Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs.
We're going to head up to that dog hall right now. We'll go out, we'll assess the situation.
I'm looking at these dogs, I'm like garbage. I mean, that's just like, did you see those bags through there?
She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears.
I need my photos, I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see.
Where loyal companions await, one place stands as their beacon of hope. The Pet Resource Center of Hillsborough County, where you can adopt your very own superhero. Adopt the dog, find your sidekick, and unlock the power of unconditional love. Suit up, show up, and adopt today. For more information, visit hcfl.gov slash pets.
In Hillsborough County, your tap water is more than just convenient. It's safe, trusted, and affordable. Every drop is monitored 24 hours a day and tested regularly to meet strict state and federal standards, so you can trust what's coming out of your tap. Skip the plastic water bottles and go with tap. That way, you're choosing sustainability and savings. Hillsborough County Water Resources is proud to deliver quality on tap. For helpful tips and for more information, visit hcfl.gov slash quality on tap.
Get ready for the 10th Annual Hillsborough County Hiking Spree. Lace up your boots and join us from November 1st, 2025 through March 31st, 2026, as we explore the county's stunning nature preserves, winding trails, and hidden ecosystems. Whether you're a seasoned hiker or just looking for a refreshing outdoor adventure, this is your moment. Take in the wild, stay active, and make memories with friends and family. We'll see you on the trail for the 10th Annual Hillsborough County Hiking Spree.
April 7, 2026, a regular scheduled land use meeting of the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. Would everyone please rise for the pledge and invocation given by our Chaplain Commissioner, Gwen Myers.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Dear Heavenly Father, I come to thank you for the rain that we are receiving today. Thank you for this meeting. Thank you for all of our employees who are working in this meeting. And I ask that you would bless all of the applicants who have submitted an application. This board, as we discuss your business, in your name I pray, amen.
Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Mr. Grady, want to review the changes of the agenda?
Good morning, Commissioner. It's Brian Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services. We have, other than the published withdrawals and continuances being on page 3 of the agenda, we have no other changes of the agenda.
All right. Come here, motion to approve the changes. So moved. Motion, Commissioner Wollstall. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Changes the agenda.
Motion carried, 7-0.
All right. This time, I need to provide opportunity for public comment on B-6. Does anyone like to speak to B-6? Seeing none, camera motion for the consent agenda. So moved. Second. Motion, Commissioner Wollstall. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on the consent agenda.
No, motion carried, 7-0.
Okay. Is there anyone here for a B item? Your application's been approved. If you are planning on testifying today, would you please stand? Raise your right hand so the clerk can swear you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated.
Mr. Grady, I want to introduce the first C item.
Commissioner, the first agenda item is C-1. Vacate Petition 25-0016, Real Estate Services, will present this item.
Commissioners, for the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Facilities Management and Real Estate Services. Item C-1 today is Vacate ID B-25-0016. This is a petition by Angel Manuel Marrero, Jr. and Luz Ineda Marrero to vacate a portion of a platted public utility easement located at 2220 Valleybrook Avenue in Valrico and consisting of approximately 85.1 square feet. The proposed vacate area was dedicated through the plat of Brandon Valrico Hills Estates Subdivision Unit No. 3, as recorded in Platte Book 50, page 38, and is generally located south of East State Road 60 and north of East Lumsden Road. The petitioner has submitted this request to allow them to permit a pool enclosure and a shed, both destroyed by Hurricane Milton. Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions.
I thank you for this public hearing. Anyone like to speak to this item? Seeing none, can we have a motion of approval? Second. Commissioner Whelstall, second Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on C-1.
Motion carried, 7-0. C-2. Commissioner, next item is in the item C-2, vacate petition 26-0004, and real estate services will present this item.
Victoria Rosenbecher with Facilities Management and Real Estate Services. Item C-2 today is vacate ID V26-0004. This is a petition by Rock Solid Construction and Development, Inc. to vacate a portion of unimproved platted public right-of-way in East Lake Orient Park, which consists of approximately 1,000 square feet. The alleyway proposed to be vacated was dedicated through the plat of Grant Park edition, as recorded in Platte Book 7, page 55, and is generally located east of North 50th Street and south of East Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard. The petitioner submitted this request in support of a community-focused redevelopment project aimed at providing more affordable housing in Hillsborough County. Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thank you for your consideration, and I can answer any questions.
Okay, this public hearing, anyone like to speak to C-2? Seeing no. Move to approve. Okay, motion, Commissioner Myers, seconded Commissioner Wollstall. Please record your vote on C-2.
The motion carried, 7 to 0.
Okay, now on the public hearing agenda, Mr. Grady, I'm going to introduce the first E-item.
Commissioner Zack Stein of the agenda item E-1. This is CDD application 26-0248. This is a petition to establish the Vista de Roma Community Development District. The petition is submitted by the Walmart Homes, LLC, to establish the CDD district. Vista de Roma CDD will conference approximately 277.781 acres and is located on the east of US-41, approximately one-half mile south of Paso-Elma Boulevard and west of Waterset Boulevard in the Apollo Beach area. No objections to the pro-CDD were raised by removing agencies. Staff finds the application meets the requirements of Chapter 190 Florida Statutes to establish a community-elma district and recommends approval. We'll be able for any questions.
Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone like to speak to E-1? Seeing none, it's a pleasure of the board. I have approval. Motion to Commissioner Wollstall. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on E-1.
The motion carried, 7 to 0.
Okay.
Mr. Grady, I'm going to introduce the first F-item.
Commissioner, the next item is agenda item F-1 is rezoning PD 24-0921. This is a request to rezone a 2.4-acre parcel on North Frontage Road on the north side of I-4, just west of the county line with Pasco County. They rezone it from ASC-1 to a planned development. The planned development will be for a contractor's office with enclosed storage based on the surrounding development pattern and the pro-site plan, which does provide for a 70-foot setback along the northern boundary and retention adjacent to residentials to the north. Staff did find this approval with conditions. The hearing officer also recommended approval. However, the planning mission did find this inconsistent with the plan. We're available for any questions. Thank you.
Is the applicant here? Please come forward.
Good morning.
Good morning.
I was impressed that you had a prayer this morning. That was kind of cool. My name is Isaac Turpin. I'm the owner of True Builders and True Plumbers. Construction companies specialize in emergency services. We do a ton of storm cleanup like hurricane, tornado type stuff. As you know, we get a lot of that. It takes an incredible amount of storage. I'm in a really good position, blessed to be expanding my business. And this is extremely important and vital to the growth of my business, this opportunity here. I don't know all the details as much as he does as much smarter than me, but I appreciate your consideration. Thank you, guys.
Good morning, commissioners. My name is Ryan Renardo, civil engineer with R Squared Engineering. Address is 10312 Bloomingdale Ave, Suite 108367, Riverview, Florida, 33578. I'll run through the presentation to go through the project. This project is located way out east in the county, almost at County Line Road. We're right along North Frontage Road in between Charlie Taylor Road and North County Line Road. Aerial map of the surrounding property, the site's highlighted in red on this map in front of you. Future land use for this site is residential one. The zoning for the property is currently ASC1. You can see immediately to the west of the project site, there's a blue area that's a planned development, which is actually the existing true builder's headquarters. So this project would be an expansion of their facility immediately to the east of their existing headquarters. The request before you today is to rezone from ASC1 to a planned development. The proposed use is a contractor's office without open storage and a maximum building area of 20,000 square feet. The total area for the project is 2.45 acres. I think the important takeaway on this screen is that the maximum floor area ratio would be 0.25 and the proposed floor area ratio for the proposed project is a 0.187, so slightly under the max. We've got our development criteria here. The biggest takeaway here is we're proposing a 70-foot setback in the rear. That would be to the building and the parking. That's because we are sensitive to the single-family homes north of the project site off of Swindell Road. So we are proposing a 70-foot setback that you'll see we're putting a stormwater pond up in that area as well to provide further buffering. With our request, there's a couple variations because we have a really tight entry road getting into the property. So we're requesting two variances to reduce the buffering widths along our entry road. We're not proposing to reduce any of the screening requirements within those buffers. The proposed site plan here, you can see before you, I think the key takeaway for this plan, like I mentioned, is we've got the stormwater pond located on the north side of the project to provide some further buffering between those existing homes to the north. And then we're keeping our pavement, our buildings, you know, 70-feet minimum away from that north property line. Compatibility. When we talk about compatibility with surrounding area, I do like to just kind of point back to the definitions in the comp plan. And just note that compatibility does not mean the same as, but rather refers to the sensitivity of development proposals and maintaining the existing development character. So when we look at this project, this map just kind of shows a more zoomed-in version of the project site, right? We're about roughly 210 feet to the north to get to the closest home. We've got an existing church to the east. We've got the existing True Builders property immediately to the west. Further west, there's a big cemetery. And then kind of tucked in the southwest corner of our site, there's one single-family home. And we are along the interstate frontage road. As outlined in our narrative, and not to get into the details of all these now, we certainly can if there's any questions. But we believe that the project's consistent with several policies in the comp plan as outlined on this slide. But we do have included with this application is a request for a waiver to the commercial locational criteria. So policy 22.2 would require this project site to be located within 660 feet of the intersection. And currently, we're basically smacked out in the middle of Charlie Taylor Road and County Line Road right off of North Frontage Road. There are some exceptions to the commercial locational criteria. One of them is for office uses. There's got to be unsuitable or undevelopable for residential development. We believe this site's too small for a multifamily project at only two and a half acres. And we believe it's undesirable for single-family homes with the only access being to an interstate frontage road. Neighborhood commercial activities that serve the daily needs of residents shall be considered. And as Isaac mentioned, they provide storm cleanup. They do air conditioning, electrical, plumbing, restoration. All throughout the general area and overall larger regional area. Policy 22.8 is the Board of County Commissioners may grant a waiver to the intersection criteria under unique circumstances. And we believe we've outlined several unique circumstances, given the site's direct access to the frontage road, given the location at the intersection with County Line Road. You know, we, you know, the intent of the commercial locational criteria is to prevent commercial development from sprawling into a residential neighborhood and to locate commercial developments at intersections to ensure adequate access. You know, I think when we look at the surrounding area along this frontage road here, this is not an established residential neighborhood. There's a variety of uses. And then, you know, the access for this specific project is perfect on the frontage road with easy access to interstate interchanges to the east or the west. Neighborhood coordination. This was obviously important because, you know, we are, we do want to be sensitive to the neighbors and we do acknowledge that there's one single family home. And that is impacted by this project. So we sent out the required notices, no support, no opposition received back on any of those. We had direct meetings. I went with Isaac and met with the adjacent church and their, their full board, talked through the project. And subsequently the church provided a statement that's in the records indicating no objection to the project. Similarly, Isaac had a meeting with a single family homeowner that's kind of tucked in the southwest of our project, reviewed the project with them and that homeowner, homeowner also provided a statement indicating no objection to the project. And that is in the record as well. So in closing, you know, we respectfully request your approval of this application with a commercial locational criteria waiver. Happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, sir. Any proponent testimony? Anyone here in support? Anyone in opposition? Planning commission?
Thank you for the record. Melissa Leinhard, planning commission staff. The subject property is located within the residential one future land use category. The site is in the rural area and the subject property is not located within the limits of a community plan. Objective four of the future land use element establishes that the rural area is intended to provide long-term opportunities for agricultural uses and large lot low density rural residential development that can exist without the threat of urban or suburban encroachment. The intent of the residential one future land use category is to maintain rural character while permitting rural residential uses compatible with short-term agricultural activities. While certain rural scale, excuse me, rural scale commercial and projects and office projects may be considered, they must comply with applicable locational criteria and demonstrate compatibility with surrounding uses. The proposed plan development would introduce a more intensive commercial development pattern with an area within an area not designated for that level of activity. This would allow uses that are not compatible with the established rural residential pattern and would incrementally increase non-residential development pressure within the rural area. As such, the request is inconsistent with objective eight and policies 8.1 and 8.2, which emphasize compatibility and orderly development, as well as policy 1.4, which requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area consists primarily of single-family residential uses directly to the north and southwest with public and quasi-public uses to the east and west. A church and a cemetery are located to the east. The introduction of contractors' offices and enclosed storage facilities, including associated vehicle activity and operational characteristics, would not maintain the prevailing rural residential character in the area. The subject site does not meet commercial locational criteria, as it is not located within 660 feet of the nearest qualifying intersection of Charlie-Taylor Road and Frontage Road. The subject site is approximately 2,800 feet away from this intersection. Future land use element objective 22 seeks to ensure that new commercial development is appropriately scaled and located in a manner consistent with the character of the area. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan.
The zoning hearing master reviewed the rezoning request to plan development for the development of a contractor's office without open storage and found it to be compatible with the existing development pattern and consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan. The zoning hearing master recommended approval.
Okay, we're going to board discussion. Commissioner Miller.
Thank you, Chair. As you know, this is my district, but I happen to live very close to this property and pass it almost on a daily basis. With all respect to the Planning Commission in this particular case, I do believe that this property is very consistent with the area and think we should support the waiver. But more importantly, I want to say that there's probably zero opposition and no issues because it's probably one of the most well-maintained commercial sites I've ever seen. It's a beautiful property. I can imagine this new addition is also going to be maintained and kept as well maintained. And so with that, I would move for approval.
Second. Got a motion to approve. Commissioner Miller. Second, Commissioner Wolstel. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda.
Yes, I was just going to say thank you, sir, for all the services you're providing, especially those type of services, restoration services. And also, as they already mentioned, it's not an established residential neighborhood, and the frontage road is easy access for that type of business, and I'm very happy to support this. Thank you.
Okay, I've got a motion in a second. Please record your vote.
Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. I can take your vote verbally.
Yes.
The motion carried 7-0.
F2.
Next item, Commissioner's general item F2. It's major mod application 25-1372. This is a request to modify an existing PD that's 50 acres inside. It's located on the north side of Martin Luther King Boulevard, southwest in the intersection of Martin Luther King Boulevard and I-4. The request, currently the parcel is approved for a PD that permits limited light industrial uses and commercial uses. The request is to add a second development option to provide for a full range of manufacturing and zoning district uses. Based on the surrounding development pattern and conditions of approval, which include restrictions on access to East Chelsea Streets, prohibiting truck traffic on East Chelsea Street, and also enhanced setbacks for the option two, and based on the existing development allowances, staff did find this request approval subject to conditions. The planning commission found it consistent with the plan, and the hearing officer also recommended approval. We're available for any questions. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. The applicant here.
And Cammie Corbett with Hill Ward and Henderson representing the applicant. I don't have anything else to add. We did not have any objections to this. The only reason why we're not on consent is because we're on a failing roadway, so I'm here to answer any questions, should you have any.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone here in support of the application? Anyone in opposition? Planning commission?
Thank you. The subject property is located within the urban mixed-use 20 future land use category. The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires that new development be compatible with the surrounding area, clarifying that compatibility does not require identical uses, but rather sensitivity to the established development pattern and character. The subject site is located within an area characterized predominantly by light and heavy commercial uses, heavy industrial operations, trucking-related activities, and vacant properties with limited single-family residential in the broader vicinity. The major modification is compatible with the surrounding area and maintains the prevailing neighborhood character. The urban mixed-use 20 future land use category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, commercial, office, business park, research, and corporate park, light industrial, and multipurpose and mixed-use projects in appropriate locations. The proposed light industrial development is proposing a floor area ratio of 0.27, which is well below the maximum 1.0 floor area ratio that may be considered in this category. Future land use section policy 4.8.1 states that high-intensity non-residential development shall be located external to emerging and established residential neighborhoods and accessed on arterial or collector roadways. In accordance with this policy, the applicant has restricted truck access, as stated in the conditions of approval to State Road 574, a state-designated principal arterial roadway, and has prohibited truck traffic from Chelsea Street, which is a local roadway. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions proposed by Development Services. Thank you.
I thank you. Hangmaster.
The zoning hearingmaster considered the proposed major modification to Plan Development 83-173, proposing to retain existing entitlements as option A and provide for an option B that permits all manufacturing zoning district uses, with the exception of heavy industrial. The zoning hearingmaster found that the proposed modification is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The zoning hearingmaster recommended approval.
Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? No of approval.
Second.
Got a motion to approve. Commissioner Willstall, second Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
The motion carried 7-0.
Next item. Minister, the next item is I-1. This is the Status Report on the Live Local Act Development Projects. I would note that since last month's update, we've had no new applications, petitions submitted to develop under the Live Local Act, and we're available for any questions.
Okay. Any comments or- Moved or received the report? Motion, Commissioner Willstall, second Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote.
Motion carried 7-0. Last item.
Last item, Commissioner's agenda, J-1, this county attorney's item regarding litigation regarding the Denied Geo Acquisitions Corporation Rezoning PD 23-0132. Mary Dorman with the county attorney's office will present this item.
Good morning, Commissioners. The county attorney's office is seeking the board's direction as to whether or not to appeal a recent decision by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court setting aside the board's denial to rezone the Pebble Creek Golf Course. The county previously appealed a prior ruling by the Hillsborough Circuit Court, but on different grounds and prevailed in the 2nd District Court of Appeal. The county attorney's office has identified appealable issues and recommends that the board appeal this matter should it desire to do so. Public comment is permitted to this agenda item, but not to the application, which is not before the board. If the board elects to not appeal the matter, the application will come back to the board at a different lane use meeting. I'm available for any questions.
Okay, thank you. Before we go into board discussion, we have an opportunity for public comment. Three individuals signed up that I have in front of me, Joanne Carter, Michael Green, and Leslie Green. State your name. And you can't do a point of order, first of all. Mr. Gormley, Joanne.
So, Commissioner, the discussion today is limited to whether the board appeals this decision or not, I think as you correctly stated, this public comment is not to discuss the merits of the application, the rezoning one way or another, simply public comment limited on whether the board desires to appeal the application or not. If the board does not choose to appeal, the application will come back to the board at a subsequent meeting, at which time there can be public discourse on the substance of the application.
And Mr. Kramer has an opportunity to speak if he'd like to. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Please state your name. You have three minutes.
Good morning. My name is Joanne Carter. I am at 9507 Pebble Glen Avenue. I respectfully ask the board of county commissioners to continue to defend the original decision and appeal this matter in order to preserve the commission's voice in land and zoning issues. It is especially important that the commission stand by the original vote in process. The commission's decision was made after public hearings, evidence, and community input, appealing the ruling demonstrates confidence in the integrity of that process, and respect for the time and effort invested by officials and residents. Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. Next.
My name is Michael Green. I live at 9014 Hogan's Bend in Pebble Creek. The board's actions here today may serve as a precedent for the future land use matters within the county and potentially beyond. We therefore urge the commission to take all appropriate legal steps to ensure the final outcome clearly supports and preserves the board's authority to make land use decisions that are consistent with a comprehensive plan and the character of the surrounding community. Please vote yes to appeal.
Thank you, sir.
Good morning. My name is Leslie Green, and I am the president of the Pebble Creek Village Homeowners Association, as well as the founder of Save Pebble Creek with the purpose of saving our open space, as well as the character of our neighborhood. I would like to ask you to continue on to an appeal. As you know, large developers have historically pursued legal challenges in zoning and land use matters throughout Florida when county decisions affect their proposed development plans. This is not stated as criticism, but rather as recognition that land use disputes often proceed through the courts and can have a long-term implication for local governance. The commission must ensure that the precedent established is one that remains in their favor. We sent Mary Dorman a District Court of Appeals of Florida decision for a recent case that is almost identical to this one. The county was successful. Again, the county was successful in that appeal. We as residents of Hillsborough County count on you to protect us, to represent us. Please vote yes to appeal and keep your power to continue to do so. Thank you for hearing our comments today and allowing us to be a very important part of this process.
Thank you, Mayor, for your comments. Ms. Kramer.
Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. Jake Kramer with Barbas Kramer. Commissioners, I have to object to receiving the testimony at this point in time. I think the record is closed and really shouldn't be taking the citizen testimony at this point about what they would like to do. So that said, listening to their comments, I represent the developer, GL Homes. They've worked on some great communities in this county. They have continued to work with the community, even though we've been in litigation for a couple of years at this point. They've continued to work with the community. And I think that's reflected in the letters you all received. One of those was from the president or is from the president of the large HOA, which represents over a thousand homes. And that was something we pledged to do is that even though we have this disagreement with the county, we've continued to work with the community. We've continued to garner support. And several of those members who you got letters from would have been here today had they known that they could come testify as well. With all of that, this is a great opportunity with a developer that has pledged high-end homes. They've pledged to help improve the amenities for the larger community as well, not just the new homes. And they're not maximizing the density that's available in the PD. So to be clear, there could be future developers that come and ask for more density than what has been approved by this plan. So we've been in litigation for a long time. We have won before the circuit court every time we've been there. And we respectfully ask you, let's give the neighborhood certainty. Let's end this now. And let's give everyone in the community what they deserve, which is some certainty with a quality community that will bring everyone up. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Anyone else want to speak to the item? Okay. Seeing none, that closes the public comment. I have one question before we go into a board discussion from either Ms. Dorman or I know Cameron was there. You say that there were appealable issues. It was my understanding from speaking with Ms. Mendel is that the county attorney's office was recommending an appeal and, in fact, doing so on multiple issues, both legal and procedural. Is that accurate?
Yes. There are a couple issues. I'm sorry. Cameron Clark, assistant county attorney. There's a couple issues that we have identified that are appealable. As far as whether the board wishes to do so, identification of appeal issues, the board doesn't have to appeal if it doesn't want to. Essentially, that's why it's really up to the board to take the decision. But there are appeal issues and if the board wishes to appeal those, we recommend doing so.
Okay. I'm prepared to make a motion to deny, but I'll let Commissioner Wilstle's in the queue, so I'll call Commissioner Wilstle.
Hold on, Cameron. You told me specifically there would be no public comment on this item. We had a clear conversation about whether or not we could have, whether or not I needed to remand this to give the opportunity to the community to speak, and that was what you felt was the more appropriate thing to do if we were going to allow public comment on this issue. How are we here?
So there shouldn't be any comment on the application, the substance of the application. However, the board is about to take a final decision as to whether or not to appeal this court, this order that's attached to the item to the Second District Court of Appeal. There needs to be at least some public comment about the appeal only. That does not relate to the substance of the application itself, and the last time we brought this to the board to consider appeal, it was open for public comment. At that time, no one had anything to say about it. No one spoke at public comment at that time. But before the board takes a decision to appeal this or not, there needs to be public comment as regards the appeal. If the board does not appeal it, then what happens is the application itself will come back to a land use meeting. At that point, the substance and merits of the application itself will again be before the board. Now, the difficulty with that issue is that if it just comes back before the board, what happens is you're basically rewinding time to the moment the board initially denied it. At that point, the applicant had already spoken, opposition and proponent testing had already been taken, so the board would be at the vote stage. At that point, the board either has to approve the application or remand it for additional evidence. This item only regards the appeal, and that's why public comment was limited to whether or
not to appeal the item. So when I asked you specifically that the HOA president wanted to come in and speak, you said that that would not be appropriate. Those were your words. And that the appropriate measure would be to either ask for a remand or that if we voted no and it wouldn't, that we decided not to appeal, that they would not be able to speak when it came back at final time for vote.
Well, Commissioner, I'm sorry if anything was misunderstood in our communication. Like I said, when we introduced this previously in August of 24 to appeal the first time, I actually stated to the chair, it would be recommendable to take public comment at this time. So I think the bifurcation point is comment about the substance of the application itself, the rezoning application itself, because that's a quasi-judicial process. This is just the board taking the decision on whether or not to appeal the court.
It's fine. What I would say is, despite me being extremely disappointed in the advice I received, this boardroom would have been packed with people that would have supported us not appealing this issue. Cameron, you guys have vaguely said that there's appealable issues. The judge ruled against you. And one thing that I would think a grade-level lawyer would have been able to understand. The county argued that the amended order was in violation of the second DCA's mandate because there was no remand. Any basic search under Florida judicial process and Florida state law, the second DCA only issued a certiary quashing of the review, which is just an opportunity to either start over or correct issues. They didn't give any other instructions to the lower-level court, correct, in the initial approval.
That's correct. Right. Typically, with a case like this, what you'll see is a quashal of the circuit court order and a remand to the circuit court. That didn't happen in this case. The reason for the ambiguity is, in fact, it's the previous case that the resident referenced, was that same thing happened in a previous cert petition that we did, which was the Dibs case, where the second DCA quashed the circuit court order that had actually quashed the board's denial and did not remand it. The only distinction with those cases was, in the Dibs case, the Dibs attorney filed a motion for rehearing, directing that to the DCA's attention, and the DCA simply denied the motion for rehearing. So I'm not saying whether or not the argument would succeed. I can never say that. But it is some ambiguity in this record, which matches the ambiguity we had in a previous
case. In the original DCA's order, did they identify anything other than that they felt like it was inappropriate that the judge had made personal comments and that they wanted him to remove that from his order? Did they identify anything substantial to the ruling? The reason I'm asking is because I believe that Commissioner Cohen and I have always been on the right legal side of this from the beginning, which is why I voted consistently in that way. And I haven't seen anything to suggest that we're in the wrong. And that's what I'm looking for. The second DCA had the opportunity to say, hey, the lower level court, the circuit court is wrong on these issues, but they didn't say that. They just simply said that they didn't like that he made personal comments, the bringing of roses or whatever cheeky comments the original order had. The second DCA didn't think that that was appropriate. And they quashed it. Yes.
The reason for that is because on a cert petition, so when you have a board denial of rezoning application, those get appealed to circuit court. And any issues that arise from the circuit court order are appealed to the second district court of appeal. But those two courts have a different standard of review. When it goes to circuit court, it's called a first-tier cert petition. And in that instance, what happens is the circuit court looks at all the evidence and ensures that the board applied the correct law, circumstances like that. It determines if there was evidence in the record that supported the board's denial. And so the court, the circuit court, has to look at the evidence. When it goes to the second DCA, they are not allowed on a second-tier cert to look at the evidence anymore. They merely look if the circuit court applied the correct law. And in the first instance in this case, the second district court determined that the circuit court had not used the correct review because they were focusing solely on words spoken by a commissioner rather than on the board resolution that was adopted and the rationale for denial that was contained in that. We actually had the same argument on the Dibs case. The court implied agreement with our position but didn't state it nearly as expressly as they ultimately did in this case.
All right. It just seems like your appeal is on an administrative appeal, it sounds like, that you believe that just because they only quashed it, which in everything I've researched, a quashing means that they're just sending it back down to the lower-level court for them to correct errors, deficiencies, or rehear it entirely. And I don't hear confidently that that's not what quashing it under a certiorary review is because it's clearly defined as that. But I believe that even more so than the first time that we heard this, now the community, for the most part, does not want this. The larger community of over 1,000 homes has come out with their majority and their HOA president feeling more comfortable to offer relief. And at this point, it feels like we're just punishing the community and nothing else if we continue to appeal this. So I will not be appealing it again. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
A couple of comments, then I'm going to pass the gavel. Clearly, I'm on a different side of the argument than Commissioner Willstuhl and Mr. Kramer. But I do agree on one thing, and that's regarding the public comment. When I initially received the instructions on the meeting, I saw a public comment. And I immediately called him and said, I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think we should do that. And the answer I was given, we provided the opportunity last time. And it's only on the appeal, not the merit to the case. So I didn't personally want there to be public comment, just for the record. But that's the same information that I was provided by the county attorney's office. Again, not going to argue the merits of the case. As we heard, there are strong arguments, legal and procedural, for an appeal. The neighborhood is clearly divided. However, from the initial denial to the first appeal to today, when you analyze the actual responses, comments, and you take out the duplicates, because there are many folks that email twice, it's typically been in the 70% to 80% range of the neighborhood that wants us to keep fighting. This time around, we did receive the email from one of the HOA presidents that Commissioner Willister referenced. However, when you look at the individual emails, it was 76 in support, 22 to stop the appeal process. So again, still on that 70% to 80% range. I want to state this because the trial court judge, in my opinion, erred in his appeal because he used some of my language that day, similar to what I just said as far as the opposition, as the basis for me making the denial when I clearly said, this is not the basis for the denial, here are all the policy issues that we're basing the denial on, and yet the circuit court judge somewhat relied on that as a basis for his overturning us. Again, it doesn't really matter the level of opposition or support, we have to go by the law, and that's what I based the initial denial on. I also based it on the first appeal and then the second one. Additionally, as I pointed out before, other communities are looking at us, including Sun City Center, that they're either facing or will face a similar issue, and they are watching to see how we react. So with that, I'm going to pass the gavel to the vice chair and make a motion that we appeal the lower court's decision.
Second.
Any board discussion? We have a motion and second to appeal. Please record your vote on J-1.
It didn't pop up.
Can you re-vote, please?
Nothing. Just say yes. Okay. I thought I was waiting on the pop-up. Second the motion. Okay.
Okay, motion failed. Three to four. Commissioner Bowles, Cameron Cepeda, Cohen, and Wolfstoke voted no.
Do we need a motion?
No, sir. I don't believe we do. That takes care of the issue.
Okay. Any other issues this morning? Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you.