.

Okay.

That helps, thank you.

Oh, Mr.

Luce.

I'm sorry.

Um just to add some clarification on where the CPA is right now, and I can ask um Willow to confirm.

I believe the transmital hearing was last week.

Oh, this month.

Oh, last month.

Okay.

Kimmy has been at both of those meetings, so she would know better, but you are correct.

Yeah, there's only one hearing left, and that was the date we announced of the August 13th.

Yes, is that correct?

I apologize for that incorrect information.

It has been transmitted to state.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you for the but the findings are as you put on the record.

In consistency?

Correct.

Okay.

Um we'll deal with um any consistency in what was put on the record.

Um Corbett, if it only relative to the question about the status of the compliment amendments, the findings of the planning commission.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

The plan amendments, both the urban service expansion and the request R2 were found consistent by planning commission staff.

There was a split vote at the planning commission hearing, a four-three vote for inconsistency with two Hillsborough County planning commissioners absent, and then the Board of County Commissioners heard it last month, and they found it consistent and transmitted on a by a vote of five to two.

Okay, thank you.

All right, at this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

I see no one responding.

Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to the application?

Uh before we get started, I I will recognize for the record that there's quite a few people that stood up in opposition.

I don't know if you have a designated speaker or not.

Um let's let's give it a try.

Let's see where we go.

All right.

Good evening.

My name is Jane Graham, attorney at Sunshine City Law 737 Main Street, suite 100 Safety Harbor.

I represent Preserve Rural Lithia, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting the rural character and quality of life in Lithia in the area directly surrounding the proposed development.

With me tonight, I have land use planner Susan Swift, who is joining virtually, as well as Miles Scott, Mia Stewitzman, Lisa Wolfson, and Erica Taylor.

And we've prepared a 15-minute presentation.

Just so you know, you there's a total of 15 minutes and opposition.

So I don't know.

You are the spokesperson for the group?

Yes.

Okay.

Um gentleman standing next to you.

I'm not so sure he agrees with you.

Yeah.

All right, but I understand I'll use your 15-minute presentation as part of their 15 minutes as well.

Yeah, I'm going to talk for about two minutes and introduce them.

Okay.

I'm just the lawyer.

They have the evidence.

All right, go ahead.

Good evening.

This application fails to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the applicant fails to provide competent substantial evidence that the criteria of 100300 E are met.

As a threshold issue, this application is contingent on two comprehensive plan amendments, which the planning commission found inconsistent based on, among other points, the lack of transition between surrounding land uses.

You will hear testimony from land use planner Susan Swift as to the numerous other inconsistencies with requirements relating to protecting rural uses, neighborhood character and compatibility, and agricultural uses within the comprehensive plan.

Further, a plan development under section 5.0304 is the incorrect tool for this application because adjacent land use compatibility is clearly a significant factor, taking up at least a whole page of the staff report, as well as you will hear lots of testimony tonight about compatibility.

The evidence packet, which I'm going to provide into the record, provides further details on the incompatibility with the surrounding area, including surrounding deed restrictions from Dorman Ranch, Dorman Meadows, and Lithia Ranch, which expressively caught expressly contemplates and protects the investment backed expectations of the surrounding property owners for single family homes on five to ten acre parcels with explicit requirements and allowances for a variety of livestock and architectural requirements.

I have all this in here.

Finally, the proposal lacks the required specificity in its site plan as to development requirements 6.2.1 and fails to provide meaningful notice as to the impacts to the area.

The new plan, which was just presented tonight, has not previously been part of the staff report, and we do object to that in that we haven't had an opportunity to fully evaluate.

In addition to the package of evidence, I'm also providing Preserve Rural Lithia's documents relating to the request for denial of the two comprehensive plan amendments, which are important, as well as the bylaws for Preserve Rural Lithia and the stack of letters from Preserve Rural Lithia's members as to their specific impacts.

And I um we'd say the next person is Susan Swift.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Okay, next person.

Thank you.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

My name is Susan Swift.

I'm a certified planner, and my report and resume have been submitted to Miss by Miss Graham.

I'm speaking on behalf of Preserve Rural Lithia Inc.

in opposition to this rezoning.

First, the general site plan is deficient according to the land development code and the development review procedures manual.

It does not provide quotes deficient graphic and notational information to provide a clear understanding of the proposed development and its relationship with the surrounding area.

Close quote.

And that's section 6.2.1 of the manual.

Earlier site plans submitted by the developer were already missing required information.

But the June site plan is more like a survey than a site plan, not what you saw tonight.

The applicant has removed the roads, buffers are missing, open spaces are inaccessible.

They show no ponds, no amenities, trails, pedestrian connections, and the phasing information is internally inconsistent.

All of these items are required either by the code or by the manual.

There is no conceptual design or wasn't until tonight.

And they're according to the plan on file, there is zero predictability for where these lots would be located within the 190 acres.

Never in my career have I seen a site plan so devoid of information that got to a hearing the point of a public hearing.

I'm surprised that the county didn't require resubmittal before what you saw tonight and delay this hearing, especially since the plan amendments are trailing behind this.

The site plan also violates the intent of the PD, which says the intent of these districts is to encourage creative, innovative, andor mixed use development, and to ensure and promote land use compatibility and harmony, Section 50301.

And also says when adjacent use compatibility is not a significant factor, Section 50303A.

This project is not creative, not mixed use, and its density and lot sizes are certainly making compatibility a significant factor for the property rights of the surrounding owners.

Second, the project is not compatible with surrounding properties.

The proposed 6,000 square foot lots, which is all that is on the on-file site plan, are 100% incompatible with the lot sizes on all 28 abutting lots on three sides of the project, where those lots are a minimum of five acres according to the future land use plan, the zoning, and as flatted.

There are only two single family districts in the entire county that have smaller lots.

The setbacks are also not compatible.

The proposed setbacks as shown on the filed site plan are among the smallest setbacks of any zoning district in the county.

The application implies, and it was stated again tonight that they are merely extending the development pattern of Fish Hawk Ranch.

However, the site plan has none of its design creativity, curvilinear streets, open space or amenities, and fit contrary to what was said tonight, fish hawk's lot sizes along the boundary of the north are approximately 7,000 square feet average, larger than the 6,000 that is in the PD on file.

Fish fish hawks setbacks are also larger, and their lot coverage on the site plan is 35 to 45 percent, whereas uh 65 to 75 percent, which has fish hawk is 35 to 45 percent lot coverage.

Um the point one point eleven lot sizes that were referred to tonight are only um on a small portion to the east of Fishhawk near Lithia Pinecrest.

Third, it's not consistent with the comprehensive plan.

These differences are significant.

They are not, quote, gradual transitions as required by policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.1.3, uh 3.1.2.

Uh the rezoning would increase the density 630% from 38 lots to 280.

Said another way, 36 6,000 square foot lots can fit into just one five-acre lot, which is what this zoning is abutting on three sides of the site.

The project is not designed to be quote, related to the predominant character of their surroundings, objective 4.4.

The project is not consistent with the urban service area or the urban expansion area goals and policies, goal one, and the project is not consistent with objective 1.2 and policy 1.2.1, which emphasizes protection of rural areas.

Thank you very much.

Ma'am, can we get your full address for the record?

3621 South Hesperdies Street, Tampa.

Thank you.

Okay, next please.

Thank you.

Miles Scott, I live at 18505 Dorman Road, across from the proposed site.

This is a rural area.

There is no debate.

The question in front of you is narrower.

Whether a res two subdivision is compatible with the rural area that surrounds it.

And it isn't.

The site is bordered on three sides by agricultural rural properties with one home per five acres.

And on the north, it boxes in two AR zone properties, cutting them off from rural uses around them and stranding them inside of a subdivision.

There is no natural transition between these things.

These are completely different types of places.

And that conflict only sharpens over time.

The sounds and smells of a working farm, the animals, the early mornings, all become complaints what's once a subdivision sits next to them.

The easiest fix to this is to keep well-defined areas for dense housing separate from agricultural land.

Just because we have a grocery store and a pizza shop does not make us a suburban community.

On behalf of Pro Reservoir, Lithia, I ask you to recommend denial and define on this record that Res 2 is not compatible with the surrounding rural area.

Thank you, sir.

Would you mind repeating your name and address?

Miles Scott 18505 Dorman Road.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir.

My name is Mia Stutzman, and I live at 18917 Boyette Road in Lithia.

My 10 acres comprises approximately 50 percent of the subject property's western border.

Allowing two units per acre is more dense than anything built around it, 20 percent higher than the Fishhawk Ranch development to the north and more than 10 times greater than on the other three sides.

While the request is not for ultra-high density, the transition would not be gradual but profound.

This is the last large tract of land between the urban and rural area at this location, so it is critically important that the transition be managed.

My neighbors and I respectfully disagree with the statement in the development services report that the homes are located on the interior of the site based on the site plan.

Other than where the emergency exit is, there is no open space or uh conservation area along the south side of the um site plan.

The development will barely touch the PDs to the north because of the location of the protected wetlands.

Homes built 10 feet apart will be adjacent to the low density properties to the south and east.

Twenty feet of landscaping cannot fully mitigate the noise, traffic, pet, and lighting impacts on horses and livestock.

And I I will say that um this is the second time we've had a very last-minute change to the site plan and to the documentation provided, which makes it extremely frustrating as a member of the public to prepare for um meetings like this and presentations like this.

While we appreciate the applicant's uh revised site plan that was provided tonight, the lot size is still only a quarter acre.

And again, it will be a budding uh residences that are on five to ten acres.

Uh also to the examples provided, just because it exists does not mean that the surrounding residents are happy with it.

Policy one 3.1.3 requires sensitivity to all surrounding development, not just suburban neighbors.

A significant portion of the perimeter is rural.

We respectfully request that the hearing master deny the proposal and adhere to the density included in the approved comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next, please.

And to advance it.

Do I just have the hair right there?

This one, the bottom one.

Okay.

Lisa Wolfson, 1833, Lithia Town Road, Lithia, Florida.

For 10 years, we lived just north of the subject property, an extremely active wildlife corridor follows Little Fishhawk Creek leading to the subject's northern border.

We absorb the observed deer, bobcat, otter, and one night we watched a Florida Panther cross the road following the creek to the subject.

This is an overview of the wildlife corridor in pink that follows Little Fishhawk Creek onto the subject property.

The numbered circles are 11 Panther sightings by people that I know personally.

Their encounters are on email, uh on file, their emails are on file with the B BOCC portal.

The pathway of sighting starts at the Allifire River, passes through the subject property, and then onto Cheeto Branch and Alpha State Park.

I had a second encounter while riding my horse in Cheeto Branch.

This is the FWC's photo verified Panther sightings in our area.

These are only the ones there where there is photos.

These are some of the photos by provided by FWC.

This is just some of the wildlife corridor pictures.

Okay, so come on.

So they've changed the uh they've changed the sizes here.

Five acres, uh six a sixty by one hundred lot is only 30 136th of five acres.

This is actually my property.

Um the yellow box is the five acres, and the little tiny white box there, that's that's a uh six thousand square foot.

You can make it a little larger, like they did, but it is still significantly different.

We respectfully actual ask that you reject this.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Okay, next, please.

Good evening.

Okay, good evening.

My name is Erica Taylor.

I live at 406 Swilly Road, Plant City.

Lithia Pinecrest Road is a two-lane substandard arterial road with uneven shoulder widths.

It's also a designated truck route serving phosphate mines used daily by semis, dump trucks, and large agricultural trailers.

Per section 6.4.4D, turning lanes are required but can't be accommodated.

So applicant is requesting roundabout at the entrance next to the TICO natural gas facility that has National Fire Protection Association sign indicating that um it's a health and um has fire hazard.

So it's kind of concerning with the circulation of the roundabout if something were to happen and someone go off the roundabout, possibly hitting that.

Um, this project will add over 2500 daily trips, pushing the corridor to almost double the 16,000 trip capacity to 28,000 vehicles per day.

Yes, there is widening um construction planned for Lithia Pinecrest and the intersection of Lithia Pinecrest and 39, but that can also be going on at the same time as this construction of this development, and it's gonna add more homes and construction on the same uh road.

Variances should only be allowed when the hardship is not self-created and when public health, safety, and welfare are protected.

This hardship is entirely self-created by the applicant because they designed a sub sub suburban scale project on a rural arterial that cannot support it, and now ask the county to waive the very safety standards that protect the public.

Oh do I get to keep going?

How much more time do you need?

Oh, just like a minute.

Okay, and there's one more speaker.

Okay.

Okay, I'll give you total combined three more minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Um meanwhile, there could be possibility of schools overcrowding and emergency response times are expected to worsen, and agribusiness concerned about transporting crops and livestock delays.

The transportation network and public services are already overburdened.

County code requires two independent access points for developments, generating more than 180 peak hours or peak trips.

This project generates 248 with only one entrance.

A few future eastern stub out is speculative, and the emergency only connection to Dorman is 16 to 18 foot substandard rural road and doesn't qualify as a secondary access.

The applicant also speaks or seeks an access spacing variance, reducing the required 330 feet down to 70 feet between driveways on a freight corridor with limited eastbound site distance.

The roundabout and spacing issues exist only because the applicant is trying to upzone from AR15 to Res 2.

These variances are being requested because the project can't meet code and granting them would shift the burden onto residents, travelers, and emergency responders.

It's clear this project doesn't meet county codes and isn't safely supported by the surrounding infrastructure.

Please deny this rezoning.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Michaela McFadden.

I live at 4502 Coconut Cove.

I live down before the develop proposed development on Lithia Pinecrest.

Hillsborough County utilizes Vision Zero to help make our roadways safer.

If you are unfamiliar with the county initiative and want to read more on it, uh the plan can be found on Hillsborough.org.

In support of vision zero, I want to address traffic around my home.

In a stretch of just one mile on Lithia Pinecrest in just a little over a year, three fatalities have occurred.

One, a child pedestrian.

Their memorial is located on Lithia Pinecrest.

As a reminder to drive safely, and that this is a neighborhood where there are many children walking to playgrounds and their friends' homes.

In that mile is also an elementary school zone where children walk to and from school.

Just beyond that school zone is another school zone where a police officer has to stand in out in the road every morning to direct traffic in order to help those families get into that school safely.

Uncapped sidewalks, lacking sufficient crosswalks, and no warning lights by the bridge where another fatality occurred.

In fact, two fatalities now occurred in the same spot on that road.

That road is the road to my house.

Right where I pull in to my home, right where the school bus stops.

I live off Lithia Pinecrest.

I had no idea how bad traffic was when we purchased our home.

My family has unfortunately witnessed the emergency response of two of these fatalities.

My family is behind me.

I've said fatality a lot.

What do you think the consequence will be to adding 300 more families to this area?

It is going to put them at risk too.

They will be unknowingly buying into this mess.

We are still at step one in regards to Lithia Pinecrest Roadway development.

A community meeting has occurred to address Lithia Pinecrest roads traffic patterns change.

Properties have yet not been acquired.

The desire and support for that change is there.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay.

Um this point in time, staff, anything further?

Uh Michelle Hiring Development Services.

Um, just to I guess clarify for the site plan that is associated with this review in reference in our report.

The June site plan, which was referenced um earlier, is not what we um used in our report because it was lacking significant information.

So the April site plan, which was um fully correct, is the one that was used in reference in our report.

Okay.

Um could you clarify it?

So did you make that clear in your staff report that you're referring to an April site plan?

Okay.

And then regarding the changes, have you seen the conditions earlier today, or have you reviewed those conditions?

I've received those from the applicant 13 at this hearing, and it looks as if it is proposing larger lot sizes along the south, and the ability to have existing vegetation in it in addition to planet vegetation for the um screening that they've noted.

Okay.

And do you have an opinion about the conditions?

Um anything more compatible.

We don't have any concern with them increasing the lot sizes along the south or increasing the screening.

Okay.

And how do you implement that?

Is the condition say per the graphic that was shown at the hearing on June 22nd?

It can be done that way.

Typically, what we will do is in the conditions of approval, we will specifically state what is required, such as the type of plantings or fencing or the frequency of those, and make sure that it is clear on the site plan where that's required if it's not specified in the conditions.

Between today and when I have to write my recommendation.

Do I get to see your updated staff report that addresses the proposed conditions?

We would not be filing a word another staff report.

Correct.

And there's the conceptual site plan that was presented by the applicant.

I think they committed to the location of where those larger lots would go.

And I think that said something about at least one more stormwater pond in a specific location.

Uh the only thing that's mentioned here is the minimum lot size and lot width.

I don't see anything in regards, let me see, stormwater.

No, nothing in the in the changes that were provided to us from the applicants team.

Okay.

Okay, anything else?

Um nothing from zoning.

I don't know if transportation has any information to yes.

I would like to ask transportation about the status of Lithia Pinecrest.

I heard the applicant say it's proposed to be widened to four lanes.

Do you can you provide any additional information on the status of that ongoing planning process?

Yes, uh Mr.

Zoning Hearing Master.

Uh Lithia Pinecrest is uh the subject of a project uh development environmental study that was in the final approval stage as of earlier this year.

I believe it is approved.

It is identified in the county's capital improvement uh plan as a roadway corridor improvement.

Um the final programming of the construction has not yet been determined, um, but the capital improvement uh planning process is an annual process, which is updated each year.

I did um bring copies of the project sheet uh to provide you with and to put into the record.

Okay.

Um also, if I may have the opportunity, I I there were some uh comments made regarding the project spacing and the number of access points.

Um both of those are requirements of part 604 uh of the land development code access management.

Um the county engineer did review requested administrative variances, 60402 be administrative variances for those components uh and did find approvable um the request for uh relief for the spacing, the minimum driveway spacing and the uh minimum number of access points.

Okay.

I know it's zoning level, but uh I think the testimony was they want to also build a roundabout at their entranceway.

Yes, the applicant proposed to build a roundabout at the entrance uh and staff uh reviewed that with the county engineer.

It is part of the proposed uh conditions of approval.

Okay, which would be designed, the final design would be determined at the time of site.

Okay.

Um and then the uh one last thing is the substandard roadway the applicant has uh uh uh elected to defer the determination of uh the final improvements for the substandard roadway, but they will be required at the time of site to make improvements uh that are consistent with the transportation technical manual.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, anything else, Michelle?

No, sir.

Okay.

Uh at this point in time, the applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Good evening, Cami Corbett again.

I'd like to ask Steve Henry to come up and address some of the traffic concerns.

Okay, good evening, Steve Henry again.

Uh a couple things.

One one, I wanted to um on the the CIP project.

It it actually starts at Lumpston, so I just wanted to make that clear, I think uh uh in the information that Mr.

Pereza gives you, which is the summary of it, it will say that it is from Lumpston to Fish Hawk Boulevard.

So just wanted to make that clear, that that clarification.

Then I want to talk about if I can get to the Almoh.

So a couple things are brought up about the roundabout.

So one is the the fact that it is adjacent to the TICO gas facility.

In fact, in my opinion, that actually makes it safer because the the Tico facilities here.

As you approach that, and if if we made it a regular intersection, you'd be going at speed as you as you went across there with people coming in and out.

With this, everybody is slowing down to 25 miles per hour in the roundabout.

So that actually decreases any of the speeds going next to that.

And second, as far as the spacing, the why why we're putting the roundabout where we're putting it, what we've tried to do here is there is an eastbound left turn lane into the subdivision here.

So we are maintaining their left turn lane at their current size.

So that puts the roundabout here.

The only spacing criteria that we are doing is to this single family home that actually has two driveways to lithia today.

So that's that's what we're doing.

So we were trying to balance the difference between a subdivision entrance.

Oops, a subdivision entrance versus a single family when it has two driveways.

So that was the reason for that.

And then second, as far as the number of driveways is indicated, we are asking for a design exception to that administrative variance to that.

The requirement we would be 1.38 if you take the the actual numbers of the code.

So yes, we are technically over one, barely over one, but we have done the analysis to demonstrate that the roundabout does operate acceptable level of service.

We reviewed the the layout with the county engineer, and he is a deemed it approvable from that standpoint.

And is there sufficient ride away in that location for a roundabout?

Yes, that that's why we actually that was one of the county engineers' questions for us to be able to demonstrate to him with a layout here that there is sufficient right away to be able to put that in and that it will function.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening.

Hi, Evan Porman, uh 3010 West Azile Street, Tampa, Florida.

Uh I'm an environmental scientist at Clearview Land Design.

I'm just up here to talk about the Panthers issue the public brought up.

Um second.

There we go.

You want to all right, thank you.

Um so here right now is a map of current scientifically verified sightings of Florida Panthers.

The orange is U.S.

Fish and Wildlife, or the green is, and then the orange is FWC.

That's not the only data sources available.

The public has pictures, but as a scientist, I have to use what's verified scientifically by these agencies.

But what it does show is that I think the public is right that the Alfire River floodplain is a wildlife corridor for Panthers.

They might occasionally come up, but given the number of sightings in this area, it's rather a rare occurrence.

And going off of, let's see, like I've done Panther habitat mitigation in the past, and so they might occur near project site, but what matters is is the habitat on site actually viable for them.

And his Panthers require large, dense, uninterrupted forest land, and that's just not present on the habitat or the project site right now.

For example, a territory of a male Panther is around 200 square miles, and that's just not represented on the project site.

But when we go to permitting and construct or permit the project, FWC will receive our permit application and have a chance to look at you know, habitat, these Panther sightings.

The issue can be brought up then too, but they will ultimately decide whether some sort of mitigation measure needs to be pursued.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Next, we have Chris O'Kelly who's gonna address stormwater.

Yeah, here we go.

Thanks, Line.

Chris O'Kelly, uh 3010 West of Ziel Street, uh, Tampa, Florida, 33609, um, with Clearview Land Design.

I know there was a few questions regarding uh stormwater on the project.

So we have looked at the Hillsborough County um Alpha River watershed.

Um, a large portion of the site does drain to Little Fish Hawk Creek to the uh north, then also a portion drains to the south to Dorman Road.

So um for this site, it is uh gonna be heavily restricted with stormwater criteria if it's developed.

So we've listed some of the permit requirements here.

Um, Swift Mud, Hillsboro County, the site portion of the site also falls in a peak sensitive drainage basin, which has additional uh attenuation requirements.

Um we also have to follow the new statewide stormwater treatment requirements, which requires a uh net reduction in nutrient runoff.

Um so there's a little summary below.

Um you can see there's gonna be a net reduction in stormwater runoff and also a net reduction in nutrient runoff as well.

Um, also with the new statewide stormwater treatment requirements and swift mud um ERP requirements, there will be long-term operation and maintenance requirements that's it.

Yeah, well, let me follow up.

You've seen that conceptual site plan that's been shown tonight.

Yes, I have.

How realistic is that in terms of general location of stormwater ponds?

Uh the locations are good.

I mean, they're generally located.

Um obviously, stormwater runs off from high to low points on topography.

So we actually have an abundance of ponds and plenty of area for stormwater treatment attenuation.

If there is floodplain on the site, which there might be small portions of on the west, we've got plenty of ponds to attenuate that.

Okay.

So on a typical site, on average, you know, we would recommend around 20 percent pond.

We've got you know, more than that, probably about 25 percent pond on the site.

And that's developable footprint.

All right, thank you.

Chair.

Uh, Mr.

Hearing Master, if I could please ask for three additional minutes.

I don't think I need the entire five that I had reserved.

I might not even need the three, but there's just a few things I want to address.

In opposition, three extra minutes.

So I'll grant you three extra minutes as well.

Okay, thank you.

Um, just for I have a copy of the conditions.

If you would like to actually see them, I would.

Okay.

Um, so the red line shows where we've increased the lot sizes along the southern boundary.

Uh, to uh we that's how we've worded it.

If you want to tie it to this conceptual plan, that's fine too.

In it in your review of the conditions.

We can also, we don't have any conditions in there as to these uh distances, but if you wanted to incorporate those that are shown on this conceptual plan, you may also um include that.

And again, I just want to remind you that you know, and again, I heard there was an objection for their lawyer for these addition of these conditions.

I think that they address compatibility.

If you were to reject those conditions, we would end up with sixty-foot lots all around the perimeter.

So I don't think that that would be um something that would be a result that they would want should this get approved.

Um so and again, this is not the comprehensive plan amendment.

It's not your role, as you know, to decide the matter of whether the urban service boundary should be expanded in this area and whether or not residential to future land use category is appropriate for this site.

The request is concurrent with the rezoning, so you're asked to review it, assuming that the comprehensive plan is approved by the board of county commissioners.

If the expansion is denied, um then none of this this all goes away, right?

And so if the expansion is denied and the board does not think residential two is an appropriate category, then you're take looking at this in a completely different different lens, which is you you've been asked to this evening is to keep it one to five.

That's not within the purview of this zoning hearing.

Um, and so I just wanted to place that on the record as well.

Um, and again, look to the development services staff report and the planning commission staff report who often see PDs, they see different uh sizes of land use, they look at buffering and screening techniques, and in their professional opinion, they found that this request is compatible as it was proposed at sixty-foot lots, and certainly according to Ms.

Heinrich's testimony, that the what we're proposing in the conditions improves compatibility.

And with that, we'd respectfully request your approval.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh, that concludes this application.

I appreciate everybody's patience and coming down tonight.

Um Michelle, if we don't, if you don't mind, let's take a 10-minute break, roughly nine minute break.

It's eight fifty now.

Let's reconvene at nine p.m.

So let's uh temporarily adjourn and we'll come back in nine minutes at nine p.m.

Thank you.

I need to get the

Okay, welcome back everyone.

We're reconvening tonight's June twenty second, two thousand twenty-six zoning hearing master hearing.

Michelle, we're ready to introduce the next item.

Our next item is item D seven, PD twenty-six-six five one.

The applicant is requesting a rezone property from AR to plane development.

James Baker has reviewed this for development services, and I'll provide a staff findings after the application.

Did you skip over?

Oh 26.

My apologies, Gina.

Thank you.

Going back going backwards, the next item is D five, PD twenty-six dash zero four three three.

The applicant is requesting to rezone property um from RSC nine and CG to plan development.

Um Carol A.

Pedal has reviewed this, and I will preside provide her staff findings tonight.

Good evening, Mr.

Luce.

My name is Gina Grimes with Bradley Aaron Bolton Cummings, one thousand and one Water Street, suite one thousand, Tampa, Florida.

And I'm here this evening representing Cadence Partners on this rezoning request from RC Nine and CG to PD.

Um the property is on the west side of George Road, about five hundred feet north of Hillsborough Avenue.

Um the proposed uses are limited to light industrial uses of no more than a hundred thousand square feet, and that's just would allow for warehousing, wholesale or manufacturing, just those three uses.

Um accessory as an accessory use, we've also proposed temporary storage of of bulk goods.

Um I will discuss the PD and more specifics a little bit later in this presentation, but first I'd like to address the um staff report.

Uh the county staff has recommended approvable with conditions.

Um there are no other agency objections through the county.

Um there are conditions requested by transportation and natural resources to which we've agreed, um, to those conditions as requested.

Um the planning commission staff, um, that's really the only objection that we need to address.

Uh the planning commission staff has made a recommendation of inconsistent and interestingly, it's the same position that they took with regard to the companion um comp plan amendment to LIP.

They also recommended to their board inconsistent.

However, the planning commission board voted on May uh eleventh to recommend approval.

They they voted that the um proposed comp plan amendment to LIP was consistent.

And the reason that they did so was because they looked at the uses in the larger surrounding area and not just those uses close to the site.

And in particular, they considered the fact of the proximity of this site to Tampa International Airport and to other commercial and industrial development in the area.

So let's let it let's look at the subject property.

So it's not often that you see a vacant lot of this size in the urban service area.

This is a great lot for an urban service area infill project.

The reason that that it is vacant is although it's been marketed by the owner for several years now, he marketed it as the under the RC9 zoning, was not able to attract a buyer.

And I've said previously that if you can't attract multifamily residential to a site of this size in this market, then you're not likely to ever attract that type of use.

So we have been told by the real estate professionals that have been involved that it's just not suitable for residential development.

The reason it's not suitable is take a look at the configuration of the lot.

It's a long rectangular lot, it's about 330 feet in width and about 900 feet in length.

That type, that configuration definitely constrains development flexibility.

We've also been told by the real estate professionals that it's too small to support a surface parking lot and on-site retention that would be needed for multifamily residential development.

And if they move to structured parking, then it would substantially increase the construction costs and make the rents too high for this particular location so close to industrial.

So another reason it's not suited for residential, is it's also in a coastal high hazard area and an evacuation zone.

As we've heard discussed a lot in the last two years since the hurricanes, that it's not appropriate to encourage uh more residential in this area.

So another reason why residential is no longer appropriate.

Um, and I've cited for you some comp plan policies that in fact discourage increases in density in the coastal high hazard area.

So when you look at the surrounding area, you're gonna see a um that there's already a mix of commercial and industrial zoning and industrial uses.

And I'm gonna go ahead to the zoning map.

Um on the north and the west boundaries, you do have the RSC 9.

However, this site does not directly abut that residential.

To the north is about a one and a half acre uh site owned by Hillsborough County, and to the north of that is a drainage easement that's privately owned.

On the west side, you also have another strip of land kind of underneath the red line, but between the red line and the um and the residential, you have a 20-foot wide uh county drainage easement.

On the east side of the site across George Road, the property zone CI, and the uses there are industrial and heavy commercial.

You have a mini warehouse, you can see all those long containers, that's actually a mini warehouse facility, and then directly adjacent on the east on the on the east side of George Road, you have a paver company that has a lot of outdoor storage and large vehicles, um, forklifts and so forth that are stored outdoors all along that western boundary of the site on the other side of the street.

And you also have auto sales on the south side.

South, directly south of the site, you have a I think it's a Thornton's gas station and and um convenience store to the west of that.

You have more CG zone property.

Um, and but it you'll see that that I don't think I can use the cursor on this, but that facility to the um to the west is uh is labeled under the um planning commission's maps as an industrial use.

It's a small um manufacturing facility.

You have CG along uh Hillsborough Avenue to the south of that.

Um that CG contains um some auto sales and some other retail uses.

There's even a an auto repair, small auto repair facility.

All of those, those intensive zoning districts are all adjacent to that same residential area.

Um south of Hillsborough Avenue, I want to point out there's quite a bit of CI down there, and um directly south of the site on the south side of Hillsborough Avenue is a large um auto uh uh uh car lot, um, a large auto car lot.

So um with those mix of uses as well as a mix of zoning districts, um, we believe that the site is appropriate for industrial warehouse use at this location.

And when you look at our PD plan, you also see that that that makes this proposal even even more appropriate and more reasonable.

So let's take a look at the PD plan.

I'm gonna go ahead and put it up on the map.

I want to point out to you on the right side is north.

On the top of this is um is west, on the bottom is east, and on the left side of the of the plan is south.

I had to do it that way to fit it all on here.

Um but the height of the proposed, it's a hundred thousand square foot building, limited to those three uses warehouse, wholesale, and manufacturing, um, no more than a hundred thousand square feet.

It is um going to be 45 feet in height, and um in my PowerPoint um I have that it was a.36 FAR, it's actually a.34 FAR on the zoning, so that was a typo.

That point 34 is approximately half of the.75 FAR that's permitted under the proposed LIP comp plan category.

And another interesting outcome in this proposal is that based on the traffic analysis, and this is um this is supported in the staff report, the proposed PD generates 1,600 fewer daily trips compared to the development that could occur under the existing zoning.

So this rezoning actually decreases the traffic impacts.

And um, I also want to talk about the compatibility measures because that's really the most important issue on this proposal.

Um setbacks on the north side, we have 120 feet.

Um that's the on the right hand side.

On the east, which is along George Road, we have 118 feet to the building.

Um, I'm sorry, on the south, we have 145 feet from the property line to the building.

On the west, we have 30 feet.

Why is it so small on that side?

Because of our the effort to fit all of the um loading dock and the parking on the um east side of the building away from the residential.

So um what we ended up doing is um agreeing to uh well we do let me go back.

We do need a waiver for the buffer distance on the west, not because it doesn't meet the buffer requirements, but because there's an additional two to one setback that's in section 6.0101 of the code that requires us to increase that buffer from 30 feet to 80 feet because of the um height of 45 feet.

Um it's kind of an unusual requirement, but um it's it's nonetheless required.

So we've agreed to an additional condition which provides that buffer compatibility measure on the west.

I think that justifies the waiver, and I think it was also probably the basis for the county staff's recommendation of approval.

And so what we'll have on the west, we have a 30-foot-wide buffer type C screening, but we'll have a masonry wall that's eight feet in height, and then we'll have two staggered rows of evergreen shade trees, which are not less than 10 feet at the time of planning.

So rather than just one row of trees, we're gonna have a double row of trees and again a higher wall.

So when you look at um, when you look at the the site from coming from um Georgia Road, you have um a hundred and eighteen feet to the building within that area, you have the loading dock and the parking.

That's where all the activity is gonna occur.

Then you have the building behind that, which will shield a lot of that activity at 45 feet in height.

Then beyond that, you have a 30-foot buffer area, and in that buffer area you have a double row of 10-foot trees, and then beyond that, you're gonna have an eight-foot wall, and then beyond that, you have another 20 feet of the county drainage area, and that's before you even hit the residential.

So it we believe these compatibility measures really does do protect and buffer the residential.

Um, in addition to that, you also have a um uh a uh a one-acre retention pond along the northern boundary, and then um keep in mind that under the land development code you do have performance standards for manufacturing.

They include lighting, sound, vibration, airborne discharges, and dust standards.

So all of that will be um addressed.

So now I'd like to go on to the planning commission's recommendation, planning commission staff's recommendation.

There were two comp plan policies that the staff cited regarding compatibility with the character of the area.

Um we believe that the planning commission staff did not evaluate enough of the surrounding area to determine the true character of this of this area.

Um, and again, this was the reason we think the planning commission board itself recommended that the LIP compan amendment was consistent and they overrode staff's objection in that instance too.

The site is only 1,700 feet from Tampa International Airport.

So when you're that close to the airport, you're gonna um you're gonna undergo daily impacts if you're a residential use.

You're gonna experience noise, you're gonna experience vibration, and you even should have safety concerns.

And that's why in the comp plan you have policies that require the county to coordinate land planning outside the airport boundaries, protect the airports from development of incompatible uses like residential.

Um when you look at the larger surrounding area, north and south of Hillsborough Avenue and around Tampa International, you're gonna see there's also a mix of heavy industrial and light industrial and heavy commercial uses, and then there's substantial amounts of commercial and industrial comp plan categories.

So here is the comp here's the map from the planning commission's report.

This is their map that shows the existing uses in the adjacent area, and you see the subject sites surrounded by black.

Immediately on the other side of George Road, you have an industrial track.

It's surrounded on two and a half side or one and a half, two and a half sides by light commercial.

Um you have industrial just to the west of that, right up against that residential neighborhood that the planning commission staff is concerned about.

Then you have the heavy commercial at the entrance there along Hillsborough Avenue.

On the south side, you have light commercial and heavy commercial uses.

So you have an area that is already surrounded, um a residential area that's already surrounded by industrial and commercial uses.

And then when you look at the future land use map of the surrounding area, north and south of Hillsborough Avenue, um, you can see on the um on the graphic that's on the left-hand side, you can see the subject site with the yellow with the uh blue arrow pointing to the yellow um part of the subject site.

You can see there's massive amounts of industrial in very close proximity.

That they're also adjacent to that uh residential area.

Um you also have the UMU further um north, and then you have uh CMU 12.

And then when you look on on the uses that are in the comp plan categories that are south of Hillsborough Avenue, you can see how close it is to the airport, and then you have all of those CMU and UMU comp plan categories again along the airport property and then abutting the residential area.

Um so in conclusion, um, I think you I think it's important to note that the county staff has recommended approval with conditions.

The conditions definitely provide the buffering that's necessary, and other than the planning commission staff, no other reviewing agencies and departments have objections.

The PD site plan does ensure that buffering and compatibility, our uses are limited, light industrial uses, just three uses.

We have a low FAR, it should be through 0.34, not 0.365.

I'm not good at math.

And then the PD is consistent with the character of the area when you look at the larger surrounding area, and again, the site isn't appropriate for residential.

So with that, we would respectfully request your recommendation of approval.

Okay.

I'm available if you have any questions.

Um just I'll ask staff the same question is is that I think the zoning also has in its general area, like a Hillsborough Aviation Authority overlay of some kind.

No, there was a Hillsborough Avenue overlay, but I wasn't aware of an aviation authority.

Yeah, I think you're referring to the special public interest.

Yes.

Oh, yes.

This is not located in so that you there's a map somewhere where it shows the SPI, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

It's actually you have that at the end of I think the forms that show that um if you're in certain areas, you can only go up to a certain height, and if you go over that, you have to obtain the aviation authorities approval.

But this is not in that comb.

No.

Okay.

I mean, when you're talking about apartments, the thought came to mind that it was in the cone, and then there's noise issues if you live in an apartment, and then there's extra costs and soundproofing apartments.

Right.

And maybe not in a comb, but you're still close.

Yeah, I mean, the cone, I mean, the cone is more of a my understanding is more of a safety issue, that cone.

You know, it lines up with the runways.

But when you're talking about noise and vibration, that's not going to stop at the cone.

It's gonna keep going until it until it goes.

It's it's you're gonna feel the impacts of it.

Okay.

So you can be out in Carrollwood when the planes are coming and go, and you you can feel it.

Right.

All right, so it's not uh aviation overlay, it's a Hillsborough Avenue overlay.

Mm-hmm.

And uh I'd I'll ask staff the same quote.

What are what kind of overlay requirements have to be met?

Uh with the Hillsborough Avenue overlay, if you know.

Uh sure, for the Hillsborough Avenue overlay, it has requirements for landscaping along Hillsborough Avenue, enhanced design requirements, parking lot locations to be to the side or rear, and then I think interior to the vehicular use area, some increased tree plantings.

But is this application have to meet the Hillsborough Avenue overlay?

Yeah, they um if they were not coming in for a rezoning, yes, and they are asking as part of this PD to not adhere to any of those requirements.

Well, let me let me also can I explain something with regard to that.

If you look on at the staff report on page nine of 14, um, it says the project will not comply with the overlay district, which requires the following, and it identifies all the different requirements.

But this is what it goes on to say.

The subject site is separated from Hillsborough Avenue.

I brought this map back up, Mr.

Luce, because I wanted to show you that convenience store on this on just south of our site is actually owned by the same individual that owns the subject site.

I almost think that that it was in that it was that the overlay was applied because of that ownership issue.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

However, some of these requirements only apply if you're on Hillsborough Avenue and the site is not on Hillsborough Avenue, and they make that point in the staff report and say it's separated from Hillsborough Avenue by a commercial project and instead Friends George Road, and then it says the proposed use is not intended to be used by the general public, which would otherwise benefit from a project with enhanced building design landscaping.

Glassley compliance with the required parking locations and setbacks would take place would place activity closer to the residential to the west.

Due to these factors, staff does not object to non-compliance with the overlay district.

So it there's some things, some requirements in the overlay that just simply aren't applicable, and then some of the overlay, if we complied with some of the overlay requirements and put the in fact, we had this discussion with county staff.

We were going to put the um the uh the the court, the the um the parking lot and the loading dock area.

They we talked about flipping it and putting it on the west side, and we said that would make it to comply with the overlay, and everyone agreed that would make it worse, not better.

So that's why they didn't have an objection to that.

All right, very good.

That's all the questions I have at this time.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, development services staff.

Ms.

Shell Heinrich, development services.

Staff reviewed a rezoning request for property zone RSC9 and CG to PD to allow for a warehousing and manufacturing use.

A concurrent CPA is proposed to the LIP future land use category.

Both applications will be heard at the August 13th BOCC CPA public hearing.

If approved, the PD will allow 100,000 square feet, resulting in an FAR of 0.34.

The site is located on the west side of George Road, north of Hillsborough Avenue, which is located in the urban service area and the Hillsborough Avenue Overlay District.

The surrounding area is developed with single-family manufacturing and commercial uses.

Existing single family residential is found to the west to address compatibility.

The project has placed the loading and activity area along the east side of the building fronting George Road.

A 30-foot wide buffer with enhanced screening is proposed along the west.

One PD variation is requested along the area of the southern boundary to recognize an existing cross-access point with the property to the south, which is developed with a convenience store.

Proposed building height is 45 feet, which is less than the maximum of 65 feet in the standard manufacturing zoning districts.

The residential is also separated from the subject site by 20-foot wide county-owned parcel.

While the site is located in the Hillsborough Avenue overlay, the site is not fronting or connecting to Hillsborough Avenue.

Due to the nature of the use and parcel location relative to Hillsborough Avenue, enhanced building design is not warranted.

The parcel is not a butting Hillsborough Avenue, and thus required landscaping along the roadway would not be applicable.

The proposed building height is five feet less than the maximum permitted in the overlay, which is 50.

Lastly, required parking behind it to the site of the use would place activity closer to the single family residential, which is why it has been reversed to not comply with the overlay standards.

Based upon these factors, staff does not object to the relief from the overlay standards.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions of approval and approval of the CPA.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

To be clear that the site has three access points, and the two northern ones are to be used by the subject site development.

And the southern one is not to be used by this applicant.

Correct.

The southern one is the secondary access point to the convenience store.

Okay.

And it came onto this property because, as I mentioned earlier, it's owned by the same owner initially.

You know, that's why that access point is on this property.

All right.

But we um because of the way that the truck traffic would come in and out of the site, they're not able to use that additional access point, so it's completely separated.

It's not being used.

Pedestrian bicycle access would be allowed through there.

Let me ask a traffic staff person.

Um I don't know how to ask this question, but there's there's a driveway connection for the convenience store out to George Road.

But it's not appropriate for that driveway to be used by both property owners.

Cross access in terms of um access to the subject property.

Um, it is predominantly a truck traffic type of use, and so that existing access and its configuration creates certain problems with trucks being able to maneuver that that could become a safety hazard.

Uh, and in that case, the conditions of approval recognize that there are three access points.

One that has vehicular access serving the uh the use on the corner uh while at the same time we're retaining that pedestrian cross access there.

Okay.

All right.

That helps.

Thank you.

Our engineer Michael Yates is here if you have any other questions on that.

Maybe let me hear from planning commission staff first.

Okay.

Willow Mickey, Planning Commission staff.

The subject site is in the urban service area and within the limits of the town and country community plan.

The subject site is in the residential six and office commercial 20 feature lanes categories.

There is a pending comprehensive plan map amendment to change the feature land use to light industrial planned.

This request for a plan development is considered concurrent and dependent on their approval of HCCPA 2607.

The analysis provided throughout the staff report is based on the pending LIP future lanes designation approval.

The proposal raises significant compatibility concerns when evaluated within the context of the surrounding area.

Single family residential uses are located immediately north and west of the site, establishing a lower density residential character along those boundaries.

The proposal would introduce light industrial uses that have the potential to generate a greater level of operational activity, intensity, and associated external impacts than the existing residential development pattern.

The proposed plan development does not adequately demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding development pattern and the proposed intensity and character of development have the potential to adversely affect adjacent residential uses.

The comprehensive plan language supports light industrial uses within the LIP designation.

However, considerations related to site design buffering, operational characteristics and compatibility with adjacent residential development remains subject to further evaluation under the comprehensive plans compatibility policies.

The proposed plan development does not meet the intent of objective 4.4, which emphasized the importance of ensuring that new development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and protective of established community character.

Although light industrial uses exist within the broad broader vicinity, their concentration along major transportation corridors in east of George Road helps maintain compatibility through separation and buffering.

If the subject site were located east of George Road or in closer proximity to existing LIP designated properties, the proposed PD may present fewer compatibility concerns.

However, given the site's location and its direct adjacency to established single-family residential development, the introduction of light industrial uses, including warehousing and wholesale distribution is inconsistent with the prevailing lane use pattern and character of the surrounding area.

The applicant is requesting a variance from the acquired two to one setback along the western property boundary boundary.

Based on the proposed building height, an 80-foot setback is required.

Planning commission staff recognizes and appreciates the applicant's efforts to mitigate potential impacts through reductions in building square footage in the provision of type C screening along the western boundary.

However, absent compliance with the required two-to-one setback, the proposed building would remain in close proximity to an established residential neighborhood, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the intended transition and buffering measures.

Based upon the above consideration and the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan.

Okay.

And um I think the applicant covered the territory, but the status of the comp plan amendment.

Staff found uh the amendment inconsistent and the PC board voted consistent.

So we will be going to the Board of County Commissioners with an official finding of consistent, and that is going to be sorry, of um inconsistent.

Wait, sorry, of of consistent.

Um and that that is going to be heard on August 13th.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

At this point in time, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in support of the application?

See no one responding.

Anyone in the audience was to speak in opposition to the application.

No one responding.

Staff anything further?

No, sir.

Okay.

Applicant has an opportunity for rebuttal.

Um for the record, Gina Grimes.

Uh the only thing I wanted to mention was that um it's not clear to me if the planning commission staff in their inconsistency recommendation if they considered the additional buffering that we offered because their report was prepared um pretty early, June 11th, and um our discussions with county staff to negotiate that condition with the enhanced buffering didn't occur till after that.

So I'm not sure I don't I don't believe that they considered the um the enhanced buffering and the additional uh screening that were providing in in their um recommendation.

Let's let's ask the planning commission staff and then you heard the question?

Um our staff um reports are submitted June 11.

So if any conversations were had past June 11th when we filed our staff report, then the planning commission did not review those.

So the the it's summary is that they did not consider the uh yeah, we didn't know about them.

Okay.

Okay.

And then last thing is I'd just like to put my um PowerPoint into the record.

And if I could, could I address the traffic in the three driveways?

Sure.

Um Michael's gonna address that for you.

We have up the uh PD site plan.

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

Yeah.

Um question is why why don't you share that driveway?

Yeah, there are there were a number of factors related to that.

Uh, if you can go back to the overhead, um so you can see in that lower left corner there, that's the curved driveway.

And so uh because of the volume related to the Thornton's and that curvature.

It became very difficult to make a connection that close to the intersection of George Road and with the volumes coming in and out of that driveway, it became an operational and safety issue.

And so what we did is provide what way is that an operational and safety issue.

So, what was happening was that if you had someone uh turning out of, say we made a connection there where it says existing sanitary sewer easement, those arrows that's kind of about where we would connect.

So if you had someone turning northbound onto the little curved road, and you had someone trying to turn out of our driveway because of the curvature of that road, you would have that in conflicts, but then you're also not providing enough stacking at the intersection.

So the cars making the eastbound right out of the driveway, uh would potentially block that driveway location.

So because the throat depth of that driveway, the curvature of the road, and the volumes using it from Thornton's created that operational and safety issue.

Uh, but we what we did was provide the driveway to the north of that, the southern driveway there that you see, uh, that meets the access connection spacing standards.

And that's where the other driveway does as well.

All right.

Thank you.

Did that answer your question fully?

I didn't need to needed to understand why it wasn't being used and shared.

We tried, that was the initial attempt, and we went through everything with the county engineer and staff in great detail trying to figure out if there was a way to get that to work.

We all just felt it was it made us all a little uncomfortable.

And that's why we did the driveway where we did it.

Very good.

Thank you.

There would be no reason for us not to agree to it since the owner owns both sides of it.

So we we just weren't able to make it work.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

That concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, are ready for the next item.

Our next application is item D7, PD 26-0651.

The applicant is requesting the rezone property from AR to plan development.

James Baker with development services has reviewed this.

And I'll present his staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay.

Applicant, please.

Good evening.

Ann Pollock with Trentum Law, uh, 200 Central Avenue in St.

Pete.

I represent the applicant and owner, and with me tonight are Margaret Perez and Theo Petrich with Landis Evans.

Uh so generally uh this property is located along Thanota Sassa Road, uh just east of the lake and uh just west of Macintosh Road.

It's 14.6 acres.

It's in the rural service area and it's in the Thanota Sassa community plan area.

Uh the future land use is res one, and it is surrounded by Res 1.

Uh to the west uh is pasture land, which was approved for a 30-unit uh single family subdivision with one acre lots.

Uh to the south is single family uh residential zoned AS1.

To the east is agriculture, and then further down is AS1 and uh CN.

There's a circle K, I think, down there.

Uh to the north is rural residential and pasture land, um, a mix of AR and uh AS1.

We are requesting on this 14-acre property and 11-unit single family subdivision.

Uh the property will have access directly onto the Noda Sassa Road there on the bottom.

And uh we are providing a uh stub out to the west uh in compliance with code that requires connections to like every direction.

Um but the the area to the uh west is actually privately owned, so we cannot actually connect until we you know something happens in the future.

Um similarly, uh rather than putting another uh driveway and a big cul de sac uh going north, we've provided 10 feet on the west side uh that could be used uh to expand that driveway later and create a better connection if the property to the north ever were to be developed, but for now we can't do anything.

Um we are also providing 30 feet of scenic road preservation along Thinota Sassa and widening and repaving Macintosh Road in accordance with the substandard road uh design exception.

This property is uh consistent with the comprehensive plan and the uh res one category and rural area policies.

The planning commission provided a detailed report on how it's consistent, but I'm gonna briefly go through that.

Uh the res one intent is to designate areas for rural residential uses compatible with short-term agricultural uses, which is exactly what we're doing here.

The max density allowed is 14.

We're only providing 11 units, which is about 0.75 uh units per acre.

Res one and rural residential uses are found on all sides of the property and throughout the the Noda Sassa area.

And comparable densities nearby, which I'll get into in just a minute.

Private well and septic tank will be provided, so there will be no extension of county utilities.

And again, the planning commission found the project consistent and complementary with the land use pattern in the area.

Umly, the project is consistent with the Thanota Sassa community plan.

It provides um minimum one acre lots, which is what's required by the plan.

And I think what's important is goal three, which gets really at what the Thanoda Sassa plan is looking for, a balance of a variety of uses, including residential.

It encourages agriculture protection of property rights and uh rural residential, which is what we're providing here and can be provided throughout this area.

Uh the planning commission also confirmed that the request meets the intent of goal three and is otherwise consistent with the Thanota Sassa community plan.

We also meet the neighborhood protection policies of the comprehensive plan, particularly objective 4.1 and 4.4.

We meet all the land development regulations.

We are not requesting any variances.

We continue the transition of intensity along Thanodasa Road.

We are creating like uses similar to the large lot single family residential that's all around this area.

We are mitigating adverse impacts through our plan, our design, our transportation improvements.

And again, the planning commission found that the addition of the single family units to this residential area is sensitive to the existing development patterns and is a compatible use.

So to get into the compatibility, if you can see here, our site is in pink to the west.

Those two in blue are developments that have been approved for one acre single family residential.

The green surrounded by yellow, that is a Stone Lake Ranch, which has been approved and developed with one and a half and two acre lots.

And then to the south in red is a mobile home park and also single family residential generally there.

If we zoom in on that purple box along Thanota Sassa Road to the east, you can see that there is a significant amount of rural residential here in this area, particularly lots that are less than an acre and a half in size.

The pink again is the subject properties.

So you can clearly see that the project is compatible with the surrounding development in the area.

You've got again the PD with the one acre lots to the left, similar to an AS1 zoning.

You've got AS1 to the north to the south, and a little bit further to the east.

And then in light light green is the AR, but you also see we've got CN here.

So this is just becoming a little more intensified area.

And yet what we're bringing in is rural residential that is directly compatible with all the other development that's going on here in this area.

So for transportation, we received a Thanodassa, like all roads practically in the county, is a substandard road.

However, we did receive a design exception deemed approvable by the county engineer to widen and repave Thanota Sassa Road to Macintosh Road.

The project will create less than 50 trips.

And I'm sorry, this project segment is level of service B, but the standard is C, so we're above that.

And widening and repaving Thanota Sassa should be a good improvement to the community.

Other projects in the area are also being required to do the same further down, so Thanoda Sassa will be able to be improved significantly.

And we've heard from neighbors that they're really interested in Thanota Sassa being approved.

Again, we're providing the stub out to the west and the 10 feet to the north.

The driveway to the west is privately owned, so until that becomes developed, these would not be used.

However, they're there for future development.

And we are providing the scenic road preservation 30 feet on Thanodasa Road, and that is consistent with the other developments that have recently been approved along Thanota Sassa as well.

This just gives you a little idea of how we are designed to be compatible with the development that was approved to the west of us.

Again, we've got this driveway there that creates the disconnect, but we designed it in a way that if this ever happened, that all these projects would sort of work together and take the traffic off of Thanota Sassa and be a nice rural residential neighborhood.

The project is planned to meet local, state, and federal environmental regulations.

It is not in a designated environmentally sensitive area.

Environmental services and natural resources mentioned that there are trees on the site and that we should protect them, and that would be the goal as part of this single family development to do as much as we can.

Um so in conclusion, the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, both the Res One category and the Thenotisassa community plan.

It's consistent with the rural area and the neighborhood protection policies.

It meets again the Then Otis Community Plan.

It is compatible with the established surrounding area and with the existing development that's there that's been approved.

The planning commission found the project consistent and compatible.

County staff have recommended approval, and we've received no objections from any reviewing agencies, and the design exception was deemed approvable.

So with that, I'm here to answer any questions.

Okay.

No questions, thank you.

Development services staff.

Michelle Heinrich Development Services.

Staff review management for properties zone AR to PD to allow for an 11-lot single family subdivision.

The site is located on the north side of the Nona Sassa Road, east of Macintosh Road, which is located in the rural service area and res one future land use category.

The surrounding area is developed with residential at a density of one home per one acre and one home per five acres.

Lot size and lot width will be in keeping with the AS1 zoned areas.

Development standards for the homes are comparable to the RSC 3 zoning district, allowing a 25-foot rear and front yard and seven and a half side yards and a maximum height of 35 feet.

Density will be under one unit per acre, and no PD variations have been requested.

Staff received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions.

And I'm available if you have any questions.

Planning commission staff.

Willow Mickey planning commission staff.

The site is in the residential one and feature landings category, is in the rural area and within the limits of the Tenochtis Asa community plan.

The development pattern is rural residential in nature.

The proposed rezoning to add additional large lot single family residential units complements the existing land use pattern.

Therefore, the request is consistent with rural area standards under feature land use section objective 1.2 and compatibility compatibility policies.

The site is surrounded by the residential one feature landings category on all sides, with agricultural rural one to five being located further west of the site.

The 14.6 acre site allows for a maximum of 14 dwelling units, with the proposed development on the site being 11 total single family units.

The proposed use and density are consistent with the residential one category.

Feature land use section of objective 4.4 requires new development to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood.

The addition of single family units to a residential area is sensitive to the existing development patterns and is a compatible use.

Goal three of the Tenota Sasa community plan states to provide improved yet affordable infrastructure and a balance of residential, commercial, and other land uses while maintaining the rural nature of the Tenota Sassa area.

Additionally, some strategies listed under this goal include requiring minimum lot sizes of one acre for residential development within the res one category.

The proposed plan development proposes lot sizes of one acre, therefore it is consistent with this goal.

Based upon the above considerations and the following goals, objectives and policies, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsboro County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the development services department.

Thank you.

I can barely hear you.

I see no one responding.

Anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition to the application?

Yes, ma'am.

Danielle Cambrill, 1215 West Risk Street.

Any development in this area is irresponsible at minimum.

The Hillsborough County has received millions of dollars in federal funding for flood recovery, and they started less than a mile away from this location at Pemberk Pemberton and Baker Creek.

Not only does it not have a shoulder, the street itself is falling into the lake.

This is I4 West alternative.

And traffic backs up multiple times throughout the day.

You can go to the HCC property in Plant City right now and go to see a study that was done over a decade ago to show the water flow that runs through the city, goes from Lakes and Onastassa to the Gulf of Mexico, and it lists all of the spots that have been studied and proves that the water flows in in Florida.

Just imagine all of those locations have been covered up.

We're going to continue to flood.

And we're going to continue to have to spend more millions of our taxpaying dollars to clean up the your messes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

Excuse me, ma'am.

I need you to sign in.

Evening.

Darrell Meyer, uh 12130, Macintosh Road, Thenon Sasa, Florida.

Um lived in this area pretty much all my life.

Um, as she was saying, the the traffic out there is horrible enough the way it is.

The roads are substandard.

Um Sassa Road has been horrible since I've been driving, you know, since I was 16.

Not sure if there's ever going to be anything in the planning for resurfacing the road or redoing the roads, widening the roads.

If you drive down a road, I'd work uh for the phone company.

And going down that road, you the speed limit is 40, 45.

If you're in an oversized vehicle, like I drive with bucket truck, I was actually hit by another car swerving in my lane.

All you're doing is adding more traffic.

And as she was explaining earlier, too, Fairman Creek flooded.

All that whole area.

I mean, we we can't afford to keep covering up our messes.

You know, it's all doing is cost and taxpayers more and more every year.

So that's my recommendation that we do diet.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Please sign in.

Good evening, board.

Um, sorry we have to be here so late.

My name is Joseph Wallhour.

Uh, I live at 12601 Thanodasa Road.

I've been a resident there since 82.

Before that, my grandparents owned the property.

Um on the traffic, it's really bad out there.

Uh half a mile from the Notisassa Road to the end of Windward Noble Ball Home Park is bumper to bumper whenever I-4 is backed up.

Google Maps and Apple Maps have made it a freeway, uh parking lot at our intersection, uh, right in front of this development.

They're talking about doing a little whitening.

They need to go all the way down to the other end of the creek, actually to Taylor Road.

But uh that's not the only road that's insufficient around there.

It's also Macintosh.

It's way overdue for paving.

I do not drive anymore.

I ride a bicycle or walk.

It is dangerous.

It is very dangerous.

There are six and eight-foot holes on the side of the shoulder, just inches from that white line, if not in the white line.

I have reported many times every too too often.

Anyway, that when the water comes down the from Macintosh to the towards the lake, it washes out the sides of the road.

They come and patch it up.

Three months later, water coming down the road, washes it away.

I don't uh anyway.

Uh, that's uh I did write a statement here that I'm loosely following.

I have some petitions.

Five of my neighbors have signed that are in agreement with me that our road traffic is problem number one.

Our water.

The wells there are in danger of being contaminated, drying up.

Uh we have a water shortage pretty much year-round now, and you guys are gonna throw in all these wells.

It's not gonna help our problem.

It's gonna ask uh increase our problems like that.

Exactuate them.

Um so water is very critical to us.

And the biggest thing that we're losing is our front farmland.

Uh, we're not gonna get this back.

It's not gonna just pop up all of a sudden.

When this farmland is gone, that that property she's showing you was a very productive hayfield, and it fed livestock.

It fed horses, it fed cows, and it's not gonna do that anymore.

So I'm very disappointed to see that we're losing so much of the county farmland.

Uh affordable housing, this isn't it.

This is high-end housing, and there's plenty of that on the market.

Just pull up the MLS and see how much high-end housing is available.

It's not affordable for the people who live around there.

It's for New Yorkers, Chicago, whatever.

I'm not gonna beat that bush.

Um, but uh my next thing would be uh my complaint about the uh the zoning notification that the sign was uh not very well displayed.

I have video of this.

I have video of the traffic on this thumb drive, I wasn't allowed to do it.

I didn't see the sign until Thursday, and of course, Friday was a uh federal holiday, so I can't enter this video into this live session here, which is very disappointing.

But I do have video on this swim drive, and I also have some links.

I have a couple extra of these statements that I've been working off of along with the my some of my neighbors' petitions for you to put the brakes on this, slow it down, let us get some improvements out there.

Let's get some they you know what they need out there, they're gonna need uh fire uh hoses, and there's no water lines out there to put these million dollar houses out when they start on a fire.

Uh I think there's 124 million dollar house that's vacant right now on the other side of the lake.

I know there's a 24 million dollar house on the other side of the lake.

They're vacant.

And um with the the issues that we have there with the water quality, the traffic.

Um I just think that you should delay this, if not postpone it or modify it to get us some more services out there because we really need improvements on Macintosh, the North Sasha Road, we need sidewalks, we need bike lanes.

There's bicyclist that come around that lake for uh I don't know, 40, 50 years, and they get injured if not killed, and it's not safe.

I am very scared when I ride a bike on those roads, but I have no option.

It's either that or nothing, and I have been hit several times.

Um I've curbed my cycling, and um anyway.

I just want you to realize that it is a dangerous on the roads there.

Our water quality is very susceptible to intrusion and drying up.

Uh I think that you know, 20 years ago we had a problem with having to drop the well deeper because uh it went dry, and that's not gonna get any better.

So, with that gentleman, I'm gonna let you wrap up this meeting, but um realize that I do have video here if you ever get a chance to see it.

I have some video links.

I have a couple extra um basically notifications that I I didn't know about this meeting until Thursday when I got out of the hospital.

I had a melanoma.

I've got a my tape chest taped up, I've got tape underneath both my arms.

I'm I'm glued together, Superman.

But uh I didn't know about this until Thursday, and I work quickly, and I I gather petitions from all my neighbors that uh aren't able to be here tonight to um give their two cents.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, turn thank you.

Turn in the petition that you have.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr.

Chair, I also have a um somebody online as well.

All right, we'll get to the person online in a minute.

There's a person that just walked up to the podium.

Hi, my name's Lori Walker.

I live at 13016 Country View Road in Dover, which is just uh about three miles east of the site.

Um just to reiterate what everybody said, traffic, terrible.

Just to get to the Circle K in the morning, sometimes it takes 15 minutes.

The shoulders of the road, the curves in the road.

Anytime it rains, they come to fill a hole the next time it's worse than it was.

Um I would I would rather see less homes, but I mean it's just something that really needs to be looked at a little bit more because there is a lot of wells that have run dry around that area, the hundred-year uh floodplain.

This area was completely underwater in certain areas.

Um I know somebody uh a mile away from there that lives off of Primerton Creek and Baker Creek, and they had full blown out rivers for days, and there's still roads that are just completely gutted out from the all the water that was everywhere.

I mean, nobody had ever seen this before, and we might not ever see it again in our lives, but our kids might and their kids might, and that's what's important to me.

And that's what's important to me.

All right.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

All right.

If you could sign in.

All right.

And there's somebody online.

Yes, three minutes.

Goody.

Good evening.

Evening.

I'm Jolie at 10730 First Gooley Road, a part of the divers committee.

Ma'am, I'll need you to be a little bit more.

Hold on, ma'am.

You state your name, your full name, please.

Yes, Jolie Gabbiola.

Okay, go ahead.

You may proceed.

Um, I'm from one s okay, sorry.

Um, I'm not part of the diverse community that grew up.

Ma'am, could you repeat your address?

You're cutting in and out.

It's kind of of course.

A little choppy.

Go ahead and repeat repeat your address.

It's 1073 Schoolie Road in Thanodas.

Okay, go ahead.

You may proceed.

Did you hear that?

No.

Okay.

Yes, I'm a part of the are you having trouble hearing me?

Yeah, your your connection is not that good, apparently.

It's you.

Very chopped up.

If I continue if I continue, hopefully it doesn't chop up.

Is it okay?

Is it just delayed?

It's just go ahead and keep talking up.

I'll try my best to understand your your testimony.

Along with the clerk's office.

Go ahead.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'm a part of the diverse community that grew up in Hillsborough County since I was one year old.

And I'm here opposing application RZ-PD 26-3651.

If you're from here, it should be self-explanatory why we want to throw these construction signs.

You gotta speak into the microphone.

I think we can't even hear you either.

Even you're chopping up and you're very low.

Okay.

Let me get um headphones.

Hold on, one second.

Okay.

Headphones.

Hopefully this works.

Is that better?

Yes.

A hundred percent.

Okay.

Oh my gosh.

Okay.

Um, if you're from here, it should be self-explanatory why we want to throw these construction signs in the trash that are popping up in places that are sacred.

If you want to know why we're up in arms about this idea, let's just go one by one and see what's been lost.

To which some might be out of your hands, but there's grounds to why it adds up.

There's great presentation to building zones, but the standards are decreasing.

The wild span of trees at the corner of 92 in Kingsway.

Each year, new kids flood the personality shaping middle school called Burnett, getting ready for the day ahead and walking out for ready for what's next.

The views surrounding Mick for easier reflecting and embracing, plus a cute corner store with a decent shop owner, and a park before you turn into your neighborhood.

For it to be turned down into a storage unit is very objectionable.

Big top flea market, an event worth dressing up for and greeting other fellows.

A highly respectable place that blended into the tree line.

Guess what it's turned into?

A humongous building designed to fit as many people as it can.

One thing's for sure, it turns all of three and one that used to be dead empty into a circus show, all for one turn lane to go into the apartment.

The Northassa has this beautiful marker that intersects Belize Road into Zephyr and Tampa on the other side.

Although it does have the brush of trees that make it super hard to see any oncoming cars, we're all well aware of that and are on the same page.

What's built on the other side of that corner now of that piece of land is a two-minute proximity storage unit instead of trees.

I did mention how Temple Terrace is right there, right?

The last area farm stood noble, not too far from that lot.

What wasn't very noble was how quick the bulldozers were parked after the sold sign and the layout of an apartment with an ironic sign that reads low prices starting at 1,200.

Ma'am, eventually, employees couldn't stall any longer.

And I'd yell I'm sorry Yes.

You're providing testimony about the rezoning for 11 single family home sites.

Is that the case that you want to speak to an opposition?

Um talking about the lot that's on 579 on on the North.

I'm getting to that though.

Yes.

The lots on 579, yes.

Okay.

Eventually, employees couldn't stall any longer, and I've yelled at them coming home from work.

Seriously, how many more people can we fit here?

Let's just see when we keep building more apartments and storage units back to back.

The only housing issue natives have is finding it within our budget.

But when I saw this, it shocked me.

The Thonotis fields are priceless because a boy and a girl can meet in the magical hallways of Burnett without realizing that right behind there was the town of where they eventually lived their dream of living together.

So you showed me where they used to where he used to go up with his friends.

I I your testimony doesn't seem particularly relevant to the application that's before us.

So could you try to focus?

30 seconds.

Yeah, it's 30 seconds and I'm done.

Okay.

And yes, it did grow up, but the fields.

It was like all the experiences we had and all the new second chances to be had.

We're among us as we drove by them onto our first renters home outlooking Sapner.

It's really sad to see now.

The houses planted there standing out like a sword thumb in the middle of those fields with a new ugly 5G tower in a fake tree disguise.

It can't go on.

It has to stop just like how Zephyr Hills put their foot down and made it stop.

Please take this into consideration.

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

Okay, is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition?

So no one responding.

Staff, anything further?

Um I would just add that we did check for the notice, and all notice was done properly in terms of the newspaper mail notice and signage.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And the applicant, an opportunity for rebuttal.

Uh thank you.

Uh Mr.

Lewis.

Um, I just wanted to speak to a few of the things that were raised.

Um, as part of the the road improvement that we are being required to do to Thonotis ASA, it does expand the road and completely repave it.

So even though it is um a particular area that we're requiring to do it, it should expand it pretty well to at least uh deal with some of the shoulder issues that the residents have suggested are problematic.

Um and uh hopefully the repaving itself will uh create a road that is lasts longer than the one that they're currently saying constantly gets um potholes and all of that.

Um this property is not in a uh flood zone, and so we would expect that we would not have some of the uh flooding issues that the neighbors referenced.

The development is also required to retain all the stormwater that's uh put onto it, so that should not uh go into neighboring yards or onto Thonotis Asa.

So uh presumably it's incorporating um any runoff that might have ordinarily run off from this uh lot onto the notice assets.

It's now uh keeping it in.

Um I did want to lastly just um mentioned that uh reiterate that this is the right area for this development.

You know, I understand that uh the neighbors are not interested in any further development in this area, but of the areas in uh this part of the county.

Um it's an area where the the development pattern is these uh one-acre developments, one-acre lots, and this is uh very similar to what's uh proposed and what's uh been there for a long time.

And so uh we would respectfully request your support here.

Okay, thank you, ma'am.

Thanks.

That concludes this application.

Ms.

Heinrich, ready to move on to the last item on tonight's agenda.

Our last item is item D8, major mode 26-0670.

The applicant is requesting a major modification to PD 92-0195.

Caroline Pettal with Development Services has reviewed this, and I will present her staff findings after the applicant's presentation.

Okay, yeah, okay, please.

Good evening, Cynthia Spidel.

Um with Barbara's Kramer, 2002 West Cleveland Street, um, suite 2020 in Tampa, Florida, and I have been sworn.

Okay.

So this property consists of about 2.6 acres along U.S.

Highway 301 and Walker Road.

It's south of East Fowler Avenue and it's east of I-75.

It's within the urban service area, and it's part of the Thona Tassassa Community Plan.

This is the current zoning as PD for a mobile home park.

The comprehensive plan the future land use is SMU 6.

We are in the urban service area and in the Thonatus ASA community plan.

U.S.

Highway 30 301 is designated as a truck route.

And it is located within the federally designated opportunity zone, which allocates funding and incentives to areas that are designated as in distress.

So this is a redevelopment opportunity to where's my request?

Here it is.

The request is for 40,000 square feet of warehousing distribution light manufacturing.

We have one variation request, and that is from code 6.0606 to reduce the buffer area from 30 feet type C to 15 feet type B.

And this shows you the extent of which the variation is sought, and that is basically because it's a budding happy travel traveler RV park.

They had a similar buffer reduction.

I believe their side was for 10 feet, but we agreed with staff.

We had originally asked for a reduction to 10 feet, but we work with staff and we have agreed to a condition to revise that to 15 feet.

This is the uh this is a map of the surrounding area where you can see it's uh heavily converting into industrial uses.

Um compatibility mitigation measures, the staff report um and the site plan, the PD site plan have a variety of conditions and um uh compatibility mitigation measures attached to it, including the landscape buffers, capping the height at 20 feet, FAR significantly below the the 0.5 maximum, six-foot masonry wall, and limitations to the open storage areas.

Transportation, um, there are several conditions of approval which will uh require to improve Walker Road to County Standards, unless a design exception is requested at that time, and that is to be improved from the access point to the nearest standard roadway.

Um there is uh an administrative variant variance that was approved to allow access to be located within there's a slight typo there, not within within 92 feet to 174 feet of the closest access to the north.

There is only one full access where that blue arrow is right there.

Um Sasa Community Plan.

Uh we have a consistency finding from planning commission and development services staff.

Um, and this area is in general going to be reevaluated by the planning commission due to all the the transitional area into light industrial.

And I believe that's part of the Temple Terrace count plan.

Uh we have unanimous staff recommendations of approval with conditions, and we ask that you recommend approval to the BOCC and happy to answer any questions you may have.

No questions at this time.

Development services staff.

Michelle Heinrich Development Services staff reviewed a major modification request to PD 92-0195, which is currently approved for a mobile home and RV park and motel.

Warehousing and manufacturing uses are proposed at an intensity of 0.35 FAR.

The site is located at the northeast corner of U.S.

Highway 301 and Walker Road within the urban service area and SMU 6 future land use category.

The surrounding areas developed with a variety of uses, including commercial, residential, open storage, and RV park uses.

Staff review received no objections from reviewing agencies and finds the request approvable, subject to proposed conditions.

And I'm available if you have any questions.

Well, the Mickey Planning Commission staff.

The site is in the suburban mixed use six feature land use category, is in the urban service area and is within the limits of the Tenochtitl community plan.

The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses.

The majority of the proposed building envelope is located along the U.S.

301 frontage with only a limited portion of the building situated adjacent to the northern property boundary.

The applicant has committed to providing the required 30 foot buffer along the northern property line with the exception of a limited area where variation has been requested to allow 15 foot type B buffer the requested variation extends only along the portion of the northern property line abutting the building and does not apply to the area adjacent to the proposed open storage.

Additionally the buffer variation area abuts a mobile home park that is under the same ownership as the site the variation is also consistent with the previously approved county buffer variation request associated with the industrial industrial development located to the west of the site goal four of the Chinota SASA community plan seeks to provide for commerce and jobs but protect the community identity and limit the location type and size of new businesses to fit the surrounding area the proposed rezoning is consistent with this goal in that it facilitates an employment generating use within an area that already contains a mix of commercial development while incorporating site design and buffering measures intended to reduce potential impacts on adjacent residential properties.

Based upon the above considerations in the following goals objectives and policies planning commission staff finds the proposed major modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsworth County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by the Hillsborough County Development Services Department Thank you.

This point in time is anyone in the audience wishes to speak in support of the application responding anyone in the audience wishes to speak in opposition to the application responding staff anything further no sir.

Applicant an opportunity for rebuttal no thank you very much very good with that that concludes that application and that concludes tonight's zoning hearing master hearing we are adjourned