Good morning and welcome to the July twenty-fourth, two thousand and twenty-six Hillsboro County Board of County Commissioners land use meeting.

Everyone please rise for the pledge and invocation.

Heavenly Father, thank you for this beautiful day and for all the blessings you bestowed upon us.

Uh please guide and direct this board today so we would make decisions that are in the best interest of the residents of Hillsborough County.

We ask this in your name.

Amen.

Before we get started, I want to read into the record uh from Commissioner Gwyn Myers.

Please ensure that the information about my absence is read into the official record.

I would not be able to attend the reference meeting as I would be out of the office on vacation.

Then also from Commissioner Cameron Cepeda, please be advised that I'll be unable to attend today's BOCC land use meeting as I'm not feeling well.

Please read the reason for my absence into the record.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh with two commissioners absent.

Uh Joanne, you want to review the board's continuance policy for the applicants.

Yes.

Under the board's uh procedures in the event that there are only five board members present at the land use meeting.

Applicants will have the opportunity to continue their item to uh future land use meeting.

So you'll need to make that election applicants at the time that you come up to the podium for your presentation.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Grady, want to review changes the agenda.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Brian Grady, Hillsburg County Development Services.

In addition to the would publish withdrawals, continuance and remands on page three of the agenda, have the following uh changes to the agenda on page four item B two, rezoning PD twenty-six-ero two one seven with revisions to condition one to provide consistency in terminology with the with the same terms of the site plan.

Uh second changes on page eleven of the item item E one PRS twenty-six dash zero one seven three.

Additional party records have been added to the backup.

Next changes on page twelve, the agenda item E three PRS twenty-six-eight six eight.

Additional party records have been added to the backup.

Uh next change is on page fourteen item F one rezoning PD twenty-six-roc.

Uh the revised report to correct scriminers errors to the acreage and the maximum unit accounts for the existing zoning gestures in the table shown on the first page of the report.

And also corrections on roadway names for condition fifteen dealing with uh required transportation improvements.

The final and then on page sixteen, item G one A rezoning PD twenty-five-thirteen eighty six revised planning commission report cover page and future land use map to correct scriptures error to include Folio seven nine five two five dash zero two five zero on those on the map in their cover page.

We also have additional uh uh change the agenda.

We received a communication uh last night from the applicant for agenda item E5, PRS 26-0926 requesting withdrawal of this application.

So again, agenda E5, uh PRS 26 0926 request to withdraw that application.

I have a motion approved.

Second motion, Commissioner Wolstool, second Commissioner Cohen, approved the change to the agenda.

Please record your vote.

Okay, now can we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Second.

Motion Commissioner Wolstool, second commissioner Cohen, please record your vote on the consent agenda.

Motion carry five to zero.

Okay, anyone here for B item the application has been approved.

Uh if you're planning on testifying today, uh would you please stand and raise your right hand so the clerk can swear you in?

Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Grady on the vacating public hearing portion.

I'm gonna introduce the first item.

Commissioner's the first sign of agenda item C1 vacate petition 20 26-0001.

Uh real estate services will present this item.

Good morning, Commissioners.

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

Item C1 today is vacate ID V26-0001.

This is a petition by Alexandra and Justin Smith to vacate a plated public drainage easement located at 1835 Serene Lake Loop in Lutz and consisting of approximately 404.5 square feet.

The subject drainage easement was dedicated through the plat of Lake Pearl as recorded in Plat Book 146, page 147, and is generally located west of U.S.

Highway 41 and east of North Dale Maybury Highway.

The petitioner submitted this request to allow for construction of a patio and fence on their property.

Although county policy PWD 0001.02016 generally restricts the vacating of drainage easements.

Public works does not object to the vacate request because there is no county drainage infrastructure in the vacate area, and the privately maintained drainage pipe is located in the parcel to the east.

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

Um thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions.

Seeing none, we have a motion to move approval.

Commissioner Cohen, sign Commissioner Wolstool, please record your vote on C1.

Motion carry 5 0.

C2.

The next item is agenda item C2, vacate petition 26-0011.

For the record, Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services.

Item C2 today is vacate ID V26-0011.

This is a petition by Allah Abukara and Nisreen Almagatha to vacate a portion of unimproved platted public right of way consisting of approximately 1,050 square feet.

The subject right of way was dedicated through the plat of plan of mango as recorded in Deed Book K, page 500, and is generally located south of East Martin Luther King Boulevard and west of County Road 579 in Sefner Mango.

The petitioners submitted this request to allow for establishment of a motor vehicle dealership with gates surrounding the property that can close during non-business hours.

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

Thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions.

Second motion for approval, Commissioner Cohen, second Commissioner Wolstool.

Please record your vote.

Motion carry five to zero.

Okay, Mr.

Grady, on the uh E items.

Commissioner, the next item is agenda item E1 is PRS application 26-0173.

Uh this is a request for a minor modification to a 9.86 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Interstate 75 and the Gibson and Drive Interchange in the Riverview Gibson area.

Uh Commissioners, the request is to modify uh setbacks associated with uh hotel permitted hotel use in the property.

Uh the app and is re modifying a requirement for additional two to one setback for structure height over 20 feet to change that to a one-to-one setback for structure height over 20 feet.

Uh they are also increasing the minimum setback for any buildings uh from 30 to 40 feet, and also requesting modification uh to uh the parking standards to modify the number spaces per guest room.

Uh staff has reviewed this in recommending approval and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Applicant here.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

My name is Mark Bentley, 400 North Ashley Drive, Tampa 33602.

I represent the applicant.

As staff indicated, we're seeking some minor adjustments to setbacks.

It's about a 10 acre tract of the northeast quadrant of Gibson Drive and I-75.

It's approved for hotel storage.

Um we're seeking these minor adjustments to the setbacks, and in conjunction with that, the county asked us to uh because of the access roads called Allifire Preserve is the only access to our property.

At present time it's it's a private road, and it's soon to be dedicated by the adjacent developer.

So, but the road is substandard in respect to many items into including curbing, crosswalks, and things like that.

So the county requested that my client assume those obligations, which we agreed to, and those are conditions of the approval today if it's approved.

So if you have any questions, certainly I'll I'll try to answer them.

All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

I believe one person is on virtual that's in opposition, Mr.

Scaglione.

Is he still on the line?

Go ahead, sir.

I need my paper.

Mr.

Scaglione, go ahead with your comment.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Uh we'd like to uh uh just state that uh we've worked everything out with the roads with the county, and uh the only the only thing that uh we'd like to see if we could add to the conditions is that uh the three roads Alify Preserve Avenue, Fernhill Drive, and the north south access be actually um dedicated within six months because we've had some delays in this occurring with the county, and uh we'd like that condition added to uh the applicant's uh requirements.

Can you state your name for the record, please?

309 South New Jersey, Tampa, Florida is my at home address.

But please state your name.

Please state.

Sorry, I'm having a little difficulty hearing the uh please state your name, sir.

Ronald E.

Scaglione.

All right, thank you.

Uh anyone else in opposition by Mr.

Melly.

You have an opportunity to respond.

Sure.

This might be something the staff might want to talk about, but in any event once there's a dedication, there's a trigger for my client to make these enhancements that I mentioned early on.

And I don't know if that's gonna work with the timing that the county in mind, but I'll leave turn over to Adam.

So Commissioner uh to that requested condition.

Um, we are in agreement with the concept.

We would like the road to be dedicated.

We're prepared to accept it.

We've worked with the applicant to identify the improvements that are necessary to the road once the county accepted it, and those are conditions of zoning.

I will note that the the road dedication is an off-site condition that is would be subject to the subject of Mr.

Scaglione's PD.

So you know it is the intent that we accept and have the road dedicated.

We're happy to hear that uh Mr.

Scagloni is interested in making that dedication.

I'll just note that if a condition is put on this zoning for that dedication to occur, it's not something that this zoning or this owner could control because it would be an off-site condition.

Understood.

Right, thank you.

Commissioner Wolstell.

I just I developers um voluntarily accepting um burdens that they create as not only um encouraged but happily received.

So I'll move for approval.

Sign Commissioner Miller.

Don't see anyone else in the queue.

Please record your vote on E1.

Motion Caraby, 530.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

Next item.

Commissioner, the next item is agenda item E2 is PRS application 26-0798.

Uh, this is a parcel of uh.64 acre parcel located at the uh uh northeast corner of Lithia Pinecrest and Lithia Center Lane.

Uh the request is to modify a front yard setbacks and uh building height for the building in parcel one that was discovered uh subsequent to construction that uh uh it was constructed in non-compliance with required setbacks, so they're we're seeking to conform uh the setbacks in the zonings to the actual location of the building.

Uh staff is recommending approval when real for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, is the applicant here?

Morning, sir.

Good morning, commissioners.

Uh Craig Taraski, 360 Central Avenue, suite 500 St.

Petersburg representing the applicant.

Uh staff mentioned this is just to clean up some nonconformities that were identified during a recent transaction.

Sale of the property.

This is a portion of a previously approved PD.

Um, we're just asking to increase the allowable building height by a foot and to uh reduce the front setback to uh with the pine crest road to what's existing today.

Thank you.

I thank you, sir.

Appreciate comments.

Uh anyone here in support.

Anyone in opposition?

Can we have a motion?

Move second.

Motion Commissioner Miller, second commissioner uh Wolstool, please record your vote.

Motion carry five through zero.

E three.

Commissioner next item is then item E3 PRS application 26-0868.

Uh, this is a uh minor modification of the PD located on the west side of Nixon Road, uh north of uh Nixon Road and Lynn Lynn Road intersection on the west side of the street.

Uh the request is to modify screening requirements.

Uh presently the conditions provide but allow for a PVC or wood fence screening.

Uh this is to add into the ability to have an additional pre-cast concrete panels and option for required screening.

Uh staff is recommending approval when we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Applicant here.

Good morning, Matthew Campo, Campo Engineering.

Um obviously this is pretty clear what we're looking for.

We'll just add want to add this uh type of fence material, which would be like a faux concrete.

Um it wasn't in the original PD, so pretty much simple as that.

Any questions we're here available?

Thank you, sir.

Sure.

Uh anyone here in support.

Anyone in opposition?

Come here, motion.

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Willstall, second commissioner Miller.

Please record your vote on E3.

Motion Carrie.

Five to zero E4.

Commissioner's next item agenda item E4 PRS application 26-0880.

Uh, this is a request for uh modification of PD located on uh on the west side of Kinnan Street, uh just south of the uh Hillsborough County or Pasco County border.

The request is to modify rear yard setbacks uh to 10 feet for 14 lots, which are located internal to the project as isn't noted on the site plan.

Uh staff is recommending approval or vote for any questions.

Thank you.

Applicant here.

Morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Will you molly 325 South Boulevard?

Uh I would only add to this that we haven't done anything wrong yet.

This is uh prescriptive in nature.

Uh we're trying to get in front of these rear setbacks.

Um that's all.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone in opposition?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion approve.

Uh Commissioner Cohen.

Second Commissioner Wilstall, please record your vote on E4.

Motion Carrie 5 to 0.

E5.

Uh next uh commissioners e5 was uh as noted in them to change the agenda was withdrawn.

So we'll go to E6.

Uh E6 is PRS application 26-0950.

Uh this is a request to modify uh a parcel on the west side of Bill Schall Road, a point two four acre parcel within the larger PD.

Uh the request is to uh reduce uh front yard setbacks from 15 to 12 feet uh during the construction of the building on the property was discovered that the parcel is being the building is being constructed 12 feet instead of the required 15 feet.

Uh staff has no issues concerns with uh the the three-foot encroachment is recommending approval and real for any questions.

Thank you.

I thank you.

Uh is the applicant here good morning.

Morning, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner's Cloud Pressman 200 Second Avenue South, number 451, St.

Petersburg.

Uh this would be just for a small three-foot area for just a very small partial uh part of the plan.

I do have an email from the abunding owner in support.

Uh staff indicates that they see no discernible difference or impacts.

Um and as I've checked online, there is no one uh that is filed any letter or communication opposition.

So uh being that this is a very small area um and is not discernible to the public.

We would ask the commissioner's review and approval.

Thank you.

I thank you.

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion approve, Commissioner Cohen.

Second Commissioner Wolstool, please record your vote on E6.

Motion carry five to zero.

Okay, good F items.4 three acre parcel located on the east side of Williams Road.

Uh the request is to rezone uh to planned development to allow for 49 single family homes.

Uh with access to Williams Road and emergency access to the south to the uh to a local residential us locals the local road.

Uh staff is recommending approval and planning commission found the request consistent and here also also recommended approval.

We'll avail for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The applicant here.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Cammy Corrote with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

I don't have anything additional to add right now.

Um, if there are any further comments or questions, I'm happy to answer them.

All right, thank you.

Uh, any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition planning commission.

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

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

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the branded community plan.

The site is partially vacant with one single family residential home, with the majority of the surrounding uses being residential in nature and largely single family.

The proposed request for 49 single family detached homes would be compatible with the area's existing development pattern.

Future land use section policy 3.1.2 encourages gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses.

The land uses directly adjacent to the site are residential in nature, consistent with the proposed use of the site.

The proposed 4.31 dwelling units per gross acre and a future land use category, allowing consideration up to six dwelling units per gross acre, provides a gradual transition and density from the high density townhomes to the west and the lower density single family detached units to the east.

The suburban character district of the branded community plan is a primarily residential area with a wide range of residential building types, such as single family, single family detached and attached, and townhouses.

The majority of this district is single family detached, which aligns with the proposed request for 49 single family detached lots.

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

Thank you.

Hearing master the zoning hearing master reviewed the request and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommended approval.

Okay.

All right, can we remotion?

Move approval.

Motion, Commissioner Wolstall, sign Commissioner Cohen.

Please put your vote on F1.

Motion carry to 5 to 0.

F2.

The next agenda item is agenda item F2 rezoning PD 26-0426.

This is a request for a zone 22.8 acre parcel located on the north side of Gun Highway, just east of the Veterans Expressway.

The request is rezoned to allow for uh 346 unit multifamily uh parcel uh buffering screening and and compliance setbacks are being reprovided adjacent to the single family of the east, uh including the two to one setback.

Uh they are requesting a flex of the of the adjacent uh res 12 plan category, uh res 20 plan category as part of this.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

Uh planning mission found and consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval and be able for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you to the applicant here.

Good morning.

Good morning, Elise Batsel, Stearns Weaver Miller, 401 East Jackson Street.

Um, we're available to answer questions uh if you have our entire development team and all of our consultants are here.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

I'm Jeffrey Berger, 2913 West St.

Nicholas Street, Tampa, Florida.

And I am the immediate past president of the Tampa JCC's and Federation, the nonprofit or entity that owns the property, which is a subject of this rezoning application.

Both I and my organization strongly support this rezoning application.

We hope you will approve it.

We made the very difficult decision to close our campus after 35 years of operation.

We learned that the highest and best use for this property today is multifamily residential.

Many companies wanted the opportunity to redevelop the property for that purpose.

We chose Florinoy in large part because of how thoughtful, deliberate, and considerate they were with their planning and design for the property.

Unlike some developers we spoke with, Florinoy's team designed a site plan that carefully balanced the development with the impact that would result from that development relative to both the community and the environment.

Florent intentionally reduced both the unit density and the building height in the areas of the property closest to the homes to our east.

They place the recreational facilities, the areas that could generate the most noise closest to Gunn Highway and away from the neighboring residential areas.

They preserved the lakes and some of the green space in the north that provide wildlife habitat.

These are all deliberate and considerate decisions that Floriner made to balance the inherent tension between development and impact.

As a result, Florinoid's project will impact the adjoining property owners less than our use of the property did, and certainly less than if we utilize the property to the full capacity to which we are currently entitled.

Today, our pool and our tennis courts are located near the residences to our east, and we learned during development meetings during neighborhood meetings that that has been an irritant to them.

But when Florino relocates the recreational facilities away from the eastern property line, the issues we created for our neighbors will go away.

Moreover, the change in use of the property from a community center, preschool, day camp, and assisted living facility to a residential project will reduce traffic.

This is already quantified in the agency review summary that you have, but it bears repeating.

A residential project with 346 units will generate less traffic impact than we did with our various uses.

Commissioners, many of you are already familiar with our nonprofit organization, so I spent and won't spend much time talking about it.

But I want to make three quick observations.

First, if you approve Florinois' rezoning request and they close their purchase, the sale proceeds we receive will be used for purposes consistent with our mission, which, as you know, won't just benefit the Jewish community, it will benefit the broader community as well.

Second, although not specifically related to the rezoning, I want to mention that despite our sale of the Cone campus, our organization is continuing to offer programs for Jewish and non-Jewish people in the north part of the county.

We have recently leased space in the Dale Mabry and Fletcher Avenue area and are already offering programs there, especially for our amazing Parkinson's initiative.

We hope to be able to expand that initiative because of the significant difference it is making in the lives of so many people in our community.

And finally, to state the obvious today, this land is exempt from property taxes because it is owned by a nonprofit.

But once the property is rezoned and Florinoy acquires it, this property will become taxable again, which we all know will be of significant benefit to the county, especially if the new property tax constitutional amendment is adopted in November.

For these reasons and more that I don't have time to talk about, I urge you to approve Flornoy's rezoning petition.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Burger.

Uh anyone here in opposition?

Planning Commission.

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

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

Within the general area of the subject property, there is a mix of single family and multifamily uses with light commercial, heavy commercial, and public quasi public uses oriented along Gunn Highway.

There's a large pocket of commercial uses to the west of the site and the Veterans Expressway with the land uses to the east of the veterans, where the subject property is located, being predominantly residential in nature.

Accordingly, the proposed multifamily development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3.

The applicant is provided information addressing all portions of the flux provision as outlined under future land use section policy 2.2.4.

The applicant provided an analysis for the adequacy and capacity of public facilities and found there were no deficiencies in the water, wastewater, stormwater, parks, and solid waste facilities.

Additionally, the second criterion is addressed via the applicant site design by providing enhanced buffering along the eastern boundary, abutting the existing single family uses and by providing a gradual increase in height, starting with one-story garages near the eastern boundary and increasing to four stories as the buildings are placed more centrally into the western portions of the site.

Lastly, the applicant provided information on the future land use section effort centers and connections policies 2.41 and 2.51, which prioritize prioritize centers and connections for redevelopment and promote diversification of housing types to allow for households of varying ages, demographics, and income levels.

The utilization of the FLEX provision on a site that is located within a centers and connections area to allow for a broader range of housing types furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan.

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

Thank you.

Hearing master.

And the recommendation was for approval.

All right, thank you.

Motion to approve Commissioner Cohen, Commissioner Wilson.

Please call your vote on F2.

Motion carry five to zero.

F three.

Commissioner's next item agenda item F3 is major modern 26-0551.

This is a request to modify a portion of the plan development located at the southwest corner of Sinclair Hills Road and Livingston Avenue.

This modification is dealing with the.86 parcel located along the front of uh Sinclair Hills.

As you can see by this, the PD also incorporates parcels, three parcels to the south of the property with frontage on Livingston.

The apping is requesting the modify allowed uses on this parcel to provide for 6,000 square feet of uh CN use commercial neighborhood uses with restrictions, those restrictions including uh no gas sales and no uh drive-throughs of any type.

Uh the app as part of this is has located the buildings uh located towards uh the corner of the intersection and has per has provided enhanced buffering and screening to mitigate for impacts uh based on those considerations.

Staff is recommending approval.

The planning commission found it consistent in here and also also recommended approval.

We're available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh the applicant here.

Thank you, Ms.

Chairman.

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

Petersburg.

This is Major Mod 260551.

Glad to report to you that we have all approvals, planning commission's consistent, development services meets locational criteria, no agency objections, and the zoning hearing master as well supports this request.

Generation of the issue is that we've sought to split the original PD.

Uh some of the owners had a falling out of some sort.

I'm uh the agent representative for the part of the application before you today.

Now, importantly, Commissioners, this came before you prior, which were done which was denied.

So what we did was we went back and looked at the exact minutes and concerns of the commission.

And quite frankly, my wife accuses me a lot of not listening, but in this case, we listened very carefully.

We went through exactly what the concerns were.

And if she's listening, she'd be very proud of me because we listened and responded to the commissioner's concerns very closely.

So we're in the loose area, 0.90 acres, uh, as indicated here.

Property appraiser shows it at Sinclair Hills and Livingston Avenue.

These are the two parcels before you today.

Uh the issue is to remove the dry cleaners, allow 6,000 square feet of restricted commercial neighborhood uses.

That's the lowest commercial category, professional services, health practitioner uses.

We've enhanced the buffers and prohibited some use of that would be a difficulty.

Now the site proposed you put proposed today, have restrictions and eliminations from the denied application that you denied some time ago.

We removed the two food trucks, which was 1,200 square feet, clean the property up, CG and C and uses all are now CN uses and professional office.

Three buffer and screen variations.

We've reduced that to two because variations were a concern, and removal variation against the residential.

So we looked at the transcript very closely, primarily Commissioners Wallstone and Commissioner Cohn had the direction was that placing the commercial business on top of the homeowner was not a good direction.

Uh you both directed in that regard and as well the food trucks being removed.

We addressed and removed all those and changed all those.

So much so, and I'm sorry as well.

The ZHM recognized the same thing.

Replaced the commercial business on top of the owners and concerns of those impacts.

So with that, we brought it back to the staff who approved it to come back sooner than the one year.

So they agreed with the changes that were significant and different.

So this is the current O6 approval, which included a 3,500 square foot dry cleaner.

So you have just the portion at the top.

The other part is not included.

It's still part of the existing PD, but it's not here today.

The only opposition that we've had has come from the PD owners that not included today.

So again, today's PD is across and clear.

The other PD stays the same, no changes.

And I want to place emphasis again that the only opposition we have are from the PD owners who are a part of the PD in that green area.

So looking at the site, the site is on the left.

There's a gas station, mobile gas station across the street.

This is the site now.

You can see it has been cleaned up.

Food trucks are gone.

In fact, the ZHM has in the record, those have all been cleaned up and removed.

And here's some better pictures of the cleanup for you.

So on the prior PD, we had the food trucks, we had heavy commercial and a lot of variations to reduce buffers.

So what we've done is remove that variation against the residential, remove the food trucks, and change the uses to CN.

And again, an adjacent residential, much better.

No variation.

That was a critical component and modify.

We even increased and enhanced the uh buffer uh near the corner.

The activity, whatever there would be on the CM would be focused away both on both roadways, not to the rear.

Um it's important to note that the existing PD, which is still part of this, is primarily retention in terms of the uses abutting and adjacent each other.

As you can see the PD notes, retention and parking.

So we don't see any impacts in regard to the PD of the same owners of the P D.

So we have two letters in opposition for the PD owners, and is our understanding they also own the gasoline station across the street.

That's what or I should say it appears that they operate the gas station across the street to the best of our understanding.

Plenty notes.

Um we are providing uh buffer from adjacent providing a buffer to adjacent residential uses as I've shown you.

Development services notes, the enhanced buffering and screening uh is recognized nearby against the residential parcels.

Uh future land use has the R20, R6, and R12 zoning, as I've laid out to you as a gas station across the street.

Traffic count on Livingston is 13,993 vehicles per day.

And we do have a cap on the amount of activity, uh, which is 64 gross AM peak and 64 gross PM.

Under loose community plan and notes, uh they have a desire to retain existing and encouraged new commercial use is geared to serving daily needs, which is really what CN uh commercial uses provide, and a scale and design that complements the character, which this would be small in nature, and improved design aesthetics to make the physical development of the community more attractive again.

We removed all of those unattractive and difficult uses that were causing a problem.

Planning commission notes it will complement the surrounding neighborhoods, are compatible with the existing development pattern, is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies.

Development services notes, the buffering and screening intended to mitigate potential impacts on nearby residential properties, uh, and is less than standard commercial zoning districts.

Uh square footage does not exceed the maximum permitted, so we are below square footage.

The majority of the proposed uses are permitted elsewhere in the PD are limited to ensure compatibility.

I will tell you that the ZHM uh had a good finding, also recognized the enhanced planting are substantive in that quote, uh, given the overall landscape plan uh that is supported and that the ZHM noted design is and conditioned by the staff, it is compatible with the surrounding land use area, and presents a plan that is reasonable, quote, reasonable and compatible and more marketable over the current approval, which was for dry cleaners, and recognizes the removal of the uh intensive objectional uses.

So that, Mr.

Chairman, we appreciate your attention and consideration.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone here uh in support the application?

Anyone in opposition?

Please come forward.

Good morning.

My name is Nashad Sulfan.

My address is 15118 Livingston Avenue, is right next to their property.

First of all, I do not own no gas station.

I don't know what he's talking about.

I bless I never had a full out with the new owners because they're just bought it three years ago, and I've been owning my property since 2013.

And what he say, there's a lake or parking lot or something.

That's my house.

That's where I live.

And all I need is privacy.

Since the new owner came in, he broke all the law, he built some sheds for food trunks, and he had the smoke shop instead of dry cleaner.

And they the the the smoke shop is like less than half a foot away from my house.

Half a foot.

And this is farming land, and they want to turn it to something else.

Is it middle of the neighborhood?

This houses all over the area.

And they say that the buffer zone, they supposed to be 20 foot, but they're doing different pieces, like a three foot one area, five foot the other area, ten foot the other area.

I don't understand this.

I really, really, all I need is a prophecy, and if they if you approve this plan, it's gonna make us go crazy.

We're already going crazy because the smoke shop opened at two o'clock in the morning.

And this we both are properly a while back for the future for our kids to have a few houses for them to live there as of our life.

But the way they're doing it, these guys, it seems none of this is gonna happen.

And the old owners, I never had no problem with them.

These guys just went crazy when they came in.

And the PD he's talking about, believe it or not.

I just found out about it, then at this court hearing that I have PD there.

All I know have I have my house.

That's it.

I don't know about BD.

I'm not gonna build nothing there.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Anyone else in opposition?

All right, Mr.

Pressman.

You have an opportunity for rebuttal.

Oh, thanks.

Uh yes, Ms.

Chairman and board members.

Just to clarify the record, as we look through public records, it appeared that the gentleman who spoke um had an interest in operating the gasoline station.

That that was an understanding that we believe we've saw through the public record.

Um, as the gentleman indicated, and as commissioners were aware, uh, there were uh difficult use on the site.

Obviously, they've been removed.

Uh they're not a part of the P, they're not a part of the approved uses.

The smoke shop he's referring to is like a one of the tobacco type stores.

Uh it's a closed retail uh store uh that has been operating and would be far less generating than uh the dry cleaners that was permissible, but probably a lot less quieter.

Uh so again, we have all approvals from staff through ZHM.

Uh and uh we've of course send out numerous notices and big yellow signs.

We're glad and think we've done a great job.

They have just the one uh opponent uh raising some objections.

So with that, we appreciate your attention and consideration.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh Planning Commission.

Thank you.

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

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

The um the area is classified as vacant commercial on the western um parcel and light commercial on the eastern.

There are single family uses to the north, south, and west of the subject property.

To the east are multifamily developments.

To the north at the northwest corner of Sinclair Hills Road and Livingston is a gas station.

The proposed um request meets the intent of future land use section policies 3.1.1 and 4.4.1, which requires the restriction of incompatible land uses and that new development be integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.

In this case, the request includes increased landscape buffers between the modification area and the southern parcels that are part of the planned development.

A 20-foot enhanced type B buffer with trees planted every 15 feet on center is proposed.

A significant amount of retention is proposed at the westernmost side of the area, providing a buffer from the adjacent residential uses.

The site plan shows an efficient system of internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation with the main access on Sinclair Hills Road and Livingston Avenue, as well as cross access as shown.

The request is also consistent with future land use section objective 4.7 and the associated policies relating to commercial locational criteria.

At least 75% of the subject site falls within a thousand feet of the intersection of roadways that have a functional classification of either a collector or an arterial roadway.

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

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the my major modification request and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommended approval.

All right, thank you.

Uh, Commissioner Wolstool.

I just thought I'd address since my old quotes were brought up.

Um and somebody online was just telling me how I approve everything.

But um I I do believe that all of my concerns were addressed.

The the original ask was literally sitting that that business on the existing homes.

I had an issue with that.

There, it's future land use category of six, which seems to be exactly what they're asking for, and they have offered a significant buffer and reduction of what was originally asked for a couple of years ago.

For so for those reasons, I'm gonna be supporting the item.

Commissioner Cohen.

I just want to add um the the objection that I raised mainly at the first hearing where we denied this originally had to do with the food trucks, and that though those have been removed, which I I think you know greatly reduces some of the conflict points that obviously existed on this property.

I also just want to note that there is a a gas station across the street.

So there is already a fairly heavy commercial use right in the vicinity.

So I'll move for approval.

Okay, got a motion to approve.

Commissioner Cohen signed Commissioner Wolstool.

Uh Adam, I do have two questions, though.

I know that the food trucks were removed, but are they prohibited moving forward?

So, Commissioner, they are not part of their request, but they are not a specifically prohibited use.

I would suggest that that could be added.

So we could include that if we wanted to.

Okay.

And then secondly, um, I know the reference that there are some vegetative screening.

Is there any additional buffering that could be offered?

So the the applicant has offered an enhanced um enhanced screening with uh trees planned on close closer to centers, the one area where they're asking a waiver uh from that uh uh screening requirement is where the existing building is on the site today.

It is it is too close to the property line to plant uh trees.

And I will note that um the residential use that's there today has been noted as actually a legal non-conforming use since it's approved through a planned development for for other uses.

So that the applicant has made effort to provide enhanced landscaping where where available and the two um uh variations referenced uh were areas where it was not really possible to add enhanced screening.

Yep.

Okay, um, Commissioner Cohen, are you okay?

Let's add to the motion uh a specific restriction on food trucks on the property.

Okay.

Okay, we got a motion uh in a second.

Uh please record your vote.

Motion carry five through zero.

Thank you.

Uh next item.

Commissioner's next item is agenda item uh F4 rezoning PD 26-0555.

Uh, this is request to rezone a 53.66 acre parcel located on the north side of Causeway Boulevard, uh south of the uh Selman veteran across town expressway uh east of 301 and west of Falkenberg Road.

Uh, the request is to rezone uh the parcel to a PDL for a church, which would be in parcel parcel B, and then uh 325 multifamily units in parcel A.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

Uh Planning Commission found a consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval, and we're able for any questions.

All right, the applicant here.

Good morning, Elise Bassel Stearns Weaver Miller.

On behalf of the applicant, 401 East Jackson Street.

We're available to answer any questions that you have, but otherwise, we don't have anything to add to with staff's report.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh, any proponent testimony?

Please come forward.

Morning.

Good morning.

My name is Jonas Alday.

I'm the executive pastor of the Crossing Church.

And the first thing I want to say is uh thank you for what often is a thankless job.

Y'all do a great job.

My mom was a county commissioner at one point, so I know the I know the job.

Um I've been a public servant for over 30 years, and uh so I appreciate what y'all are doing here.

And I also want to say thanks for hearing our case.

And you know, this uh this sale of this property and this rezoning and the sale of the property is gonna enable us to be able to pay for a parking lot that we're building.

Currently, for the last 20 years, we've been serving this community.

Our our people have been parking in a field behind the church and traipse and through the woods to get to the church, and that's not very conducive to you know ladies with high heels.

And uh, so it's gonna help us and be able to improve what we're doing and it can and to further the mission that God has called us to do in this community and serve y'all.

So I just want to say thank you for for considering it.

And if everything goes well, thanks for passing it.

Pretty much appreciate the kind words, sir.

Have a good day.

Uh anyone else here in support?

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

Thank you.

The subject property is located within the urban mixed use 20 and residential nine future land use categories.

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

High density residential development is predominant in the area with some existing smaller single-family residences to the south.

The commercial and industrial uses are nearby or oriented along Highway 301.

Considered collectively, this mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed use, especially as it is within the area intended for higher intensity and density mixed use development.

Accordingly, the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3.

Policy 421 requires that projects proposed in all mixed-use plan categories be required to develop with a minimum of two land uses within a single building or within a single project in a separate building or in separate buildings in accordance with specific criteria.

Based on the proposed uses of the plan development of multifamily and church uses, the proposal meets the required mix of use requirement and is consistent with this policy direction.

The subject site is located within the light industrial Brandon Community Character District, which under goal six of the community plan calls for primarily business parks, light industrial and government uses, but those uses are not a requirement of this character district.

Given the existing residential uses within the area and the proximity to the urban center and urban general character districts to the east and south of the site, the proposed residential and church uses serve as a great as a transition between character districts and are consistent with the vision of the community plan.

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

Thank you.

Hearing master.

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

All right, we have a motion.

Motion carry 530.

Okay.

Go to G items.

Commissioners, the next uh we're onto the related item section of the agenda.

The next uh items are G1A, G1B, and G1C.

Um G1A is a requestary zone.

Uh uh 634.66 acre parcel uh to a plan development.

Uh vast of large majority of the parcels already permitted a plan development for over a thousand units in the area east of the TICO right-of-way and west of the county road 579.

This request would add additional acreage uh to the west of the TICO easement to accommodate uh residential uses of uh staff is uh recommending approval.

Uh planning mission found a consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval when we're bill for any questions regarding G1A.

Good morning.

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

Um actually um this is gonna be a quick presentation as you've heard.

This is an existing plan development in the urban service area and the Warmova community plan and adds a future land use of residential floor.

And what we are requesting is to um this is the existing PD plan.

But what we're doing is we're adding acreage, approximately 106 acres to the site, and we are converting the approved um community residential support and school site to residential.

The Hillsbore County Public School uh has reviewed this and had no objections for the conversion of this site to be residential, and this will allow uh many different types of residential development.

As part of this application, we're also asking for a right-of-way vacation, and um all agencies reviewed that and they had no objections to that as well.

And by doing so, we will realign the road uh to align with the roundabout to the north of us that's actually currently built.

Furthermore, as you know, through these uh development, there's transportation improvements that's required uh throughout the site, but more specifically this one.

Uh, we are proposing to develop a roundabout, and that will be done through the MFASA, which is the mobility fee alternative satisfactory agreement.

But it's more fun to say Mufasa, and that will also be in combination with uh Westlake Row that's going to be developed with the uh collaboration with the development to the south of us.

Reviewing agencies and hearing officer has recommended approval.

I'm here with my team if you have any questions, and that concludes my presentation.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition?

Planning commission.

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

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

The surrounding land use pattern includes a mix of vacant land, single family residential, HOA property, and agricultural uses.

Agricultural uses are also present surrounding the subject property.

Given the existing and entitled development pattern in the surrounding area, the proposed development is consistent with growth objectives of the future land use section objective outlined under objective 1.1 and meets the compatibility standards of policy 3.1.3.

The proposal demonstrates sensitivity to the surrounding land uses and maintains the established character of the area.

The residential four land use category allows for a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre with 634 acres.

The subject site can be considered for a maximum of up to 2,536 dwelling units, and the proposed development is proposing 2,000 dwelling units.

Therefore, the proposed plan development is consistent with the uses allowed under the existing residential floor future land use category, and the request is consistent with future land use section goal two, and it's modifying objective 2.2.

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

Thank you.

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

Okay, we'll hold off vote until after uh G1C.

Uh Mr.

Grade, you need to introduce uh G1B.

Uh yes, G1B is vacate petition 26-0006.

Uh, real estate services will present this item.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Victoria Rosenbecker with real estate services.

Item G1B today is vacate ID V26-0006.

This is a petition by Larry Bush, Lewis Emerson Bodle, and IIP FL1 LLC to vacate a portion of unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of 0.91 acres.

The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of Davis and Dowdell addition to town of My Mama as recorded in Plat Book 1, page 136, and is generally located east of South U.S.

Highway 301 and west of South County Road 579 in Waimama.

The petitioners submitted this request to allow for construction of a residential development and a realigned connection to Bishop Road from the North.

Upon request, the petitioners have granted a utility easement over the vacate area to TICO.

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

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

This is a vacating uh commissioner, so there's no report.

I'm sorry, my bad.

Um, okay.

Do you need to introduce G1C?

Commissioner G1C is a an accompanying item with this rezoning.

Uh this is a mobility fee alternative satisfaction agreement.

The purpose of the agreement is for the uh applicant to construct a capacity enhancing off-site improvement.

This would be at the intersection of Westlake and Bishop Road.

This will be a call a peanut roundabout, and the idea here is to enhance the capacity of this intersection beyond the operational requirements for the for the plan development.

Uh, the agreement is with one of the property owners within the plan development, so that property owner's land would be able to take credit for the cost of the improvement against mobility fees, and would also be uh withheld from getting any certificates of occupancy until that uh improvement was completed.

I'm available for any questions.

All right, this public uh anyone it's not a public hearing, but anyone wanted to speak to this item.

If not, can we have a motion for G1A, G1B, and G1C?

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Cohen.

I'll second.

Second Commissioner Miller.

Uh, please record your vote.

Motion carried five through zero.

Next item commissioner, the next item is related items G2A and G2B.

Uh agenda item G2A is rezoning PD 26-0560 is a request rezone, a 45.89 acre parcel on the west side of Livingston Avenue uh adjacent to I-275.

The request is again for PD to provide for 886 uh units single family subdivision uh density would be approximately 1.9 units per acre uh in a res for plan category was drafted.

Find this request approvable, uh subject conditions.

Um planning mission founding consistent and hearing officer also recommended approval with an additional condition that basically requires uh this the retention ponds is consistent shown in this concession plan be located in this general location subject to final engineering.

Uh and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning, Cammy Corporate with a law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

We do have a brief presentation.

Some of it is a little bit duplicate, duplicative, and this is the location of the site, south of 75, uh, west of Lyfting Livingstein Avenue.

PD is for a request for a total of 86 single family homes.

The applicant is Meritage Homes.

They're one of the fifth largest home builders by volume in the United States.

This is the product type that we showed to the residents when we met them.

There was a lot of concern about what the product type would look like, and this being a quality development, so we did provide these renderings.

This is Meritage's move up product.

And we started with a request for a standard request in residential for future land use category of minimum lot size of 40 units the acre, which allowed us to have 130 units total.

And that is actually the request that was found consistent by the planning commission and development services.

But after meeting with the neighbors and hearing their concerns about the character of this particular neighborhood and understanding the community that Meritage wanted to place here for their move up buyers, we agreed to increase the lot sizes to a minimum of 60 feet and then go down to 86 units, which we thought was responsive to their concerns.

And then also you can see the conceptual layout, which the zoning hearing master did actually incorporate it into the request for the certified site plan.

And you'll see that the site and the natural wetland buffers provide a lot of buffering and screening to neighbor adjacent neighbors, and there's really only one dwelling unit that is directly adjacent to a lot.

And then where we are adjacent to lots, we've added a five-foot vertical screening and buffering, which is not required by the code, and it's more than what the code requires, and we are providing the 15-foot scenic roadway corridor along Livingston Avenue.

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

Good morning, Kayla Wetkowski with Clearview Land Design, 3010 West Azile Street, Tampa, Florida.

As you can see, the subject property lies within residential for future land use, which would allow for up to 183 units.

This area slowly transitions from Res 1 and Res 2 to the north of the interstate to Res 4 directly south of the interstate with a gradual increase to higher density residential closer to Bears.

This request is for the development of up to 86 units, which would result in a density of 1.87 units per acre, which is less than half of what the comprehensive plan would allow for.

Future land use objective 2.3 and policy 2.3.1 of the comprehensive plan encourage development within the urban service area to utilize the allowable density of the land use category in order to maximize utilization of infrastructure.

However, future land use objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.3 also emphasize the importance of compatibility with surrounding development.

This request we believe balances both of these objectives by respecting the existing development pattern while also thoughtfully utilizing the land.

The distinction between these two areas is important because each has developed with a different character and development pattern.

The portion of Lutz within the urban service area is predominantly developed with a suburban style with communities such as Shabal, Stonebrier, and Heritage Harbor, while the area outside of the urban service area is primarily developed as semi-rural large lot development.

The interstate serves as a dividing line between the rural and urban service area, and this site is directly to the south of that line within the urban service area.

With a semi-rural density of fewer than two units per acre and the inclusion of thoughtful buffering and screening, we believe that this request provides an appropriate transition between the more suburban development pattern within the urban service area and the large lot residential character north of I-275.

With respect to compatibility, this graphic shows the density of other residential developments within one mile of the subject site.

There is a wide variety of residential development within the general vicinity to include apartments, student housing, villas, a mobile home park, and a condominium association.

Immediately adjacent to the site are larger lot residential developments that are similar to density to our proposal.

This development serves as a rational transition between the development to the north and the south.

And I would like to point out that the comprehensive plan defines compatibility as being sensitive and maintaining the character of existing development, and this proposal does just that.

This map illustrates the site's relationship to surrounding public facilities and community infrastructure.

As shown, this property is centrally located within an established urbanized area and is well served by existing public services and facilities.

From a school capacity standpoint, the site is located within proximity to several schools, and the school district has confirmed that there is adequate capacity at the zone schools to accommodate the proposed development.

This map also demonstrates the availability of emergency services with two fire stations located within approximately two mile radius.

And in addition, the site is located within close proximity to a public library and other civics resources that serve the surrounding community.

Utility services also available through the city of Tampa, which further supports the site's suitability for the proposed development.

In conclusion, this request aligns with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, is consistent with the land development code with no requests for waivers or variations, is compatible with the existing development in the area, is being supported by staff, and we also have a recommendation of approval from the ZHM.

So for these reasons, we would respectfully request a recommendation of approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Cami Corbett again.

We do have our transportation engineer and our stormwater engineer.

Should you have any questions relating to that?

Um I do think you're going to hear a lot of concerns about compatibility because the lots are not the same as the lots that are directly adjacent that are half acre or more.

Again, noting this has this property has been residential for future land use category since the inception of the Lutz community plan and has been targeted as part of the urban service area, and what we are providing is a semi semi-rural density by going down to the 86 units of the acre, and we would respectfully request your approval this morning.

All right, thank you.

Uh any proponent testimony.

Anyone here in support?

Uh opponent testimony.

Please come forward.

You have a total of 10 minutes.

I believe we do have one virtually as yes, good morning.

All right, well, I guess you're going first.

Yeah, you have a total of 10 minutes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Uh Alan Vernick, 2110 Curry Road, Lutz, Florida.

We will rely entirely on the record established before the zoning hearing, Master, including the recommendation itself, the applicant's testimony, the adapted comprehensive plan and Lutz Community Plan.

The question before the board is not whether homes can be built on this property.

The question is whether the recommendation correctly applies the comprehensive plan and the LUTs community plan.

We will show that the recommendation misapplies the LUTs community plan, treats compliance as compatibility, and fails to demonstrate that the development pattern is compatible with the surrounding community.

The recommendation places significant weight on the fact that this property is designated R4 and located within the serve uh urban service area.

It goes further and creates what it calls a distinct R4 urban service area subset within the LUTS community plan.

However, that subset does not appear anywhere in the community plan.

It is a construct of the recommendation, not a policy of the plan itself.

More importantly, the comprehensive plan states that development must be compatible with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood.

The R4 designation determines what may be considered.

It does not determine what is compatible.

The recommendation also concludes that the proposed density is similar to adjacent communities and therefore semi-rural in character.

However, those comparisons rely on gross density calculations while ignoring the actual development pattern.

The surrounding area includes Curry Cove, Fitchwall Country, and Livingston Acres with lot sizes generally ranging from one half acre to more than two acres.

The proposed proposal introduces 6,000 square foot lots.

Moreover, the recommendation repeatedly relies on the fact that suburban development already exists elsewhere within portions of LUTs.

The existing of a use and the compatibility of a use are not the same thing.

The comprehensive plans, neighborhood protection policies emphasize preserving existing neighborhoods and ensuring compatibility with surrounding development.

Yet the recommendation never demonstrates how this proposal maintains the character scale and development patterns of the surrounding area.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of property rights.

Property rights and plan compliance are not competing principles.

The recommendation treats this proposal as though it is the only way the property can be developed.

It is not.

A denial of this request would not remove development rights.

It would require those rights to be exercised in a manner that complies with the adopted plan.

I will now turn it over to Valerie Rubicki to address the transportation and infrastructure findings contained in the recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Valerie Rebecca.

I live at 16103 Darnell Road in Lutz.

I'd like to address the transportation and infrastructure findings in the recommendation.

Although it concludes that the project traffic can be accommodated, Lividston Avenue remains a substandard two-lane rural collector road operating at level of service F, both north and south of the project area.

In other words, it's a failed road.

According to the Transportation Department's analysis, this project would increase daily trips from 621 to 959 trips per day.

While the applicant's traffic engineer testified that capacity remains available, he also acknowledged that there is not much capacity remaining.

As I testified before the zoning hearing, Master, that concern becomes even more significant when this project is viewed in the context of other pending development proposals along Livingston Avenue.

Project number PRS 26-0632 is located approximately two-tenths of a mile from this site.

And project number RZ-PD 26-0281 is located approximately four tenths of a mile away.

Residents already experienced significant congestion.

Additional development along the same road raises concerns about cumulative impacts on an already failed road.

The recommendation also relies on future improvements to Livingston Avenue.

However, county transportation staff testified that while Livingston Avenue is identified for future widening, the project is not currently included in the Capital Improvement Program, and no construction timeline was provided.

The traffic impacts are immediate while the road improvements remain uncertain.

Residents also expressed concerns regarding the close proximity of the project's proposed turn lane near both the northern entrance of Victora Circle and the I-275 overpass.

While the applicants engineered testify that the design complies with county standards, those concerns remain unresolved for nearby residents who use Livingston Avenue every day and already have difficulty turning left onto Livingston Avenue.

The recommendation also cites the Curry Road emergency access as evidence of compatibility.

Yet the land development code does not require that access be routed through an existing neighborhood.

The proposed connection through Curry Cove is a result of the applicant's chosen site design, not a compatibility standard.

A more compatible site design could provide the required emergency access while preserving Curry Road as a contained residential street and protecting the neighborhood from the potential for future cut-through traffic.

Transportation compliance does not establish compatibility.

The recommendation concludes that the project is compatible because the road can accommodate the traffic, barely, as their traffic engineer stated.

But the comprehensive plan and the Lutz Community Plan require more than meeting minimum transportation standards.

The project must still satisfy the compatibility requirements of those plans.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Maria Elena Demico, and I reside at 16105 Darnell Road in Lutz.

You have heard today regarding the community plan, the urban plan, the Lutz Community Plan, the Comprehensive Play, compatibility, and transportation.

Rather than repeat this, I'd like to close by returning to the purpose of the Lutz Community Plan itself.

Community plans are not adopted simply to describe a community.

They are adopted to guide its future.

They provide a consistent framework so that each rezoning is evaluated not only on what can be built, but what can be built in a particular place.

The Lutz Community Plan recognizes Eats Lut East Lutz is a semi-rural community.

It discusses compatibility transitions, clustering, building two lot relationships, and preserving the character that makes this area distinct.

These are not isolated policies, but together they establish the vision of how East Lutz should continue to evolve.

This property is at the entrance to each East Lutz, like the entrance to any community.

It should reflect the character beyond it, not establish a different different one, and definitely try not to squeeze one last thing in before it continues further up the road.

Today's decision is not about whether this property should be developed.

Growth is inevitable, and responsible development is important.

As a real estate broker and property manager, I understand this better than most.

The question before you is whether this proposal continues the planning vision, your adopted policies established for East LUTs.

The community plan answers that question with one simple principle.

The intent of this community plan is to recognize and protect those planned communities from incompatible land uses, but not to continue development in LUTs in a suburban manner.

That statement isn't directed at one applicant.

It is a standard intended to guide every application that comes before the board.

After considering the record before you, you conclude that this proposal does not provide the compatible transition envisioned by your adopted plans.

Today's decision need not be viewed as a decision against development.

Instead, it can provide the opportunity for a proposal that better fits the character of East Lutz while representing the planning principles.

This board has already adopted.

Growth compatibility are not mutually exclusive.

The right proposal can accomplish both.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am.

This time applicant has opportunity for rebuttal.

I'd like Michael Yates to come up and briefly address traffic.

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

Could we bring up the overhead?

I just want to go through a couple of the traffic comments that uh were raised.

Uh we did look at the capacity of the roadway based on the data we collected out there when we did our traffic study.

And as you can see, there is just we do fall within level of service D based on the counts and the addition of the project trips.

Uh, we also did intersection analysis at the project driveway and showed it operates at an acceptable level of service.

Um there is reference to uh Livingston be widened to a four-lane uh divided facility in the long range plan, uh, which has a half width of 55 feet of right-away, so we are preserving that 55 feet uh and then I'll go through here.

Uh, there is a right-of-way dedication of 20 feet and our and then a right-of-way preservation of an additional 10 feet to get us the 55 feet.

Uh we are also widening the road to provide a northbound left turn lane.

Uh, with that widening, we are also doing uh paved shoulders out there along the project frontage and adding a five-foot sidewalk.

Uh, so this is part of the design exception that has been found approvable.

Uh, these will be significant improvements to the roadway in the vicinity of the project that would allow the driveway to function at and within the county standards.

I'll turn it back over to Cam.

Thank you.

And then commissioners, again, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

This is not strictly a policy decision, so the burden is essentially on the applicant to demonstrate that we've met our burden that we comply with the land development code and the comprehensive plan and all of the substantial competent evidence with respect to compatibility, which is a subject that does require expert testimony.

It tells you that this project is consistent both with the compati that the comprehensive plan and the Lutz Community Plan.

Again, we recognize that there are portions of the Lutz Community Plan that are rural.

But this property is decidedly within the urban service boundary, which is supposed to be for suburban development, yet we're providing a semi-rural development pattern here of less than two units the acre.

We tried to be thoughtful to the concerns of the residents with respect to the emergency access on Curry Road.

That's up to the discretion of the board.

That is something we provide because that is something that staff looks to us to provide.

We've had that in other instances.

It's not something that's driven by the developer or needed for this development.

So if that's something that this board wishes to remove, we're we're fine with that.

But again, I know this is a difficult decision, and people you know are very passionate about it, but ultimately when you look at the facts in the record, um, all of the expert testimony uh provides that this is consistent with the Lutz Community Plan and is compatible with a comprehensive plan, and we'd respectfully request your approval, and we're here to answer any questions you might have that may have been raised that we didn't answer.

All right, thank you.

Uh planning commission.

Thank you.

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

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the LUTS community plan.

The subject property currently consists of vacant land with some agricultural uses.

The surrounding areas are largely characterized by single family residential development with some additional agricultural uses north of Interstate 275 in the rural area and public quasi public uses to the south and east of the site within the urban service area.

Considered collectively, this mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed single family residential use, especially as it is located within the urban service area adjacent to existing single family residential uses.

The semi-rural single family residential community character strategy of the Lutz Community Plan seeks to maintain Lutz as a low density semi-rural single family community, offering a variety of housing styles, lot sizes, configurations, and setbacks while ensuring a quality of life and sustainability.

The subject site is allowed consideration of a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre.

However, the applicant has proposed a density well below the maximum at 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre with clustering and preservation of existing wetlands on site, which is consistent with the community plan vision.

Additionally, table 2.2 of the future land use section outlines that developing at one dwelling unit per gross acre is a rural development pattern, and developing at two dwelling units per gross acre is a semi-rural development pattern.

At 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre, the applicant is proposing a development that is between rural and semi-rural.

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

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master reviewed the plan development rezoning and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the land development code and recommended approval, subject to the conditions prepared by development services and subject to uh additional condition regarding the stormwater pond locations, which were which was uh made record in the decision of the ZHM.

Okay, we'll defer a vote till after G1B.

Uh does staff need to introduce the PRS.

Just real quickly, a G2B is PRS application 2606.

Uh this is a request for a mire modification of the PD uh located to the south of G2A.

Uh, the purpose of this is the area highlight in the strip uh parcel is being incorporated into the uh the PD associated the G2A application, uh therefore through this uh PRS modification that's the that's the site planning conditions are being modified to show that area being removed uh from the parcel in the event uh G2A is approved.

Uh we're built for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Applicant Cammy Corbett again for the record.

The only thing I want to note about this this is the PRS that was referenced by the folks that spoke in opposition to development as being one of the applications that potentially would set precedent for additional development.

This is one in the same.

These two developments are together, so it's a total of 86 units.

The other application that was referred to is further down south and is completely set of different facts and circumstances.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

All right, thanks.

Uh any proponent testimony?

Any opponent testimony?

Okay, we'll go into board discussion.

Uh Commissioner Woolstrom.

Um first I'll overlook the fact that we probably if this went negative, we'd probably lose in court, um, which has happened in a myriad of other places.

I just want to point out to the community, just as they saw earlier today, we often vote things down, and um now they obviously have a catalog of when we do vote it down, and they'll use our quotes um for future applications about why we voted them down.

But um, I was just surprised to see the opposition just because this this does have a future land use category of residential four, and they're asking for less than residential two per acre, um, which is um the mathematical lot size for the transition between rural to semi rule.

So I just um I I the Livingston Avenue question is it is there any way that you know I know that we've done in other cases, I don't even know if it would make sense in this one because the road seems to be so long on the mobility fees.

How much of that is being applied to improvement of Livingston Avenue right next to this?

Do we have that answer?

Commissioner, I don't believe we have an answer of how the mobility fees would how much would be programmed to this improvement um if it was um the board's pleasure that that could be some direction to provide that uh to direct these fees towards that improvement, presuming that it fits within our um threshold time to spend it.

Okay.

Well, I mean, uh Commissioner Hagen has done a skillful job of um applying this community's community plan, which brings me to my next point, which is that I I do believe that this does comply with their community plan, just as the planning commission has articulated.

Um and because it's it's less than half of what was even planned on that.

I think that we would have a hard time arguing that it that it wasn't.

I would be supportive of us figuring out a way to apply the mobility fees to improvements directly adjacent um to this, specifically to Livingston Avant Avenue, if if it was the pleasure of the board.

I would also be willing to support the removal of the emergency access that was on the south end of the property there, if that was also the pleasure of the board.

But I I believe this is just another one of those scenarios to where it's a very light ask for what could be a much heavier ask, which I which they might be able to get approval for um if they had pushed for that as well.

So um those are my comments.

I I do believe that it complies with the community plan, let alone the comp plan and land development code.

So um again, in this could this capacity as quasi-judicial, we are not legislating.

We are held to the local laws, which of course we can be sued and do lose in the 13th judicial court um often for land decisions.

Thank you.

I thank you.

I don't see anyone else on the queue.

That's only a couple of comments.

Um Commissioner Wolstall makes several excellent points that I I do agree with.

Uh um the applicant has made significant concessions and thoughtful conditions uh were added.

Um at the same time, I really struggle with what I believe is the incompatibility between the minimum lot sizes of six thousand square feet and the substantially larger loss lot sizes found in the residential single family developments in the south and southeast.

So I really struggle with that.

So um I'm not gonna support the item today.

However, I would suggest if the if the board is inclined to move forward that we include what Commissioner Wolstall suggested as far as uh removing the um curry road connection, which again that was staff driven, it wasn't the applicant, and also that we apply mobility fees fees near the development, and that's something that I know Commissioner Wilson has brought up in previous um land use request.

So um I don't know the pleasure of the board, but if you're gonna move forward, I would ask that you include those two things.

So what's the pleasure of the board?

And it requires four votes one way or the other to dispose of the item.

I want to point that out with the conditions by Commissioner uh Hagen, please.

All right, so we'll say we'll remove the curry road connection and apply mobility fees um near the development on Livingston.

Adam, is that yes sir?

Any additional language on that?

No, okay.

Okay, so we have a motion uh by Commissioner Um Bull, second Commissioner Miller.

Don't see anyone else in the queue.

Uh please record your vote.

Motion carry with photo one.

Commissioner Hagen voted no.

Okay.

Next up.

Commissioners, the next item is uh agenda item I one under staff items.

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

I would note uh per the uh per the uh table located with the report, we had one additional uh parcel added to uh the list.

Uh it's a small parcel in the and uh and only kind of accommodate nine units under the under the uh provisions of local act.

So we're available for any questions regarding the report.

All right, any questions, comments, not can we have a motion to accept so moved motion to accept the report, Commissioner Wolstall.

Second second, Commissioner Cohen, please record your vote by one motion carry five to zero.

uh it's a small parcel and the and uh and only can accommodate nine units under the under the uh provisions of the local act so we're available for any questions regarding the report all right any questions comments not can we have a motion to accept so moved motion to accept the report commissioner wolstall go for second second commissioner cohen please record your vote i one motion carried five to zero last item commissioners last item is uh item i two and this is the status report on agricultural enclave projects uh as you revised uh at your june regular meeting uh the legislature uh recent in the last legislative session adopted agricultural enclave uh uh the law that provides for for a designation of of projects that comply with the criteria outlined in the in the statute as an agricultural enclave uh and if if so designated and approved as such allows for development consistent with uh surrounding the surrounding development pattern uh procedurally uh this law went into effect on july first uh per the report we did receive uh two applications uh on that on july first uh per the statute staff will have 30 days to review that and then and make a finding is whether or not uh we believe it complies with the standards to be considered an agricultural enclave that it's in that process right now and that's the status of two applications and in subsequent to that it will be before the board at a public hearing we're available for any questions thank you so is that will is that likely the August land use hearing correct okay um see any questions or comments so can we have a motion to accept so moved motion commissioner wolstool second commissioner cohen please record your vote on I two motion carried five to zero okay with that we're adjourned