Board of County Commissioners: Land Use Meeting - 05.12.26

Welcome to the works. In today's episode, we're taken to the skies with Hillsborough County Mosquito Control to find out how they combat the spread of disease and the rising mosquito population. So when it comes to mosquitoes, how exactly are we combating them in the sky? Nobody complains about larvae, they complain about mosquitoes, and specifically adult mosquitoes, female mosquitoes, the ones that bite you, right? But it's a lot easier to control adult mosquitoes by controlling the larvae. What we do is we use a larvicide product that attacks the larval in the swamps of the mangrove areas along the coast here. We stop their growth so they never grow up and become adult mosquitoes. 2026 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Land Use Meeting. 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. Heavenly Father, I come to you again, thanking you for this land use meeting, all of the applicants who have submitted an application that we plan to discuss this morning. Bless our staff as they work and give us our briefing on how to prepare us for this meeting. Thank you for everyone that is here and those who are on their way. In your holy name, I pray. Amen. Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Mr. Grady, one of you changes the agenda. Good morning, Commissioner. It's Brian Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services. In addition to the published withdrawals and continuings, this is on page 3 and 4 of the agenda. We do have one changed on the published agenda. It's on page 12, item F4, Major Mod 26-0346. Various conditions were added to the record to correct a discriminatory error to clarify the use restriction to a sit-down restaurant. Therefore, conditions 1.2 and 1.3, referencing where we have reference to the restaurant, added the phrase sit-down restaurant to clarify that is the use restriction as part of this major modification. That concludes all the changes to the conditions. Can we have a motion to approve the changes? So moved. Second. Motion to Commissioner Wohlstall. Second to Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote when changes the agenda. Commissioner Cameron Zepeda. Motion carried 7-0. All right. Can we have a motion for the consent? So moved. Motion to Commissioner Wohlstall. Second to Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on the consent agenda. Motion carries 7-0. Okay. At this time, if anyone here for a B item, the application has been approved. If you're 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're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. We're now on the vacating public hearing portion of the agenda. Mr. Grady, you want to introduce the first item? First item is general item C1, vacate petition 23-0011. Real estate services will present this item. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Facilities Management and Real Estate Services. Item C1 today is vacate ID V23-0011. This is a petition by MVCA LLC and Falkenberg Capital LLC to vacate a portion of the Platte of Mission Village Phase 1 as recorded in Platte Book 110, page 321, and return it to acreage. The proposed vacate area consists of approximately 0.59 acres and is generally located east, south of East Atomo Drive and east of South Falkenberg Road in Brandon. Additionally, the vacate area is located immediately south of and adjacent to a previously vacated portion of the Mission Village Phase 1 Platte. The petitioners have submitted this request to allow for future site redevelopment consistent with the surrounding area. This request was originally brought before the board at the March 19, 2024 land use meeting and was deferred to a later date due to concerns from a neighboring citizen. At this time, staff is unaware of any continuing objections from this citizen and there are no objections from reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers. And at this time, I'm going to turn it over to the petitioner's attorney who would like to make a brief presentation. Thank you and good morning, board. My name is Brian Dion from Johnson-Pobe 400 North Ashley Drive. I'm here on behalf of the applicant and the owner who is also present. I just wanted to say thank you to staff. We appreciate everything that they've done for us and we agree with their findings and their presentation to the board today. We have done everything to do that we needed to get this application submitted in the appropriate manner with appropriate notice and we want to reserve any additional time that we have to address any objections that might come from the public. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, sir. Now, this public hearing, would anyone like to speak to this item? I'd like to stand down in command of a motion. Move approval. Second. Motion, Commissioner Wollstall. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on C1. Motion carried 7 to 0. Next item is C2, petition 25-0005. Commissioners, for the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Real Estate Services. Item C2 today is vacate ID V25-0005. This is a petition by Crown Holdings Group, LLC, to vacate a portion of improved platted public right-of-way known as Pulitzer Avenue in Citrus Park Village, which consists of approximately 6,000 square feet. The right-of-way proposed to be vacated was dedicated in 1926 through the Platte of Manhattan Park, as recorded in Platte Book 22, page 3, and is generally located north of Gunn Highway and east of Sheldon Road. The petitioner has submitted this request primarily to stop drivers from cutting through their parking lot and to allow for possible future redevelopment. As a condition of no objection by reviewing departments, the petitioner has granted utility easements over the vacate area to TECO, Charter Spectrum, and Frontier. The petition was provided to the Florida Department of Transportation, FDOT, Turnpike Enterprises, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District for their review, and each agency did not have comments or objections to this vacate request. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to the request. Thank you for your consideration, and both myself and the petitioner are available to answer any questions. At this public hearing, would anyone like to speak to the item? Commissioner Wilson? Commissioner Wilson, just very briefly, I'm going to move for approval, but something that Mr. Gormley looked into, usually you don't see such a big vacate connecting two separated pieces of land, so I ask the question, what's the zoning going to be on the vacate, and would that then entitle it to live local? And the answer, of course, is that yes, it does make that one big commercial lot. In this situation, it doesn't look like that would really be applicable, but it's something I hadn't considered before, because usually on vacates I don't care and I move to approve, but I just wanted to point that out to the board that while I'm appreciative that we're all suing, and I hope we prevail, that is something that we might have to consider if we don't in Leon County. So I'll move for approval. Motion to approve Commissioner Wells. We'll second Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on C2. Motion carried 7 to 0. C3. Next item agenda, item C3, vacate petition 25-0014. For the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Real Estate Services. Item C3 today is vacate ID V25-0014. This is a petition by RWH Construction Services Company to vacate a portion of unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of approximately 7,974 square feet. The right-of-way proposed to be vacated was dedicated through the Platt of Cluess Garden Tracks, as recorded in Platt Book 25, page 89, and is generally located east of North U.S. Highway 301 and south of Harney Road in East Lake Orient Park. The petitioner submitted this request to add parking to their existing property and to improve traffic circulation within the property. Upon recommendation from utilities, the petition was reviewed by the City of Temple Terrace. At the request of the city, the petitioner has granted a public utility and ingress, egress, easement over the vacate area. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm available to answer any questions. At this public hearing, anyone would like to speak to this item? Can I have a motion? Move approval. Second. Motion, Commissioner Willis, will sign Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on C3. Motion carries 6-0. C4. Commissioner, next to you, I am a C4 vacate petition 26-0010. Commissioners, for the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Real Estate Services. Item C4 today is vacate ID V26-0010. This is a petition by Joseph Bernhardt and Michelle Anderson Bernhardt to vacate a portion of a platted public drainage easement located at 2327 Platinum Drive in Sun City Center and consisting of approximately 40.4 square feet. The easement proposed to be vacated was dedicated through the plat of Sun City Center Unit 257 Phase 1 as recorded in Platte Book 75, page 37, and is generally located west of South U.S. Highway 301 and east of Kings Boulevard. The petitioners submitted this request to cure an encroachment of the westerly exterior wall of the home into the platted public drainage easement so they can complete the sale of their property. Although the county's public works department policy PWD 0001.0 2016 generally restricts the vacating of drainage easements, public works stormwater does not object to the vacate request due to the relatively small area requested to be vacated. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to the request. Thank you for your consideration and I can answer any questions. This is a public hearing. Anyone like to speak to the item? Seeing none, can we have a motion? Move approval. Second. Motion to Commissioner Whelstall. Second to Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on C4. Motion carries 7-0. Okay. First E-Item. Commissioner, the first E-Item is gen item E-1 is PRS application 26-0473. This is a request for a minor modification to a 5.91 acre parcel within the larger PD in the Apollo Beach area. It's located at the northeast corner of 19th Avenue Northeast and Turnbuckle Drive. Commissioners, the request, the app is requesting to modify access points to provide for a right-in, right-out access point for this parcel to 19th Avenue Northeast. Right-in, right-out for the parcel to Turnbuckle Drive along the west and full access connection via shared access to Myers Glen Avenue, which is on the northern boundary of the parcel. They are also requesting modification to development standards. Staff is recommending approval and are available for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Kami Corvoid, the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson, representing the applicant this morning. This is a pretty straightforward request. I just have a quick couple of graphics to let you see if you could go to the presentation. Thank you. Quick graphics to show you the location and where those access points are and where they're shown on the site plan. And I'm here to answer any questions, should you have any. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Can we have a motion? Move approval. Motion to Commissioner Whelstuhl. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on E1. Motion carries 7 to 0. E2. Commissioner, the next item is agenda item E2, PRS, application 26-0505. This is a request to modify a two-acre parcel within a PD containing a single-family residential subdivision. It's on the south side of Lithia, Pinecrest Road, and Southeast County. The commissioners' request is to modify the setback standards for this one specific lot. There's currently a 100-foot setback along the eastern boundary for all the lots in this PD. The app is requesting to allow for accessory structures to be within that setback area. And placement will be subject to land development code regulations of dealing with accessory structures. I wouldn't know if there's a 10-foot easement on the eastern boundary, which provides for additional setback requirements above what the code would allow for accessory structures. Based on the surrounding development patterns, staff does find this request approval. We're not available for any questions. Thank you. Is the applicant here? We're the property owners. We're simply requesting for our lot 22 to be added or revised for condition 12 to exempt accessory structures from the existing 100-foot setback requirement. This request would instead subject the accessory structures to the applicable accessory structure setback standards of the Hillsborough County Land Development Code. Okay. Great. Appreciate it. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Come here with a motion. Move it. Move it. Move it. Motion, Commissioner Rolso. I'm sorry, Commissioner Cohen and Miller. Please record your vote. I'm sorry. Could both of you identify yourselves for the record? Just state your name on the microphone. Morgan Boras. Carlos Boras. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Motion carried, 7 to 0. E3. Commissioner, the next sign-up is agenda item E3, PRS application 26-04545. This is a request to modify PD, a 4.2-acre PD located in the greater Palmer area on the corner of South 72nd Street and Causeway Boulevard. Commissioners, this is a project approved for a 90-unit multifamily development project with the building located along the front edge of Causeway with parking and retention to the rear. The app is requesting to modify buffering screening requirements along the western and southern boundaries. Presently, a 20-foot buffer with type B screening is allowed along the entire boundaries of both the west and the southern boundaries. The app is requesting to modify that to remove that required screening south of the entrance road, which is across from commercially zoned property, and also to move that request along Causeway, which is also across from commercially zoned property. They will be complying with scenic quarters landscaping requirements along Causeway Boulevard. Staff does find this request approval. We're open for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. It's the applicant here. Morning, sir. Good morning. Thank you. Ricky Pedarica with Dark Moss on behalf of the applicant. Just for a quick refresh, we're just requesting essentially to remove the six-foot-high opaque fence requirement from Causeway and 72nd Avenue and all other provisions of the prior approved rezoning are to remain in place. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? All right. Can I have a motion? I need to approve. Second. Motion, Commissioner Myers. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on E3. Motion carried 7 to 0. E4. Thank you. Commissioner, the next agenda item is agenda item E4, Pierce, application 26-0612. This is a request to modify a 27.1 semi-degree parcel located at the northwest and southwest corner of Forbes Road and Thornomous Assault Road. The applicant is requesting a number of transportation-related requirements and conditions, one being presently there is a parking lot located, an overflow parking lot located at the southwest of the intersection of Thornomous Assault and Forbes Road. It's currently restricted to utilizing it on Friday, Saturdays, and Sundays. The applicant is requesting that to be allowed for daily use. Staff does not object to that request. The other requests are dealing with removal of four conditions, one addressing the requirement for additional parking analysis to address sufficient parking for the facility, another condition dealing with site access and trip generation analysis to address any requirements for additional turn lane improvements for the project, and the other two conditions are dealing with analysis to address substandard road improvements along Fanonous Assault Road and North Forbes Road. Those are conditions 31 through 34, the conditions of approval. Staff is not supportive of removal of those four conditions, and we're available for any questions. Thank you. All right. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Colin Rice with a law firm of Old Alundi, 1000 West Cass. I have been sworn here on behalf of Keele Farms. Mr. Keele is with us today, along with Mr. Michael Yates of Palm Traffic. I'll have them say a couple of words after I do a brief introduction here. So last year, we were before you for the approval of a 3,000-square-foot operation structure. Today, we're here so Mr. Keele can build it. Again, this is an active farm. This is a pillar of the community and a perfect example of agritourism in action. And I want to thank staff for their attention to this project. So specific to this request, we've proposed a set of revised conditions. It's in your packet. I have copies if anybody is interested. But it would allow the southern lot to be used for daily use, and it would remove the conditions imposed last year, and I'll get into why. I'm going to briefly orient you with the site. We're in East Hillsborough County near the Plant City border. Zooming in, you can see the tasting room event space along the Noda Sasa and Forbes Road. The southern lot we're discussing today is here. And just to kind of reframe what was approved last year, this is the prior 2014 site plan. The shaded box is the new operation structure. It's not taking up any parking. It's not introducing any uses, and it is purely for employee space. So again, right now, this lot is restricted to Friday, Saturday, Sunday parking. We're asking that it be opened up for everyday use. Last year, transportation staff had added conditions, 31 through 34, which we're requesting to be removed today. And I'm going to ask Mr. Yates to address you briefly to touch on two key points. One is the southern lot's ability to accommodate daily parking needs, and two, whether a turn lane is required. So I'll ask Mr. Michael Yates to address you. Good morning. Michael Yates with Palm Traffic, and I have been sworn. We did do both some parking counts at the existing facility, both the northern site and the southern site, to document the parking demand. And then we also did turning movement counts at the driveways to anticipate whether turn lanes would be warranted. Based on that data, the southern lot could accommodate the additional traffic with utilizing that during the weekday traffic patterns. And then second, we do not anticipate turn lanes would be warranted based on the volume. So we have looked at both the current volumes and the proposed modification traffic associated with that, and we're able to at least identify that we do not anticipate turn lanes would be warranted. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I'll turn it back over to Colin to finish up. Thank you, Michael. Now I'll ask Mr. Clay Keel to say a few words. Good morning, Commission. Thank you for having me. My name is Clay Keel. I'm the owner and operator of Keel Farms, Keel and Carly Winery. Just say a few words. My father started Keel Farms with our late neighbor, Charlie Scott, in 1980. So we are a 45-year-old farm. We are still a bona fide agriculture operation. 20 acres of our property is utilized for crops, strawberries, blueberries, sunflowers, grapes, even animals, cows, chickens, goats. So we are dedicated to farming, and we still do it. Like many farms, we've had to adapt over the years. You know, my father began making wine with blueberries in 2003, then becoming one of the leading leaders in agritourism and starting that in this area. Over time, agritourism became recognized as a way to preserve and save small farms like ours as areas develop, such as Hillsborough County. We are very grateful for that support, the support of the state, the county, our community, for, you know, supporting us and moving forward in agritourism and allowing our small farm to continue. We are also committed to being good neighbors. All of my neighbors know me. A lot of them are my friends. They all have my cell phone number. We're there for them as well. Probably most importantly, I'm proud of who we employ. We employ over 100 people over in eastern Hillsborough County, one of the leading employers in our area. It's an area where jobs are super important. Just as an example, Cork Elementary, which is the school right down the road, my elementary school, is 65% free and reduced lunch. So every job out there matters. Today, I'm asking that the commission support us in allowing us to park in our south lot Monday through Sunday as opposed to Friday through Sunday, as the PD currently states. I'm also asking that you all remove these transportation requirements as they make are operationally not feasible for a family farm like ours and do that in line with the agritourism guidance coming from the state. In the end, I would like to just say thank you for supporting Keele Farms. Thank you to the community for supporting Keele Farms and for supporting agriculture and Hillsborough County in general. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Any proponent testimony? Any opponent testimony? Seeing none, Commissioner Wilson. Thanks. I'm happy to see the parking requirements. And we're removing their requirement to do hardened asphalt and everything, correct? Commissioner, that is part of their request. They did not submit any conditions to that effect. But if that was part of the board approval, we would create conditions to that effect. So it's, I'm sorry, so it's still in there right now for them to have to do? Yeah. Well, I just, I thought it was getting moved. I remember when this came up before. I've always been opposed to this. This is a, this is a rural area. And I don't believe that we should be requiring urban level improvements to some of these organizations. This is a rural area and it can have, I grew up on dirt roads and it's perfectly fine in those areas to have a dirt road, in my opinion. And so, the last thing that anybody wants is more farmers to be ran out of the area. And I remember somebody recently saying that I was forcing the farmers to sell and develop their land. And my response was, well, that, that would be a felony. If you have proof of that, I would like to see it because I don't want to go to jail. But one way to run the farmers out of Hillsborough County is continuing to apply regulations to them that just don't make sense. So I believe that we should move to amend and require any of the hardened asphalt requirements, paving improvements that we're requiring of part of these conditions. So, um, I, I see the district four commissioners queued. So for now, I'll just move to amend, um, any of the hardened asphalt, um, paving requirements in the conditions that we're requiring in transportation improvements. Second. Second. Okay, can I get a motion to second, Commissioner Miller? I, she's next to speak. Thank you, Chair. So, um, Commissioner Wistel's talked, um, to many of the points I was going to say, this is a perfect example of why I think this body exists. And it's because we get to look at things through, you know, the lens outside of what staff is required to do. And, um, I think that if we put undue burden on farmers, we're going to see more of them close up shop. Um, I happen to know this farm and have lived in the region for many, many years. Not only, um, do the neighbors love him, but the community loves him. He's a great community partner. Um, I think if we require the asphalt, it would actually take away from the feel of going there. Whether it is, you're going to be on a family farm and enjoy an afternoon. Um, and so I did have a question on the actual request though, right? So if we, um, move to accept the variances as they're all presented, yes, that would actually remove the blacktop requirement in it, included in it, correct? It was part of the request there, the request is there's a requirement to propose conditions. They didn't include that as a condition, but it's been clarified here today that if the board moves, this will add the condition to, uh, not require, I would say just leave the, the, the parking lot in the existing state is what I understand is the intent of the condition. Uh, yes, and could the applicant clarify that's what you desire? Colin Rice for the record rule happily accepts that condition. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We got a motion by commissioner Will Stuhl, uh, seconded by commissioner Cameron Cepeda for approval with the amended, uh, condition. And I'll just say that, uh, I've had the pleasure of going to a number of charitable events at Kiel Farm through the years, the wonderful facility. And although I haven't been there in a couple of years, I hope that the board of county commissioner's proclamation that we gave you years ago is still hanging on the wall. Okay. So with that, uh, commissioner Bowles, do you want to make a comment? Can, can I have the parking engineer come back up or the traffic engineer? Excuse me. Thank you. When, uh, you, um, formulated your opinion, did you do that during just, was that during evaluating weekday hours or was that the all seven days? Uh, Michael Yates with Palm traffic and I have been sworn. Uh, we did a typical weekday. I think it was a Wednesday that we went out there and then we did a Saturday. So we did both the typical weekday and then we also did Saturday. So we did both time periods. So was it a Saturday during one of the events that they normally? It was not a special event, but it was a typical Saturday because we didn't want to hit an event Saturday. Uh, but from a traffic perspective, we always look at, you know, the typical operating time periods. And, and part of the questions that we're being asked today is to remove some of the traffic. Can you explain what, generally speaking, what we're trying, we're removing the variances? Yeah. So, uh, there are sections of the code that require both a full traffic study that evaluates our left and right turn lanes warranted at each of the driveways utilized by the facility and shown on the PD plan. Uh, the second is related to substandard road, uh, going in, going out and evaluating, uh, the conditions of the road, including turn lanes or pavement width, right away width, sidewalks, and those types of functional aspects of a roadway. So if, um, those variances with, just with the PD change and allowing the employees to, this is about allowing employees to park there based on the, the normal work week. Is that a good way of characterizing this? Uh, yeah. So part of the request is, is related to the parking is to be able to use that Southern lot during the typical weekday. So what they're seeing is they're getting more weekday traffic, uh, you know, than I think they probably anticipated when they first started out. And so they have the Southern lot there that is being utilized for the weekends. And so the, the desire is to utilize that during the week as well to accommodate not only employees, but also patrons. There's already a crosswalk to get from the lot to the facility. It seems silly that it's being restricted to just the weekends when there is ample parking there to accommodate this. And all they're trying to do is add this small building to improve service, not really improve additional customers or anything like that. Okay. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Miller, then we're going to vote. Thank you, sir. I just want to, um, probably answer Commissioner Bowles question. For years, he had food trucks out there. And I think this all just came about because now it's going to be a constructed permanent facility. And so if there's been daily parking, correct me if I'm not wrong, um, on the Southern lot for many years, I don't think the traffic has actually increased that much. It's just now that he's constructing this facility because before he had food trucks out there. So again, motion, Commissioner Whorlstuhl with the minute conditions. Second, Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Please record your vote. Motion carries seven to zero. E five. Commission's next agenda item is E five. PIRS application 26-0-616. Uh, this is, uh, request to modify a 2.69 acre PD that's located on the south side of Morris Bridge Road, uh, in the northeast, uh, portion of the county. The, the, the, the PD is approved for a, a soccer facility, uh, for the site plan is currently restricted to, uh, up to four small fields, uh, with, uh, buffering screening along the perimeter. Uh, the app is part of the conditions of approval. There's a maximum number of, uh, persons up to 160 that's permitted on the site, uh, at any one time. This request is to add a second, uh, option for the soccer facility instead of four small fields to have one, one large field. Uh, buffering screening will be maintained. The, the parking facility will be moved, uh, closer to Morris Bridge Road and the applicant has, uh, added a restriction limiting, uh, the number of, uh, of persons that can be on the site, uh, to 72, which is a reduction over what could be accommodated under the current, uh, development options. And, uh, based on that, uh, those considerations, staff does find this request approval and we're available for any questions. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Thanks, sir. Good morning, commissioners. Uh, Chris McNeil with McNeil chairing on behalf of the applicant. Um, pleasure to share with you today these improvements, uh, our request for the Silva Academy. And, uh, as you know, the, uh, location just described, I'll be, uh, real brief because a lot of this is repetitive. This is the approved plan to, uh, the, uh, proposed plan has just been adjusted here for this condition to allow, um, one to four fields in this particular option one. Uh, in addition to that, the, uh, as noted by Mr. Grady, the, uh, option to build just one field is what we're focused on for option three, which is this plan. So it's basically, uh, the request to go from four fields to one, uh, to reduce the total occupants from 160 to 72, uh, maintaining the setbacks while shifting the building, uh, relative to maintaining setbacks relative to the residential with increasing the one to the south and, uh, maintaining screening and buffering, uh, as well as the right-of-way preservation scenic corridor on the north side. So, uh, with that, uh, just, just that summary there is for you, uh, no change to those setbacks and option one or, uh, for the, uh, option to be able to do four field max as opposed to all four at one time. And, uh, and if you have any questions, I'm here to answer. Thank you, sir. Uh, any proponent testimony, anyone in opposition, do we have a motion? Move approval. Motion, Commissioner Wollstall, second, Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on E-5s. Motion carried, 7 to 0. E-6. Commissioner, the next item is General Item C. E-6, P-R-S, application 26-0617. Uh, this is a request to modify a PD that's located on the east and west side of, uh, South County Road 579, uh, south of State Road 674 and Wimama. Uh, the request is to add an additional access point along the southern boundary of the PD in the, uh, southwest, uh, quadrant of the PD. Uh, staff has reviewed this as a recommended approval and if there are any questions, thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning, Cammie Corbett with the Hill Ward at Henderson. I don't have anything to add, I'm here to answer any questions. All right, thank you. Uh, anyone here in support of the application? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, there's a motion. Move approval. Motion, Commissioner Wollstall, second, Commissioner Miller. Please record your vote on E-5. Motion carried, 7 to 0. E-6. Commissioners, next item is in item E-7. Uh, this is PRS 26-0621. Uh, the request is for, um, concerning a PD located on the west side of Bomboyette Road, south of Boyette Road and the intersection of Bomboyette Road. Uh, Commissioners, uh, this is a PD that was, when it was originally approved, was under the RP2 plan category in the planned village of the design requirements that were in the land development code. Subsequent approval of this area was changed to Res 4 and into the urban service area, and therefore is no longer subject to the planned village design requirements. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the modified number of conditions, uh, within the PD that were imposed related to, uh, the, uh, planned village design requirements. I would note that the, the overall layout of the, uh, the, uh, design of the project is not significantly changing with these changes because most of the conditions are related to the, uh, building design requirements. Uh, they are removing a, an, an access point, cross-access point along the western boundary that, uh, that now is, uh, adjacent to an ELAP property. Uh, staff is recommending approval and real for any questions. Thank you. Ms. Alpigan here. Good morning. K-Morporate with Hillward-Henderson again. Uh, just the only thing I have to add is we, uh, wanted to change one slight note. On the site plan that was in the record, it said that all roads would be private, but we already have construction plan approval and preliminary plan approval that allows some of the roads to be public. So we added a note that the roads could be public subject to the policies in the comprehensive plan and just entering that into the record. All right. Thank you. Uh, anyone in support the application? Anyone in opposition? Committee motion? Move approval. Second. Motion to Commissioner Cohen. Second to Commissioner Willstall. Please record your vote. E7. Motion carried 7 to 0. F items. Commission, the first F item is, uh, F1 rezoning PD, uh, 25-0383. Uh, this is a request to, uh, rezone a 4.92-acre parcel that's, uh, located on the west side of, uh, North Ola Avenue, uh, south of Fletcher Avenue, uh, north of, uh, West 131st Avenue. Uh, the applicant is requesting, uh, development for, uh, town, uh, 10 townhomes, uh, along the, uh, frontage of, uh, Ola Avenue as indicated in the site plan, as shown in the site. Uh, the large majority of the property is containing a wetland area, and so again, uh, development is concentrated along Ola Avenue. Uh, staff is recommending approval. Uh, planning which found a consistent and hearing officer also recommended approval. Uh, we are available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. That's the applicant here. That's the applicant for F1 here. Continue this to the last, last item. So moved. Motioned, uh, by Commissioner Whelstall, second Commissioner Cohen to continue F1. Uh, please call your vote. Motion carried 7-0. Okay. F2. Commissioners, uh, next item is in item F2. This is rezoning PD 25-0882. Uh, this is a request for, uh, to rezone a 9.668 parcel located at, uh, the, the northeast corner of, uh, 32nd Street Southeast and 14th Avenue Southeast. Uh, the request is to allow for a 50-room hotel containing, with a total of 78,000 square feet of, of building. Uh, staff is recommending approval. Uh, planning which found a consistent and hearing officer is also recommending approval. All right. Thank you. I believe the applicant is on virtually. Can't hear you, Mr. Mr. Wright. Presenting the application that is a reclamation or redevelopment of an FDOT borrow pit. My client is proposing a small boutique hotel, 50 rooms or less, that is proposed to utilize the existing lake as a recreation. environmental, environmental, and amenity. Uh, the hotel is, uh, proposed to be located along the I-75 frontage, away from the existing residential uses. And the remainder of the property will be cleaned of nooses, vegetation, enhanced with landscaping, and utilized as a pedestrian trail around the lake. Also, no wetland impacts are proposed for this development. We have a finite consistency with the comp plan recommendation. I'm not aware of any opposition to this request, so I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Any proponent testimony? Any opponent testimony? Planning Commission? Thank you for the record. Melissa Lionhardt, Planning Commission staff. The subject property is located within the Community Mixed Use 12 Future Land Use Category. The site is in the Urban Service Area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sun City Center Community Plan, as well as the South Shore Area-wide Systems Plan. The established character of the surrounding area is mostly residential in nature, with a few parcels of industrial south of the site. Future Land Use Section Policy 3.1.2 emphasizes the need for gradual transitions of intensities and densities between different land uses to be provided for, as new development is proposed and approved through the use of professional site planning, buffering, and screening techniques, and the control of specific land uses. The most recent site plan includes buffering and screening mitigation measures designed to provide a gradual transition between the proposed use and the adjacent properties. Along the eastern boundary, a man-made lake separates the project site from the existing residential uses, creating a natural buffer. This is supplemented by an 8-foot buffer with a Type B screening along the eastern boundary. The northern boundary of the site also includes an 8-foot buffer with a Type B screening, which abuts vacant land to the north. With the lake creating a natural buffer from the residential area to the east and the additional mitigation measures proposed, the request effectively integrates into the surrounding development and is compatible with the existing uses in the area. With the compatibility measures in place and the nature of the proposed use, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Section Objective 3.1 and its associated policies. Per Objective 2.2, Future Land Use Categories outline the maximum level of intensity or density and the range of permitted land uses allowed in each Future Land Use Category. The site's upland acreage is 2.78 acres, which would result in a total maximum non-residential development potential of 75,685 square feet, which would be the maximum non-residential square footage permitted in the Community Mixed Use 12 Future Land Use Category. The proposed development for the site is 68,000 square feet, which is within the maximum potential for the site and therefore consistent with development expected in this Future Land Use Category. 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. Thank you. Hearing Master. The Zoning Hearing Master considered the requested plan development rezoning and found it to be consistent with the requirements of the Land Development Code and consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval. Motion. Motion Commissioner Myers. Second. Second Commissioner Wellstow. Please record your vote on F2. Motion carried 7-0. F3. Commissioners, the next item is agenda item F3 rezoning PD 26-0213. This is a request to rezone a 9.9-acre parcel that's located on the west side of Boyette Road. The applicant is requesting to be allowed a general indoor-outdoor recreational facility plus one single-family home. The applicant did propose a number of measures to address compatibility surrounding development pattern. Notwithstanding, staff did not find this supportable based on surrounding development, existing zoning and development pattern in the area. The planning mission found the inconsistent and the hearing officer also found it not approvable. We are available for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. The applicant here. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm here this morning for the record. Michael Brooks, 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 1900, Tampa 33602. I want to quickly recognize, and I've done it again, quickly recognize my development team, which is Isabelle Albert is our project planner, Michael Yates, Palm Traffic, who you know, Todd Amidin is a project engineer who couldn't be here this evening or this morning. And I'm very pleased to have worked with him on this. The plan development, I'm going to give you really just a roadmap real quick before I get daggerized from Miss Albert. But the plan development before you is essentially for two uses. An existing single family residence, which will remain on the property as it is today. And then a recreational use slash general indoor outdoor as it's defined in the zoning code. And I want to just take a minute here to look at the definition of recreational use. It encompasses a very broad spectrum of things. And this really goes to the commercial nature that you're reading about in your, in some of the staff reports. The definition encompasses things that we traditionally think is commercial, right? Bowling alleys, skating rinks, the orange theory down the street, movie theaters, other gyms. Things that we anticipate seeing at the intersections, similar to our commercial framework. There's another spectrum, and they're listed here as baseball batting cages and play fields. And that's not to say that's all that is part of our proposal today. But that's to say that there is a group of very land intensive type uses that do not lend themselves well to the locational criteria and being treated as commercial uses. And so with that kind of overview, I want to just take one second here to talk about the applicants. Because a lot has been said. There was a lot of testimony at the zoning hearing master in your backup. The applicants are local parents in the community. They're attempting to meet a known need. And I'm hearing and have learned there's a lack of available options for this type of use. These are full-time professionals, so this is not their primary business. The yard is not intended to be an income replacement. They are just passionate people about youth sports, community investment, and what this project will be. And that will be a theme that you will hear from both the supporters and the opposition. Real quick and lastly, an operational overview. The yard is a private instruction-led sports facility. So operationally what that means is approved trainers and instructors will rent space from the yard and then work with their clients who in many cases are student athletes. All activities are scheduled. So this is not a walk-in type or drop-off type facility. It will have on-site staffing via the residents that will also provide some security maintenance oversight. And as Ms. Roberts is going to explain, we really believe that the pros layout you're going to see tonight has incorporated all the design techniques to ensure that this is a low-profile transitional use and rather than a traditional commercial operation. I'm just going to quickly say that the zoning hearing monster did acknowledge this distinction that I just raised. and the fact that while it's not like a park, it has very park-like elements because the things that I just explained to you happen inside the park and they happen inside community facilities. The problem here is that there's just not enough space. So with that, I'm going to ask Ms. Albert to come up. I have a slide up that is the site location. You can see it as it just described on the west side of Boyette, which collector roads in the USA. It's about 10 acres. And here's Ms. Albert. Thank you. Good morning, Isabelle Albert with HAP. I'm a certified planner and my address is 1000 North Ashley Drive. So what we have here is actually a very interesting area in the county. It's kind of like this little pocket of land that's been forgotten that is in the urban service area, but adjacent to the rural. It's between, it has this corridor, T-Corp corridor. So it's kind of putting this area forgotten. But, and that's why you'll see that in the rural service area, you've got a, you know, you've got the typical AR. You'll have a pocket of residential one. Somehow this area has maintained as a residential two, but it's developed with Fish Hawk. And you'll also see, start seeing, because it's in the urban service area, some land amendments to rest four, which is what the minimum requirement is for the urban service area. But also it has to be recognized that the majority of land that's vacant there is actually owned by TECO. There are some individual lands in this area, but the AR portion is owned by TECO. So here's the site. What we're trying to do is maintain the residential development, but we have the recreation portion of it behind, you know, 350 feet, which is the front of the area that we're trying to maintain semi-rural. And we have the, the established, the, the buildings looking in the back. We relocated the batting cage behind the play fields and also being protected by the building there to, to address noise attenuation and things as such. We also provided operation limitations from the concerns that we had. There's no competitive games. We made sure there's no, you know, loud horns, whistle, blow horns. We have our lights, which are going to be automatically switched off. And they're all going to be redesigned in order to meet our photometrics that Mr. Brooks is going to go through. And, and we have some hours of operation. But we also wanted to compare like the, to make sure that Boyette Road, you know, driving down Boyette Road was still compatible. And here what we have is we have maintained the 3.7 acres up front to maintain exactly as it is now. This is what, you know, the, the expectation is, is to be semi-rural, to see that, that is not going to change. What I'm pointing out here is the house there. So all the activity is going to be behind that. And in order to address that for the buffer and screening, we increases the buffers from the southern property line. But we also ensure that the screening or the fencing that we're providing along the first 350 feet is to be more rural in character. That's why we have the split rural fencing and things like that. And then we also have, you know, the, the screening, vegetated screening, but again, maintaining that three point plus acres up front as a natural state. And then the rear portion is where we're becoming, where we're providing, they know, the, the, the fence and the screening and all of that, that you would typically find in, in the code. And increasing again, the southern, uh, buffer. So we have to meet commercial location criteria. We have to be within a thousand feet of a intersection, uh, uh, qualifying intersection. And over here you'll see that the activity that we're proposing is within that thousand feet of the intersection. And it's also in the South Shore Community Plan. The South Shore Community Plan is quite a, uh, large plan. Uh, it's pretty broad considering it's 250,000 acres. So therefore it's addressing the rural area and the urban service area. But it's also recognizing that, you know, uh, property owners do have rights to see what they can do with our land. And this brings me to Mr. Michael Yates. Thank you. Uh, good, good morning, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic. And I have been sworn I'll be brief, uh, on the transportation. Um, there, we did a level of service evaluation. Uh, this is from the staff report, but it shows Boyette Road operates at level of service C. Uh, 286 daily trips, 29 AM peak hour trips, and 44 PM peak hour trips. Uh, we do have a trip cap within our conditions of approval for that. Uh, also we have a design exception to add a sidewalk along the west side of Boyette, along our project frontage, and then extending that down to Dorman Road. Uh, there is an existing sidewalk along the west side of Dorman Road going south. Uh, there are, uh, two, uh, projects, uh, to the south of this. Uh, one is a Tier 1 and one is a Tier 2 improvement, uh, that will focus on pedestrian and safety improvements going south of Dorman Road. Uh, I'm gonna turn it over to Michael Brooks to, uh, finish up. We have 40 seconds, Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. Um, lastly, I do want to make note, because it was not specifically referenced in the, um, in the Zoning Hearing Master Report. We have done a photometric study, which, those of you that know, this is something for certain uses that you do have to do at the time of construction plan permits. Uh, we went and had, and had, uh, our client do this initially up front. Uh, I will say that many of the photos that you're gonna see these after this, uh, later this morning are not consistent with this photometric study. Meaning that the, the plan is to change out these lights. And, um, this gives you an idea of, of the photometric of the, uh, of the lights. Thank you, sir. And as you can see from that second one, that it does not escape the property boundaries. Appreciate, appreciate your comments. Thanks, sir. You have opportunity for, uh, for rebuttal. Uh, at this time, those in support, if there's anyone here in support of the application, please come forward. Chairman, if I could help organize, uh, the supporters, um, Mr. Ashani, I think we have Brenda McCaffrey, Rochelle Davis, and I understand Brian Peters is here today. Okay. Just be mindful. We have a total of 10 minutes. Good morning, sir. Uh, Brendan McCaffrey, um, 6102 Fishhawk Crossing Boulevard, Lithia, Florida, 33547. Um, I'm the president of the board of Florida Hawks. I'll keep it brief through the time. Um, and, um, for the Fishhawk Soccer community, we service teams. We're at about over a thousand children that we, um, we manage at our facility. Um, and it's really a team-based training, both recreation and, uh, competitive training, for competitive soccer training. And it's very team-based. We have coaches that, that train teams, um, and try to get them better at soccer and perform and have, um, have a huge bonus to their life. I'm an unpaid volunteer for this community. I don't get paid at all. I just do it for the, um, really on the board to be the voice of the, uh, the board is meant to be the voice of the public of our membership, right? So to understand so we can convey what they really need. Um, the, one of the gaps from our program is the individual development of the, of the soccer players. So we have team-based training where we teach, you know, a whole bunch of things on how to play the game of soccer, both recreation and in the competitive program. And we do individual, um, player development, um, assessments with the players and say, these are the things that you need to work on, right? Where that falls short is we don't have the capacity to have that individual training with them. We don't have the field space where our fields are booked from 4 30, like full of teams, from 4 30 to 9 PM every, every week, weeknight and all weekend, right? So we don't have the space or the coaching capacity to be able to do the individual training, um, sessions, um, that players need for their development. So we tell these players, hey, you need to develop on this particular technical aspect and they're at a loss. How do I get that development? The, there is trainers in the community that, that train people individually in certain aspects of the sport so they can train them on, you know, technical shooting, if that's what they, or physical, you know, agility, um, that they can train them on. But they don't have the places to do that. And as a matter of fact, there's the county just put in new signs saying that, you know, there's no personal training basically on the facilities per the field use agreement. So they're not even allowed to be on our fields, even if there was time to be right. So, um, I just wanted to speak to the need of the community that we hear. It is our number one complaint, like our number one feedback from our, when we do assessments and when we do, um, reach out to the community, our number one is how do I get my child better? What are the resources to help my personal child get better? So I think, um, you'll hear how, um, that helps, but I just want to speak to the need. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments. Next. Good morning. My name is Rashad Davis and I live in Lithia, uh, 5402 Osprey Ridge Drive. I've been involved in the local basketball community for about seven years now, both as a parent and as a coach. During that time, our biggest struggle we consistently faced is finding places for kids to practice. Week after week, local, uh, parents are forced to drop 30 to 60 minutes away for practices and games. We travel to Brandon, Plant City, all the way to Clearwater, St. Pete, not because we want to, but because we have no indoor facility in our community. What's important to understand is that many of these teams are made up of mostly local kids, yet parents will spend the hours every single week driving outside the community just so their children can participate in sports and stay active. When we heard about the yard, I immediately started hearing positive feedback from coaches, parents, and a ton of athletes who have trained. Uh, I personally spoke with two AAU coaches yesterday who coach, uh, boys and girls fourth through 11th grade teams. And they told me that they have about 80 to 90 local kids on their teams who struggle to find, you know, a place close enough to practice. Uh, so coaches are competing with dozens of teams in the Brandon and surrounding areas just to secure limited gym time. Practices are often booked from 4 PM, uh, or late at night, which is inconvenient for families and extremely difficult for working parents. Uh, the project is important for another reason. We've all seen, uh, stories in the news recently about teen takeovers and young people getting involved in negative situations because they don't have positive, uh, outlets. Facilities like the yard give teens a safe place to go, positive role models to be around and something positive to, uh, productive to be a part of. The yard is not designed to be a place where kids are just hanging out or loitering. The athletes who are there will be with their organized teams, coaches and trainers. The facility would create a structured environment centered around sports, fitness, mentorship and community, uh, involvement. The yard will also provide local coaches an opportunity to positively impact hundreds of athletes right here in our own community. And coaches are more than just people teaching sports. We become mentors, uh, we become role models and trusted adults in these kids lives. Having a facility like this allows us to pour into more young people and help guide them in a positive direction. Finally, we have a few fields around, but absolutely no indoor facility where kids can come together to practice, train, stay active and improve their physical and mental health outside of the Florida heat. The yard would give our community something that truly needs. It would create an opportunity for kids to stay active, to stay connected, to stay off the iPads and also create a positive environment for them surrounded by coaches, mentors, teammates and families in the community. I truly believe it would become an invaluable asset to Fishhawk Lithia and surrounding communities and I fully support bringing it here. And if I may, uh, if anybody in the audience supports it, can you please stand? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, you got just under three and a half minutes. Morning. My name is Brian Peters. I'm currently, uh, in my 30th year of coaching college of baseball. I currently coach at the University of South Florida in Tampa. I just wanted to say that I don't see this facility as anything different than any other community center, much like a community pool where you would hire a lifeguard. Uh, self defense classes where you would hire somebody to do your instruction. This one is specific to baseball. Obviously in my profession as a coach, I recruit young student athletes to come and play for USF. We need those student athletes obviously to have some, some sort of elite training, uh, some sort of, um, instruction. Um, we need our young men to be able to follow instructions, um, to be able to compete at a high level. We need them to come in with some high level of accountability, discipline, be a part of, uh, something bigger than themselves and the team. And places like this facility would be places where they can go get high level training and have someplace to go to where they can compete and they can be pushed. And then they can become better athletes and better people. My profession is struggling right now with that aspect of it. As a parent, I don't have, I'm not a parent myself, but I co parent 35 young men every single year. And I know that we need our young men that we recruit to come in and have this level of accountability and this one where they can be pushed, instructed in a positive environment with great people that are models and mentors and can help coach and teach the things that go beyond sports that we need them to have for life. Like the, at the facility here, I couldn't support this place anymore. Thank you. Thank you. Next. My name is Ashany Fairclough, uh, 731 Kensington Lake Circle. I am currently the assistant coach at the Tampa Bay Sun, which is our local professional women's soccer team. Uh, I'm also the girls technical director at Florida Premier FC. And the reason why I wanted to get the opportunity to speak today is we have many of our professional soccer players that live in the area. And they've always asked about how they could give back to the soccer in the community. And there hasn't been a facility locally that they could go and practice and teach young players a game, give back to the community from that standpoint. Um, and being the technical director for a youth soccer club in the area, I know many of our players actually do want a facility like this that they could go and practice and train. And with me being in, in a position that I could also give back, I see great benefit to having this facility in our community where somebody like me with high technical skills, um, having the highest coaching soccer license in the country. I could be someone who could facilitate this growth and development of our young athletes in the area. And having this facility is something that could help us to go a far, far away. Uh, also from a professional soccer standpoint, with many of our girls or players, I want to say young women living in this area, they always try to find ways to impact the community from a positive standpoint with the game that they love and the game that they've always been known to play. And them giving back to the players in the community is something that I personally would love to spearhead and personally love to be a part of and having them be involved with this facility as well. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments. At this time, we'll have a opponent testimony. We have a total of 10 minutes. Anyone here in opposition, please come forward. Eric W. Smith with Lambert Law Offices, 617 West Lumsden Road, Brandon, Florida. And we have a brief presentation as well. It's not up here. That's theirs. As we're getting started here, I do want to state that there's been some prior evidence and testimony that was not submitted during the zoning hearing that should be either stricken or disregarded as it was not made before the zoning master and was not made of record in that report. What we'll be presenting is the information that was presented as well as the notations that are relevant as well as ending with an impact statement. The key issue here is that the zoning master found in development was not consistent with the existing area, the existing agricultural area, and that even with the planned ways to modify that, it would still not be consistent. The issue here is what's happening with the agricultural farms, agricultural animal farms, as well as the businesses that are existing in the area that will be impacted. For a few of the residents who are directly right next door to the area will be losing their businesses. Many of the agricultural farms and farming for animals have been there for over 30 or 40 years. If the plan development was provided there, they've been told that they would be losing their customers. The development that has happened before the application process even got started has impacted where there's been a loss of those who are boarding horses, horse training. They can no longer have that training. The loss of existing and prospective customers have impacted the owners. And so the key issue is what is the development going to do to the existing agricultural area. The zoning masters already found that no matter what they plan to do for both indoor and outdoor uses, it would not be consistent with the existing agricultural area. As you can see that for quite some time there was development in the area before even doing the zoning application. A lot of information was submitted today about what the plan would be. But again, the key issue for this board is whether this development would be in any way compatible with the existing area and existing landowners who have been there for 30, 40 years in an area zone as agricultural only. Excuse me, Mr. Smith. I received an objection that two of the slides that were shown were not shown during the zoning hearing master hearing. So just a reminder to make sure that that presentation is exactly the same as what was shown at the ZHM. Yes, it is. Everything you've seen so far has been exactly shown and presented. There has been nothing that's been modified from this presentation. Yeah, theirs was modified. Ours is not. So our prediction was that for the evidence that was provided from the previous presentation, many of the slides were not provided in that zoning hearing and that would have to be stricken or disregarded before your review today. And so you can see the existing area, how it is already developed. This plan development was truly an urban development that would not be consistent. There has been no regulation as for how often they'd be using the facility. It could be a seven day a week operation, 15 hours a day, bright lights, loud noises. This is not something where they're limited to a small enclosed space that's indoors that's not affecting the existing neighbors in the outside area that have existing agricultural businesses and farmland in the area. It's an example of that existing rural character. And now the light pollution, for example. So this is what the existing neighbors are seeing in their property directly by this plan development. And this is not a minimal violation of their use of their property. This is ongoing day and night. Now this commercial operation, this really isn't simply a recreational use, but it's more for making a large sum of money for those existing coaches. This is something that was advertised well before the zoning application was in place to receive as many students as possible, not being limited. Again, this is not so much for the kids having a place to play, but for coaches to have a place to advertise and to make money in a commercial manner. And the pricing isn't something where it's very simple and easy for just local residents just to be able to utilize. The cost for some of these operations range in the 450 per student range. For example, one has exclusive to 99 members. That's not limited to just five family members or 10 individuals. That's quite a few people at one point for just one coach or one event. And now this facility, again, it's a 20,000 square foot large facility with a very small home next to it or small little structure next to it that's being based as a home. This has potential for a large runoff flooding in the area, causing severe damage to not only the surrounding community, but those using the dormant roads for traffic, for going to school, things like that. And again, this road, the dormant road is a one and a half lane road. It's not a major two way in and out for the residents or even for this planned development. It's still going to cause major traffic issues for the area. And now this screening or screen vegetation is very limited. For a lot of the property owners, they have the free range cattle or horses that range the property. Even with vegetative screening, that can still poison the animals, the horses, the cattle that is around the area. There's been no presentation to the zoning master as to the advanced screening or advanced methods to prevent some of these issues that really would not be preventable even with the plans are in place by the development. Now, the noise pollution is a major issue for those that were in opposition or those who are living around the area. We do have a slide in the next, well. It didn't work last time in the video, yeah. We did have a video of just one batter using aluminum bat outside, and the pollution from that noise alone was so severe, causing problems to not only the residents, but to the animals. There is spooking of the horses causing stampede or stampeding, and that was just from one batter. Now, if we amplify that by 10 or 20 or 40, it doesn't appear that anyone would want to have that kind of pollution in their environment, but also harming their existing agricultural businesses, losing customers, causing damages, and eventually losing their business altogether. In our last hearing, we had over 80, I guess, residents who were in opposition of the plane development that were present. There are many of those who are here today. I would like those who are in opposition that are here, but please stand. Again, so there's been over 200 opposition elect letters that have been presented, over 300 petitions signed, hundreds of yard signs, and over 11,000 followers who are against this opposition. So those who are directly affected in this area that's been zoned agricultural for 30, 40-plus years with those existing businesses are not in the favor of this operation where there are other areas for this type of for-profit operation to exist in the area or surrounding areas. We do have this community concern section here, but with the limited amount of time, I do want to highlight that there was one very particular witness testimony that came before the zoning master. Ms. Catherine Wiggins, she has a horse operation both for boarding as well as for instruction and training with this direct plane development affecting her direct property. Ms. Catherine Wiggins, she has lost customers. Ms. Catherine Wiggins, some see this as an eyesore. She can't board horses because of this loud operation that's happening with not only the light pollution, noise pollution, but her income source is from boarding and instruction. To have this move forward, she then will lose her business that was already present that meets the agricultural specificity of the area, and that was the concern of the zoning master. Granting rezoning would place an ongoing burden on neighboring residents to monitor compliance by plan development and report violations to the county. And the important question to remain is what kind of facilities are in place for septic, for permitting, for the restrooms, and those are very small issues in comparison to for those who are losing their businesses, what would be in place to compensate them for their loss of their livelihood. They were here first to develop, based on that cultural development of the area. They have done that, provide training and instruction for both kids and for raising their own families and for their own businesses. That would be effectively lost and damaged forever by this development that's truly an urban development that has other areas to be a for-profit training facility for students and for kids. Lastly, there was also another witness testimony regarding the impact of a direct neighbor as well, where based on a loud noise, he was in the middle of the stampeding of horses and animals to cause severe issues for him as well. But the major complaint that all of these individuals have is why is this changing the nature of their existing community? Thank you, sir. Appreciate the comments. At this time, applicant has an opportunity of a five-minute rebuttal. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Michael Brooks here, the applicant. I really want to touch on five points. You've heard, and obviously there's in your backup some documentation and information, and you just heard from the opposition that our client did not proceed with this project in the normal sequencing of of permitting and development. Completely transparent about that. There certainly was an exuberance about it. It began as a place for their kids and their friends to train. And in just full transparency, it kind of got away from them. All right. So a lot of that advertising that you saw, that is one of the things that we've talked to the client about. Look, if this is successful today, we've got to pull this back and have a much more structured oversight of the folks who are using the facility. As to the buildings, the buildings themselves, there is nothing inconsistent with the buildings with the zoning. In that, if this were denied today, the buildings would stay as part of, obviously in a different use, they would remain residential slash quasi-agricultural barns. If this is approved, they will then be converted to places of assembly, which I know Mr. Bowles knows a lot more about than I can from a fire marshal standpoint. Just real quick, I mentioned on lighting, I showed you the photometrics. You saw photos, as I suggested you would, with light glares. We went out and took photos as well with all of the aperture settings, and some of those are in your backup. But the truth is we can't verify all of those. More importantly, those lights did not at that time have the down shielding and all the other things that we're agreeing to do in the proposed conditions, which are above and beyond the code in many regards substantially. You heard from Mr. Yates that the traffic is de minimis under the county code. With regard to the setbacks and the buffers and the noise and generally, Ms. Albert did a good job, I thought, of explaining. And in fact, if this project had come to us at the beginning of the process, I can't tell you that the development team would have suggested it be laid out any differently. The use of the building to attempt to damper the noise to the north, perfectly legitimate planning concept. Both of those buildings closest to that line are enclosed. There's no egress on the ends or on the south side, so there's no activation in those locations. And, of course, we did extend the buffer on the south property line to match the setback that is required of public horse stables on the – and if I could apologize for a moment just to pull up. We've got their presentations up there. With that said, I do want to offer a couple of amendments that were not made on the fly. We took this seriously as we were looking at the zoning hearing master. Two people up here right now. One of the struggles you might – May just over a minute also. One minute. One of the struggles we had with this case was kind of this rural, semi-rural, transitional concept. And so what you see, I hope and appreciate on this plan, is the – we attempted to keep it rural, semi-rural appearance up front. And so you don't see any changes in that first 3.7 acres. Locate things to the rear. One of the comments that the zoning hearing master made is that the open rail fence that is – Pardon. Pardon. One of – the open rail fence that we have proposed to run north-south, we are open to putting up a solid fence there, if that would make some mitigation from the road. We are also willing to increase the buffer on the western portion of both the north and the south. And I can put these into the record, but essentially we're proposing to do 15-foot center trees and 10-foot center on the north, and 10-foot center trees on the south. So that will double the visual barrier. Thank you, sir. All right. Planning Commission. Thank you. The subject property is located within the residential 2 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 immediate area is characterized primarily by single family residential uses with lot sizes ranging from one half acre to six acres in the immediate vicinity, which established a low density residential environment. Single family homes are located directly adjacent to the subject property to the south, as well as to the east across Boyette Road, reinforcing the predominantly residential character of the area. Given the proximity of these residential uses, the nature of the proposed request would introduce a level of intensity and activity that is inconsistent with the established residential development pattern. As such, the proposal does not demonstrate adequate sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood context and raises concerns regarding its ability to maintain the character of the existing development pattern, as contemplated by future land use section policy 3.1.3. The residential 2 category is intended to accommodate non-urban density residential development. Although the total proposed building area is below the maximum intensity permitted under the floor area ratio maximum, the proposed private indoor and outdoor recreation use represents a level of activity and intensity that is inconsistent with the intended character of the residential 2 future land use category. In addition, floor area ratio only considers indoor space and does not account for outdoor uses. Despite the proposed setbacks, buffering and operational limitations, the request for a training facility within an area characterized by single family residential uses and agricultural uses and designated under the residential 2 future land use category remains incompatible with the established character of the area. As such, the proposal does not satisfy the compatibility and neighborhood protection standards as outlined in future land use section objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1. The transition would not allow for development that is compatible with the surrounding area and would be inconsistent with that policy direction. The proposed request would not complement the single family residential developments around the site. The subject site does not meet commercial locational criteria as established under future land use section objective 4.7. The nearest qualifying intersection to the subject site is the intersection of Lithia Pinecrest Road and Boyette Road. A site is required to be within 1,000 feet of the qualifying intersection to meet this criteria for the placement of non-residential uses. And the subject property is located more than 5,600 feet away from this intersection. The applicant has submitted a request to waive the commercial locational criteria as part of this zoning petition. Planning Commission staff does not support a waiver based upon significant compatibility concerns of such a potentially intensive use adjacent to established agricultural and large lot residential development patterns. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development inconsistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Thank you. Zoning hearing master. The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed rezoning and found that the requested plant development is not in conformance with the applicable requirements of the land development code and is not consistent with the future of Hillsborough comprehensive plan. The zoning hearing master's recommendation was for denial. Okay, we're going to board discussion. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Yes, I thought that the applicant had a great presentation regarding the location. He said that they will have fencing and screening to keep the rural atmosphere and with the extended buffering. Also the fact that, you know, there's a lack of available options for instructor led sports for children. It's very important. I like the idea of the lighting that will stay on the property and that, of course, the way the fencing and everything will be screening that will block the lighting from the neighbors there. And I believe they said that the loudspeakers would be prohibited as well. So for those reasons, I would support this and also make a move for approval. Okay, we got a motion to approve by Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Do we have a second? Pass the gavel and second the motion for discussion. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson, you're recognized. Thank you. The applicant did do a good job and you put together a really good team. And this board always hates when neighbors fight. Sometimes it happens. Sometimes it doesn't. We're here to just follow the law and impose that law as evenly as we possibly can. I've seen, I mean, some of the maliciousness, not all, but some of the maliciousness on social media about this. I'm almost going to follow Commissioner Hagan and delete my own social media after this post. I understand it. I'm getting to that point. The board has in the years unanimously voted with on some of my items, Commissioner Cohen's items, other items, where we have literally in certain circumstances quadrupled impact fees for new development to be brought to Hillsborough County. And that was in the light of, if you want to do business here, you're going to pay the cost of doing business your share, and we're not going to force that onto existing residents. There's no incentives from this board to promote development. There's no disincentives of this board to promote this development. If you want to come and do business here, this is the cost of doing business. All of the negativity about this item, none of that matters to me. I think that it is a good business and a good business model, and I'd be willing to support you bringing this organization to the right location. And for me, no matter how this application came to the board today, the code enforcement citations aside, I don't see how I could have ever gotten to the position of saying yes on this specific location. So for that reason alone, I will be voting no today. I do hope that if it doesn't pass that you're able and willing to find an alternative site, and I'd be more than willing to meet with you on how we can make sure that you continue to provide this service to the children of Hillsborough County. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Hagan. Okay. Yeah, I didn't see anyone else in the queue. I didn't see anyone else in the queue, so it's hard for me to disagree most of those comments, and yes, he's accurate. I intentionally am not on social media, so I don't get to see the vitriol that's out there. And honestly, I am very torn on this, and I balance the concerns and the locational criteria, things like that, with the reality is that I know as a former player and coach that in every sport we have a lack of facilities, baseball, softball, soccer, basketball, you name it. I hear from someone or a group probably weekly asking for more space. We just simply need more recreational opportunities. And I also know that in my time on the board, I've always believed that fire stations and parks actually increase quality of life and property values, but I can't tell you how many times in the past we've had requests for neighborhood parks or fire stations, and inevitably there's opposition, and I'm always fighting for them, and usually the board denies them. And I also know that the reality is some of, and I've thought about this a lot over the years, that some of the biggest and busiest parks in my district, too, that I played and coached at, Forest Hills and Lutes, would never be approved today. And so I balance all of those things, and while I am sympathetic to those that oppose the project, I will support it moving forward. Before I call for the vote, I did have a few comments myself. I just want to say, first of all, thank you all for coming out and being so polite and, and, you know, sharing your feelings on both sides of this. I, today I'm going to echo the comments of Commissioner Wistel that I 100% believe that facilities like this should exist. I've already raised two kids, paid for private training myself, different things. So I know that it does need to exist, but this is not the appropriate location. This is a very rural area. I'm very familiar with the area. Actually went back out on several occasions because this has been such a contentious topic to, to see for myself so that I didn't have to depend on, you know, testimony or, or pictures, and I will not be supporting this moving forward. So, with that we have a motion and a second on the floor. Seeing no further comments, please record your vote. Commissioner Myers. Oh, I'm thanking. Yes ma'am. This is a tough one. Is it really, can I, Madam Chair, can I speak a minute? Absolutely. Thank you. I, too, appreciate everyone coming down to share your comments with us. But when it comes to our youth and having a facility and a place for them to be off the street after school during the summer is really important to me. Because our kids, when they have nothing to do, they get into trouble. Let's face it. I wish it was some kind of way the two parties can work this out and find a location that will be best served for our youth and for those who own their businesses. Is it any way, Adam, that this can come back to us and they can kind of work this out before we vote? Is it any other location? Even Commissioner Miller in your district that they can find a location to work together before we take a no vote. Someone answer me, please. Commissioner, it certainly is an opportunity for the applicants to look at another location for this site. They wouldn't, it wouldn't really be in the context of this application, which is site specific. But certainly if there's a, if this is not. I'm going to ask the applicant to come back up. Yes. Can we have some procedural? I have a motion. We called for a vote. So now I'm confused as to what I need to do to direct this board. I'm confused as well. So. Yeah. This is highly unusual. So. Any clarification? We can, we can hear if Commissioner Myers has asked the applicant to come up and respond. We can hear from the applicant, but there is a motion on the floor needs to be addressed, uh, forthwith. Because I also feel like now she's brought up a point that I feel like I need to debate and we have a motion and I've actually already cast my vote. So do we rescind that? I need some direction. I don't, I'm sorry. Can we make this? We canceled the vote because of the, uh, the discussion that was taking place. Subject. And on for the few minutes. May have a general. Thank you, sir. The question is, is honestly in germane to the topic of today's application. We can't reconsider this site for a different site. They would need to completely resubmit. So if, the real answer is that we just encourage the applicant if they find an alternative site to come and meet with us. I believe is the general point here. There's really no topic to be had. I don't even know that we can legally consider and ask, can we put it on a different site today? That's correct. That's correct. Commissioner Wosel, the application that's before the board at this point is site specific. So there's really no way to make a change to the location in relation to this application at this time. And I appreciate the discussion. And I appreciate the discussion. I mean, I'm, I'm still torn, but I want to ask my question. And I think, um, Mr. Brooks, you. Yes, ma'am. I'll do my best to answer the question. Um, for the record, Michael Brooks. The, the site is 10 acres and I started out talking about the land in Tencent. The challenge is finding 10 acres in the urban service area, which we are in the urban service area, although we have AR zoning. But when you take these uses out to where there is larger land tracks, five, 10 acre tracks, the problem you find is that everything is owned, many things are zoned AR. So we're back in front of this board, maybe in a more rural, truly rural setting in the rural area, but with the same problem with it being a commercial use. Okay. And so obviously if this is denied, there's a lot of passion here. They're, they're motivated to go find something else. Um, but we really believe that it's within the urban service area and, uh, given the other things that can happen around it, that this is a less intensive use than other options. Thank you. Was, was that helpful, commissioner? So if I'm understanding correctly, since we opened up the debate, I can then speak before I call for the vote. Correct. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to go ahead and, and state that's precisely the point, sir, is that there is a process for commercial properties to be rezoned through everything. And that's the whole point is that this was done sort of backwards. I feel like they're asking for permission after they did everything that they want. I agree with you, commissioner Myers. I want these kids off. I did it for myself. Keep them busy. They stay out of trouble, but there's an appropriate place for that. And in the rural setting is not that place. In my opinion, we have a motion on the floor by commissioner Peda, a second by commissioner Hagan. Um, please record your vote of the chair area. It is currently zoned as, uh, mixed use development with commercial along Gibsonton Drive with the residential behind. And it is in the SMU six land use category. So currently the parcel is, um, is approved for BPO and a bank. It's bifurcated by a large 125 foot wide TECO easement. And, uh, parcel a along Gibsonton Drive is approved for, uh, also BPO use and is developed right now with the tire kingdom. The proposal is to amend parcel B to allow a sit down restaurant with one drive through lane. Uh, we have included, uh, hours of operation because the code does not recognize sit down restaurant with, with one drive through that functions more like a sit down restaurant or is just a, a drive through that's more like a McDonald's. And therefore we are proposing some hours of operation that shows the typical operation of a, uh, more like a sit down restaurant. And then there's the accessory drive throughs compatibility. Um, we address that through increasing the, uh, height of the wall, uh, along the northern boundary, which is adjacent to the townhomes. And this is for, uh, because we are proposing a call box 150 feet from our property line. Um, however, it's approximately, um, closer to 200 feet to the closest residential development. But, uh, in good faith, we increased the height to eight feet. Uh, we also increased the setback for the building, uh, to 50 feet. And we also increased the number of, uh, vegetation along the northern property bound, uh, property boundary. The road condition, uh, this location and no over improvements are required. It's already, um, meeting county standards. And the agency review, there was no objections and the hearing officer recommended approval. And I'm here if you have any questions. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any proponents? Anyone here in support? Any opponents? There may be one person virtually. Yes. Okay. Good morning. Please. Please. Good morning. My name is Shamir Francis and I live at the land is at LA fire trace, um, POA, uh, which is considered to be parcel C, which we have 96 units along with the parcel and B in the front. Now I heard that she said that there was a recommendation. Here an officer, which is the information in there is partly incorrect. Uh, it states that the POA grants access easements rights of parcel A and B to, um, those parcels. We actually inherited that under an unconscionable cost sharing agreement and access rights by the developer. Um, we strongly oppose this major modification because it's fundamentally changed. What originally was approved and place a significant, more intensive commercial use directly next to an established residential area. And it would additionally give us more costs. Um, this is not a minor adjustment. The plan developments limit the parcels to offices or bank credit unions and specifically prohibit other drive through uses. What is being proposed now is a sit down restaurant or a drive through with a drive through. And they're asking for the setbacks to be changed so that it's closer to our wall to the closest residents. Right now we have parcel B I think it is across the street and parcel B is further away from us and we can hear everything that happens on tire kingdom. They're racing in our community when they're testing the, the, the, um, cars, we can hear everything. All the owners, at least three buildings down on the left side already can hear everything. When this restaurant goes to the right side, we're going to have more issues there. Now, um, there's a material difference. As we spoke about that is going to bring more continuous traffic, idle of vehicle speaker and speaker noise, um, longer dwelling time and extended hours. I know that they said they make the hours between a certain amount of time, 10 a.m. or 10 30 a.m. Which they claim will not affect the morning traffic, but individuals in the community go to work different time. As it relates to the coming home time right now, we have a hard time already getting into our community. Because the traffic, the road is always blocked, turning left or turning right. Um, regular individuals outside the community, they don't abide by the traffic rules there. We, I wrote multiple complaints to the county before on my personal name, not under the community's information. Um, we have a hard time getting in and out of our community right now in the morning and in the afternoon. Um, what makes us more concerning is that the request relies on multiple waiver, um, making it higher intensity use for our community. The application acknowledged that the site does not meet the commercial locality and criteria, yet is asking for an override of the requirements. That is clearly an indication that the site was not intended for that level of commercial intensity or activity. Um, in addition to the drive through and the setbacks from 200 feet to 150 feet. Um, our residents are concerned about the noise. They're concerned about the speaker levels. They're concerned about the consistent noise that they will have to deal with throughout the day. And also in the evening until 9 30. Um, I know that they said that they're, they're going to put a wall up. Maybe that will help it to a certain extent. Doesn't, that doesn't mean that it's going to work for us. Additionally, they talk about the TECO easement that they have. Um, and there's some limitations with that TECO easement. And it's a substantial, um, specific wording. I think it says it's a substantial site limitation with the TECO easement. Um, the applicant, the applicant has met with TECO and is comfortable that they'll be able to come to an agreement with them that will allow them to, you know, use the site. But that's still going to be a burden for us. Additionally, in the application, they're asking to utilize our private roads. Um, currently, we have tire kingdom utilizing the road. Um, Starbucks also is utilizing, utilizing the roads at no compensation to the community. We are only 96 homes and we're eating the cost for outside community continuously for any damages that come to our property. Any substantial wear and tear anywhere, anything that happens to that, our roads, we are responsible for it. And this point in time, just changing the functionality for what that lot was designed for will create more, more, um, undue hardship for our community. We also have homeowners are putting their homes up for sale because of the noise with the, with, um, Tire Kingdom, the excess use of the road with, um, Starbucks. Because they're concerned that we're going to just continue to have to increase HOA dues to try to accommodate things when we have an unreasonable cost sharing agreement on us that we didn't opt into. And we were going to be spending more and more as more cars are utilizing our roads, more cars are, you know, the wear and tear, the damage, the use. We have to maintain these things. And we are being burdened already by a cost sharing that we didn't agree to. We inherited it. We already have a lot of delays right now. And I know, um, the transportation can talk about that because they had an agreement with the developer. And from my understanding, the developer didn't comply with their agreement. So we are not allowed to use the back gate. It is an emergency gate only. We cannot use that. So we only have one way in and out of our community. And we are already substantially burdened with getting out of the community to take five to 10 minutes to get out. When, when other people are going to work or commuting or coming home and they blocked the entrance, we can't even get in. We have consistent issues. So we're, we're requesting and asking that the modification is denied at this point in time. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Uh, this time the applicant has opportunity for a rebuttal. Good morning, commissioners. William Molloy 325 South Boulevard. And I'm going to keep this fact based. I know there's a lot of emotion behind what we're asking for right now. This PD was approved with the townhome development to commercial out parcels underneath the TECO easement line. That was the original approval. This site in particular, parcel B was slated for a bank with up to four drive through lanes. When we got this project, we obviously started with TECO. Uh, we had to make sure that we could work underneath those wires appropriately with their permission. Uh, they have all kinds of requirements for access for their facilities, et cetera. We're essentially there. That's, that's not an issue for us. We're completely comfortable with that. Again, back to the formation of the original PD. Both commercial out parcels have recorded agreements with the HOA for cost sharing. They are not set amounts. They are percentages. It's 20% per unit. The commercial out parcels pay 40%, not a set amount, 40% of repairs and capital, capital contributions. We also put in 10% on parcel B towards drainage infrastructure. So I'm not calling anyone disingenuous or misrepresenting anything, but there's a substantial contribution that's been ongoing and will continue to be ongoing for the road maintenance. Um, I believe that in my mind that addresses most of what the opposition is concerned about here in this point, because it is that road. Uh, the Starbucks does not have a cost sharing agreement that we're, that we're aware of. But again, Tire Kingdom and us are on the hook for 40% of that number. Um, I'd like Michael Yates to come up and just explain to you that the delta between that four drive-thru bank and what we're proposing is just about a wash. Thank you. Uh, Michael Yates with Palm Traffic and I have been sworn. Uh, yes, we did do a traffic study that evaluated, uh, some of the comments that were addressed. Uh, we looked at the intersection, uh, both at Gibsonton and Alifaya Trace and at the main entrance where, uh, this entrance would be on Alifaya Trace. Uh, both were shown to operate at acceptable level of service. Uh, there are, you know, there are obviously delays along Gibsonton. There is a signal at this intersection, which is unusual for a subdivision to be able to access through a signal. There are delays with being on a side street to a signal. But the intersection operates within the parameters of the land development code. And there is nothing more they can do. The green time is being allocated to the main main line, which is what you would expect to be done. Um, as far as the difference in traffic from what was originally approved, it is essentially a wash. Um, the staff report from the Hillsborough County staff shows that it was, I think, within a couple of trips, uh, during the AM peak hour, which this isn't even open during the AM peak hour. So, the traffic is within the, what was originally approved. And we're not requesting any changes to those intensities. So, that is all I have and happy to answer any questions if anyone has it. Thank you. Is it okay if I address? No, ma'am. Again, no ma'am. Your time's done. For the record, Isabelle Albert with half. Um, just, you know, summarize. This is a less intense abuse. We are increasing the, um, the buffer and screening. So, we're not really changing it, but we're changing it to make it more restrictive. We are increasing the setback. We are changing the setback to make it more restrictive. And we are restricting it to one, uh, drive-through which previously was permitted. So, um, we are doing all of this to address the compatibility. Thank you. Thank you. Planning Commission. Thank you. The subject property is located within the Suburban Mixed Use 6 Future Land Use Category. The site is in the Urban Service Area. And the subject property is located within the limits of the Riverview Community Plan, as well as the South Shore Area-wide Systems Plan. The proposal meets commercial locational criteria as established by Future Land Use Section Objective 4.7, as the subject site fronts Gibsonton Drive, which has a context road classification of suburban commercial. This roadway classification supports the location of neighborhood-serving commercial uses along the corridor. The proposed restaurant use complements the existing commercial development pattern along Gibsonton Drive, where nearby uses include Tire Kingdom and Starbucks, along with additional commercial development in the surrounding area. Office uses are located to the east, while a townhome community approved as part of the planned development is located to the north. This pattern reflects a developing mixed-use corridor characterized by neighborhood-serving commercial uses integrated with residential development. Future Land Use Section Policy 3.1.3 requires that new development be compatible with surrounding development. The applicant has incorporated several design and operational commitments to ensure compatibility with the residential development located north of the site. These include construction of an eight-foot solid wall along the northern property line, exceeding the minimum six-foot requirement, enhancing landscaping, and an increased northern setback of 50 feet, where only 20 is required. Additionally, the drive-through order box will be located 150 feet from the residentially zoned property line, though the actual separation from the nearest residential lot line is approximately 185 feet, due to a 35-foot-wide dry pond owned and operated by the Homeowners Association located between the properties. Furthermore, the applicant is voluntarily committed to limiting hours of operation from 10.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., which reflects the operational characteristics of a sit-down restaurant rather than a fast-food establishment with extended hours. These operational limitations help minimize potential impacts related to noise, traffic, and late evening activity. Taken together, the enhanced buffering, increased setbacks, and operational restrictions ensured the proposed restaurant use remains compatible with the adjacent residential development and surrounding mixed-use area. Based upon these considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by the Development Services Department. Thank you. The zoning hearing master. The zoning hearing master considered the proposed major modification to a planned development, and found that the request is in conformance with the applicable requirements of the land development code and is also consistent with the comprehensive plan. The zoning hearing master's recommendation was for approval. Okay. Can we have a motion? Move approval. Second. Motion, Commissioner Wollstuhl. Second, Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on F4. Motion carried, 7-0. F5. Next to the agenda item is Jen and I. F5 rezoning standard 26-0359. This is a request to rezone a .9-acre parcel that's located on the west side of Orient Road, south of Martin Luther King Boulevard, northeast Broadway Avenue. The parcel is currently zoned RDC 12, which permits two-unit duplex units and single-family detached. The request is for an RMC 12 zoning district, which is a multifamily district, which would permit attached units under both scenarios, a maximum, under both zoning districts, a maximum three units are permitted. Staff to find this approvable. Planning which found it consistent and hearing also recommended approval. And we're available for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Here for F5. All right. What's the pleasure of the board? Adam, this has got all recommendations of approval. No opposition. Move approval. All right. We've got a motion to approve F5. Commissioner Wollstuhl, second Commissioner Miller. Please record your vote. Motion carried, 7-0. F6. Commissioners, F6 is rezoning standard 26-0457. This is a request to rezone a 3.6-acre parcel from AR to AS1. AR would permit one lot on the property. Given the size of the parcel, the AS1 would permit up to three units. Given the surrounding development pattern with the adjacent AS1 zoning, staff to find this approvable. Planning which found it consistent and hearing also recommended approval. All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? F6? We've got a stellar record here today. Oh boy. Never seen three. Commissioners, I would note this would have otherwise been on consent, other than increasing the rural service area and density. Again, it's all that grounds of approval. I don't see anyone. Second. Second. Motion. Commissioner Rolstuhl. Second. Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Motion carried, 7-0. Did it, did F1? I believe that F1, there was a representative here in the room but didn't speak up when it was called. I believe he has come back in the room. Yes. We have this. We need to proceed. Okay. F1 will be rezoning PD 25-0383. The request is for a PD for 10 townhomes. Staff is finding its approval. Planning which found a consistent in here also recommended approval. Morning, sir. My name is Taysier Kurdi. I'm here to represent the applicant. The applicant could not make it. I thought he would be here earlier. And I'm here just to answer any question if there is any. We okay going forward? Yes. Okay. Anyone here in support? Anyone in opposition? I think there might be some virtually. If you're here, please come forward. The total of 10 minutes. I usually defer those that make the effort to come down. All right. Thank you. My name is Susan Dennis, 13109 North Hamner Avenue. I'm a homeowner on Hamner Avenue, the neighboring street to the west of this proposed modification and neighboring to the parcel as well. Our street receives a lot of the runoff from the wetlands on this parcel, the lowlands. Our road does not have stormwater infrastructure. Our homes all run on septic, which regularly get affected by the standing water on our road. As shown on the Hillsborough County flood map, this is the parcel in question. The development goes to about here on the parcel. So you can see the natural flooding that happens. This property continuously floods and our roadways has a continuous runoff. Excuse me. This parcel previously had a 1,500 square foot home and the developer is increasing the impervious surface to up to over 30,000 square feet. I understand that flooding and water is not your concern and it's legally not something that you can make a basis on and it's something that deals with on the permitting side. But I just implore you to at least consider as a resident on the street for over 40 years, we have real-life knowledge of what that wetlands does to our roads. So that inevitably will create more runoff. This plan does not promote building continuity in our area. It's an oversized housing development sandwiched between single-family parcels. The buildable portion, because partial being on the wetlands only some of it is buildable, so that's where all of the development will look like. I believe myself with several of our neighbors believe that this would be best served to be a subdivided parcel where we can put four or five houses, allowing appropriate growth to the scale of the neighborhood. Single-family homes would also allow for more impervious surface compared to a large parking and drive lane as proposed in the project. This project, this type of project is more appropriate in areas already designed and already zoned for the scale of development. I would also like to note, if this is approved, this would be the second multi-unit townhome development on Ola Avenue. The other 19-unit townhome was approved by the BOCC in 2022 and is within 1,000 feet of this proposal. Hopefully this board has reviewed our file and seen the pages of signatures and opposition, letters submitted, residents showing up. It hasn't been easy. The zoning hearing master meeting was delayed five times, and this meeting for the BOC was delayed four times. We do our best as homeowners to follow that process. There's a level of feeling like stall tactics, but I'm sure there's a lot of variables that go into it. Even at the zoning hearing master, ownership didn't show up. We were bumped to the very end, and so we got to enjoy your company all the way to the very end, and it just feels like we're doing our best to show up and prioritize the value of our neighborhood and preserve our neighborhood where ownership maybe doesn't have the same value to the hearing master and the courtesy and respect to show and be present, because this is the second time now we've been bumped to the end. I ask that the board would uphold the current zoning in the Land Development Code 2.2.2 to single-family residential standards and this project being denied. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. I've got four people that have signed up virtually. I'll call your name and see if you're online. Brian Blair, is Mr. Blair on the line? Good morning, Commissioner Hagen. Brian Blair of North Forest Hills. I've lived here for over 40 years. We're a multicultural single-family neighborhood where the homes average about a half a million dollars, and we're more than a mixed, you know, we're not a mixed-use neighborhood, and we're trying to maintain the integrity and the harmony of North Forest Hills, but our infrastructure is so overwhelmed right now, and the flooding in this particular area, and Forest Hills is famous for flooding, but this is the absolute worst place in Forest Hills where the flooding exists. And, you know, I know stormwater, not to mix two different things, but the groundwater pumping, our lakes are at the lowest levels that they've ever been recorded in over 40 years right now. We don't need another multi-use family here. I mean, I- This guy's- Slip through the lens that the staff does not see was a comment. And staff is turning North Forest Hills into a blighted area, and, you know, this is really bad because we pay a lot of taxes here. Even the petitioner even started putting in filled dirt without permission, but I know there's other people that want to speak, and I just humbly, humbly, please ask you to deny this project, and I thank you so very much. All right. Thank you, sir. Lorena Acosta? Mr. Acosta on the line? Lorena did not check into the meeting. Okay. How about Eric Flasterstein? Yes, I'm here. Good morning, sir. Good morning. My name's Eric Flasterstein. I live at 13106 North Ola Avenue, Tampa, Florida. We moved here in about 2005 into an area that's single-family homes, and that's where we're at. If you look at our road, Ola Avenue, between Fletcher and Heading South, there is a large retention pond directly across the street from this property, which basically occupies the same length on the other side of the road. And that sort of created a buffer between these more commercial uses and other things from the actual neighborhood. That would be eliminated if you allow them to put a 10-unit house on, or whatever you call it, on this property. But beyond that, you know, circling back to what Susan said, which is extremely important regarding this flooding type of concern, is the fact that every time it rains heavily, this property floods. We live two houses down from it. So every time it rains heavily, that land tends to flood, it tends to overflow into the street. Sometimes it's for part of a day, sometimes it can be days, and sometimes it's actually weeks where water runs off of that property. There seems to be like a spring or something that gets activated when there's heavy rains. Because it isn't just the water from the rain itself that's running off, because it continues long after. There's something odd that goes on there. When the previous structure was there on a raised little portion, the water ran off the whole property and went into the road and eventually drained down to a drain which led into the retention pond. And this plans for this new thing, I don't see how that's going to be handled. It seems to me that the flooding is basically going to go into everybody's backyards who's adjacent to the property, which is not a reasonable situation. I empathize and feel sorry for the owner because I'm sure he wasn't aware of this impact that it will have on the neighborhood. But it is an impact. It's very real. And the people who've lived here for so long should not be penalized because he wants to develop a 10-unit deal on this property. You could put single houses on there and maybe maintain this flow type of whatever. You know, I know you guys listen to all the different things from these experts and people who've been educated. But we're down here in the field actually experiencing it already. We understand what really goes on. And that needs to be taken into consideration into a decision as to whether to allow this to proceed or not. So any case, in that respect, we ask that you vote no and do not approve this as it currently stands. All right. Thank you, sir. Is there a Beverly Keeney? Do you hear me? Yes, ma'am. You got two minutes. Oh, my goodness. Beverly Keeney, 10902 North Edison Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33612. Today, I come representing the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. I've come before you guys before. Hello to the county commissioners. You do know I'm here because other members cannot be downtown right now. I represent the 1,200 people that receive our newsletters and are also our Facebook followers up in North Tampa. Yes, the people have told you about flooding issues in the meeting today. But on May 19th, we're having another community meeting regarding the pumping of the water from Forest Hills. How does this all play together in our opposition? The area that is a wetlands on this property is part of the floodplain of Curiosity Creek, which feeds into the fresh water and groundwater that is pumped to keep the river clear and stuff. So there is a long history of water issues that do need to be considered in this. We need a little bit more depth into it. What we see and I've provided letters to you guys back in August as well as November 5th. I've been on the calls that got canceled before to talk about how we want to retain as a residential area for single family homes. That would allow for the groundwater to penetrate into the soil and go on. So we want the development there to mirror the characteristics of the rest of the neighborhood fleas. And you have my letter from November 5th to talk about the flooding issues, the property in that area, how the infrastructure is not aligned to take care of a massive townhouse units, 10. These units are almost touching each other when we look at them. And so there is no room for escape of water or animals. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate your comments. Thank you kindly. Please. All right. Thank you. I think she was live from ground zero. Okay. With that, the applicant has an opportunity for a bottle. Sir, did you want to add anything? I was in the meeting with the building department the first time just listening. I think we took in consideration the new retention plan to accommodate our in previous area for the stormwater. We're not touching the wetland land. We're doing our sit back properly. I don't see why we should carry the load of everybody for the stormwater. We have almost five acres. We are only using less than an acre, literally. There's about 30 some thousand square feet worth of in previous area. So all this concern, I just don't see the merit in it, to be honest with you. And those town homes, they're not going to alter the look of the neighborhood. We are doing, in order for us to afford having, you know, developing this piece of land, we need to make grade A for the building. Yes, they are touching each other because they are town homes. They're not single family homes. And they will have beautiful elevation. We're not trying to disturb the neighborhood at all. We're condensing all of our development right in the front along the street. We're not, I just don't see the, to be honest with you, I don't see the argument that the neighbors have. I don't know why they're holding us responsible for everybody. Thank you. Okay, thank you, sir. Planning Commission. Thank you. The subject property is located within the residential floor, future land use category. The site is in the urban service area. And the subject property is located within the limits of the greater Carolwood Northdale community plan. The site is in the urban service area, where according to objective 1.1 of the future land use section, 80% of the county's growth is to be directed. Policy 3.1.3 requires all new developments be compatible with the surrounding area. The site currently consists of single family residential uses with additional single family residential to the northwest and south of the site. To the east is a retention pond owned by the Florida Department of Transportation. Additionally, there are group homes and light commercial uses to the north of the site. The residential floor category allows for the consideration of up to four dwelling units per gross acre for residential uses. The site contains approximately 2.67 acres of uplands out of a total of 4.92 acres. As more than 25% of the site contains wetlands, the environmentally sensitive land density credit applies. As such, the maximum density dwelling units that can be considered for the site would be 13 units. With 10 proposed units, the request is consistent with policy direction and development expected in this future land use category. Goal 2 of the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Plan emphasizes community design, with a key strategy encouraging new development and redevelopment to incorporate compatibility design techniques. The proposed site plan reflects this strategy by incorporating appropriate buffers and setbacks, facilitating a smooth transition between adjacent land uses. Additionally, the existing residential density in the surrounding area supports the suitability of this location of the proposed development. The proposed rezoning from RSC 6 to plan development to develop a 10-unit, two-story townhome development aligns well with the Greater Carolwood Northdale Community Plan vision. 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. Thank you. Zoning hearing master. The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed plan development rezoning and found the proposal to be consistent with the land development code and with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval. Okay. Going to board discussion. Commissioner Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just, I thought the, ma'am, you did a great job. I did want to make you aware that the lot is currently zoned, RSC 4, so something will inevitably be built here. But with that being said, I believe that residential six is too aggressive of an ask and increase in intensity on the lot, so I will move for denial. Second. Motion denied by Commissioner Woelstel, second Commissioner Cohen. I completely concur. The zoning pattern, particularly to the south, is large single family homes, quarter acre to half acre, I think it's incompatible and inconsistent with a number of policies. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Yes. I agree. And also with the current infrastructure issue and the flooding, for those reasons as well, I would deny this. Thank you. We've got a motion to deny by Commissioner Woelstel, second Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote for denial. The motion carries seven to zero. Next item, please. Commissioners, the final item then is agenda item I-1. This is a status report on Live Local Act development projects. I would note that for this file report, there is no new application request for development in Live Local filed as part of the update. We're available for any questions. Commissioner Woelstel. We do have one applicant that's ignoring the concerns and the lawsuit. Is that correct? We do have one applicant that has proceeded to receive construction plan approval and I believe is in preparation for developing the site. And which site is that? Okay. This is off of Anderson Road Manufacturing Zoning District. It is, the address is 9001 Corporate Lake Drive. It's an area that's a manufacturing zone. It's kind of across the street from the Veterans AMC. Oh, I understand. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. I need a motion to accept the report. So moved. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Please record your vote. Motion carried six to zero. No other items for discussion. With that, we're adjourned.