Hillsborough County Zoning Hearing Master Meeting - August 24, 2026

The Zoning Hearing Master (ZHM) convened on August 24, 2026, at 6:00 PM at the County Center in Tampa to conduct public hearings on rezoning and major modification applications. Hearing Officer Steve Luce presided. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and staff introductions. All testimony was given under oath. The ZHM will file recommendations by September 15, 2026, with final decisions by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on October 13, 2026, for most items, unless otherwise noted.

Consent Calendar

• Withdrawn Applications (by Zoning Administrator): MM 26-0154 (Todd Pressman), RZ-PD 26-0206 (Karla Llanos), RZ-STD 26-0979 (Todd Pressman)
• Continued to September 28, 2026, ZHM Hearing: MM 26-0215 (Florida Conference of Seventh-day Adventists), RZ-PD 26-0237 (Disbrow Corp & Mini Vacations), RZ-PD 26-0281 (Equity Trust Company), RZ-PD 26-0283 (Todd Pressman), MM 26-0546 (Crown Castle USA), RZ-PD 26-0665 (Greentek Property Solutions), RZ-PD 26-0706 (Samia Asset Management), MM 26-0735 (Hillary Hass / American Landmark), RZ-PD 26-0799 (Jacob Cremer), RZ-PD 26-0801 & 26-0802 (Learning Gate Community School), RZ-PD 26-0957 (Ray Gustafson), MM 26-0970 (Jacob Cremer, continued by applicant), RZ-STD 26-1158 (Manish Patel)

Public Comments & Testimony

Significant public testimony was heard on several applications:

• MM 26-0062 (Apollo Beach): Multiple residents opposed the major modification to allow 237 multi-family units. Brad Algren (208 Apollo Beach Blvd) argued the conversion exceeded comprehensive plan density and was inconsistent with height and setback provisions. Laura Craig (6348 Coco Lane) cited severe traffic congestion on Apollo Beach Boulevard, school overcrowding, flooding risks, and evacuation concerns. Lynn Banks (102 St. George Court) presented a petition with 350 signatures from the Caribbean Isles community opposing the development, raising concerns about water runoff, canal siltation, traffic safety, and the building height exceeding the 50-foot guideline. Mary Laverley (123 St. Martin’s Way) questioned the DRI trip exchange methodology (35,000 sq ft vs. 310,000 sq ft) and drainage impacts. Michelle Reed (423 Island Cay Way) supported yielding time to Mr. Algren. Mario Vitoni (220 Elks Bay Rd), representing a neighboring industrial property, expressed concern about impact on remaining developable square footage. Robert Dobby (1407 Jumana Loop) raised concerns about crime and property values. Greg Ellett (6510 Dolphin Cove Dr) noted the traffic signal at Apollo Beach Blvd and US 41 is substandard and that a low-income apartment building was already approved nearby.
• RZ-PD 26-0671 (Balm Rd LLC): Al Bruner (150 Carlton Lake Rd), president of the Balm Civic Association, opposed the 220-unit single-family development, arguing it violates the Balm Community Plan (1 unit per 5 acres), overloads schools, increases traffic on two-lane roads, lacks first responder infrastructure, and reduces agricultural capacity. He cited Sumner High School exceeding capacity within two years of opening.
• RZ-PD 26-0673 (Corporation to Develop Communities of Tampa): Patricia Blandon (6502 23rd Ave) opposed the 20 affordable duplexes, citing destruction of old-growth trees, environmental concerns (natural springs filled, sinkhole risk, well water contamination), and the area already having multiple recycling plants. She expressed frustration with development not being responsive to the community.
• MM 26-0800 (Perfection Partners / Thonotosassa): Lori Walker (13016 Country View Rd) opposed the 30-unit major modification, stating the rural roads cannot handle more traffic and that the planning commission previously recommended denial. Robert Alvis (11907 Thonotosassa Rd) argued the density (1.2 units/acre) does not fit the rural area, noting the road is the oldest paved road in unincorporated Hillsborough and is substandard. Sue Zaley (6411 Red Hawk Ln) and Tegan Zaley (6411 Red Hawk Ln) opposed, citing incompatibility with the rural scenic corridor, flooding impacts from previous developments, and failure to maintain rural character.
• RZ-PD 26-0974 (Leaders Companies / Bellamy Rd): Jonathan Bailey (13790 Roosevelt Blvd), attorney for Hillsdale Baptist Church and school, strongly opposed the convenience store with gas pumps, citing safety risks for children, increased traffic (from 28 to 2,800 daily trips), environmental concerns (wetland impacts, fuel tanks near wetlands), and incompatibility with the residential and institutional character. Michael Cruz Markey (6535 Steeplechase Dr) noted a similar proposal was denied 17 years ago by the same hearing officer, and argued Bellamy Road is the only access for 2,500 homes and traffic would be dangerous. Richard Alexander (6516 Spring Oak Ct) described the development as “greed vs. families,” highlighting the church, pre-K, and schools nearby. Penelope Jacobs (6303 Neston Ct) worried about children exposed to alcohol and gambling. Ginger Wilson (15105 Craggy Cliff St) recounted witnessing a cyclist killed at the intersection and cited numerous daily collisions. Claudia Capiello (14919 Barbie Ave) presented a petition of 870 signatures opposing the project. Jennifer Anderson (14725 Red Cliff Dr) noted the rural area has farm animals and wildlife, and traffic from Veterans Expressway already causes backups. John Perricini (14720 Bellamy Rd) warned that wetland modifications would flood his property.
• RZ-PD 26-0803 (22nd Avenue Tampa): No public opposition was recorded.
• MM 26-0822 (Todd Pressman / Brandon): No public opposition was recorded.

Discussion Items

• C1. RZ-STD 26-1168 (Larry Poliner / RCE Consultants): Request to remove a restriction prohibiting sales/rental of farm and garden equipment on 0.45 acres zoned CG-R. Staff and planning commission found the removal supportable, consistent with surrounding commercial uses. No public opposition.
• C2. RZ-STD 26-1184 (Mattamy Tampa/Sarasota): Rezone 16.51 acres from AS-1 to RSC-9 with restrictions (4 units/acre, 7,200 sq ft minimum lots, 60 ft width). Staff and planning commission found it compatible with surrounding residential. Public concerns about enforcement of plans, access on Raulerson Road, fence height, pump station noise, drainage, and notices.
• D1. MM 26-0062 (Apollo Beach): Major modification to PD 77-0123 to convert 34,511 sq ft of commercial entitlements to 237 multi-family units. Dispute centered on trip exchange methodology: applicant argued PM peak hour trips (as per DRI), staff argued AM outbound peak hour trips control, requiring exchange of 310,364 sq ft. Applicant filed a concurrent DRI development order amendment. Staff recommended disapproval due to traffic tie; transportation staff confirmed exchange would exceed trip cap by 10 trips if using AM outbound. Planning commission found it consistent subject to DRI compliance. Height and buffer variations were requested; staff found variations supportable.
• D2. RZ-PD 26-0363 (Todd Pressman): Rezone 4.11 acres from PD (18-1373) to new PD for 14 single-family homes (density 3.4 units/acre). Staff and planning commission found it compatible. No opposition.
• D3. RZ-PD 26-0445 (Todd Pressman): Rezone 0.55 acres from CG to PD for a 4-story medical/professional office building (11,979 sq ft) at 4020 W Waters Ave. Significant downzoning from commercial general uses. PD variations for setbacks and buffers. One stormwater concern letter received. Staff and planning commission found it compatible and consistent.
• D4. RZ-PD 26-0671 (Balm Rd LLC): Rezone 79.9 acres from AR and PD 93-0005 to new PD for 220 single-family detached units (density 2.75 units/acre). Staff and planning commission found it compatible. Public opposition cited density, traffic, school capacity, and infrastructure deficits.
• D5. RZ-PD 26-0673 (Corporation to Develop Communities of Tampa): Rezone 1.71 acres from RSC-9 to PD for 20 affordable duplex units (12 units/acre). Staff and planning commission found it consistent with community plan. Public opposition raised tree removal, environmental damage, well contamination, and impact on neighborhood character.
• D6. MM 26-0800 (Perfection Partners): Major modification to increase from 14 to 30 single-family lots on 24.22 acres (density 1.24 units/acre) in rural area, pending comprehensive plan amendment to R-2. Staff (development services) found it supportable; planning commission staff found inconsistent with rural character and policy 4.4.7 (lake frontage density). Applicant noted previous planning commission denial, but argued R-2 allows 2 units/acre. Public opposition emphasized incompatibility with rural scenic corridor, flooding, and infrastructure.
• D7. RZ-PD 26-0803 (22nd Avenue Tampa): Rezone 22.2 acres (combination of PD and SPI-UC-2) near University Mall, with concurrent comp plan amendment to R-35 on a portion. Applicant seeks to allow multifamily (up to 483 units) in existing senior building and future redevelopment. Parcel B (ALF) unchanged. Staff and planning commission found it consistent. No opposition.
• D8. MM 26-0822 (Todd Pressman): Major modification on 1.78 acres in Brandon to replace 18 duplexes with 16 townhomes (density 9 units/acre). Staff and planning commission found it compatible with enhanced buffers. No opposition.
• D9. RZ-PD 26-0974 (Leaders Companies): Rezone 3.4 acres from AS-1 to PD for convenience store with 12 fueling pumps. Staff found not supportable due to wetland encroachment, intensity, and unresolved transportation issues (access spacing, right-of-way, county property use). Transportation staff recommended denial. Planning commission found inconsistent due to environmental and compatibility concerns. Applicant argued it meets commercial locational criteria and is a PD that can be conditioned. Public opposition overwhelming, citing safety, traffic, wetlands, and proximity to church/school.

Key Outcomes

• All applications in categories C and D were heard and are pending recommendation to the BOCC or the October 8, 2026 CPA meeting. The ZHM will file recommendations by September 15, 2026.
• No final decisions were made at this hearing; all will be referred to the BOCC for final action.
• Withdrawals and continuances as listed in the consent calendar were effectuated without hearing.
• For D1, the ZHM noted the trip exchange dispute and allowed a five-minute extension for rebuttal. No motion was made; the record will include the applicant’s DRI amendment request.
• For D6, the ZHM acknowledged the pending comprehensive plan amendment and the inconsistent planning commission finding.
• For D9, the ZHM heard extensive opposition and noted the outstanding wetland variance and transportation issues; the applicant requested conditional approval.
• Adjournment at approximately 8:50 PM after a 10-minute break.