Board of County Commissioners: Land Use Meeting - 06.09.26

There's the second one, Sean. Oh, little puppy. Hold on, I got two right here. No, there's two right here, two little ones. Obviously, when we pull up, we're asking, like, hey, is that your dog? They said when they approached it, it started to growl at them. They were obviously hesitant, but they're like, it doesn't look in good condition. We found one dog in there that was barely alive. It's literally skin and bones. Oh, my goodness. The June 9, 2026 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Land Use Meeting. Will 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. Oh, Heavenly Father, I come to you thanking you for another day on our behalf. Thank you for all the constituents who are here to listen to their project being discussed. I ask that you continue to bless our staff as they present each project to us this morning. In your holy name, I pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Before I pass things over to Mr. Grady, I need to read into the record from Commissioner Miller. Please be advised that due to our previously planned travel to manage county business in Washington, D.C., I will not be able to attend the June 9th land use meeting. If you have any questions regarding this, please don't hesitate to reach out to me directly. That's from Commissioner Miller. Mr. Grady, want to review any changes to the agenda? Good morning, Commissioner. Brian Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services. In addition to the published withdrawals, continuance, and remands on page 3 and 4 of the agenda, we do have two changes to the agenda. The first agenda is on page 12, item E3, PRS 26-0752. Additional party records have been added to the backup. The second change is on page 14, item F5, rezoning standard 26-0541. An existing restriction is being modified to clarify the intent by adding reference to the two FOA numbers that the shared access facility would be provided for. That concludes all changes to the agenda. Can we motion to approve the changes? Move to approve. Motion, Commissioner Meyer. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on change of the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. All right. Can we have a motion for the consent agenda? Move to approve. Second. Motion, Commissioner Meyer. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on the consent agenda. Motion carried 6-0. Okay. This time, if you're here for a B item, your application's been approved. This time, 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? Okay. Now on to the vacation items. Mr. Grady, you want to introduce the first item? Commissioner, the first item is agenda item C1, vacate petition 23-0012. Real estate services will provide this, present this item. For the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Facilities Management and Real Estate Services. Item C1 today is vacate ID V23-0012. This is a petition by Gunn Highway Investment, LLC, to vacate an unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of approximately 0.9 acres. The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of first edition to Keystone Park Colony, as recorded in Platte Book 5, page 62, and is generally located east of Gunn Highway and north of Tarpon Springs Road in Keystone, Odessa. The petitioner submitted this request to allow for development of a residential subdivision. Reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. A temporary public access and drainage easement is being reserved over the vacate area, which will automatically terminate once the petitioner's proposed Odessa Preserve replat is recorded, which will satisfy staff requests to provide legal access to all parcels adjacent to the vacate area, as well as alternative drainage easement rights for a drainage connection for Lake Artillery. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm available to answer any questions. All right, thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone like to speak to this item? Seeing none, can we have a motion? Move to approve. Motion, Commissioner Myers. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on C1. Motion carried, 6 to 0. C2. Next item is vacate petition C2. Vacation, vacate petition 25-0021. Real estate will present this item. Victoria Rosenbecher with Real Estate Services for the record. Item C2 today is vacate ID V25-0021. This is a petition by MRP TMHC BTR LLC to vacate a portion of a platted public drainage easement located at the intersection of Turnbuckle Drive and Gideon Way in Apollo Beach and consisting of approximately 758 square feet. The subject drainage easement was dedicated through the Platte of Waterset-Wolf Creek Phase F as recorded in Platte Book 147, page 243, and is generally located east of North U.S. Highway 41 and north of 19th Avenue Northeast. The petitioner submitted this request to allow for construction of a sign in the vacate area. The petitioner's public works stormwater does not object to this vacate provided the sign is constructed outside the minimum 10-foot maintenance berm and 10 feet from the center line of the pipe crossing. The drainage easement requested to be vacated does overlap a platted utility easement. However, the utility easement is not affected by this vacate and will remain in its entirety. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thanks for your consideration, and I am available for questions. I thank you. This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak to C2? Seeing none, can we have a motion? Move to approve. Motion, Commissioner Myers. Second, Commissioner Lustel, please record your vote on C2. Motion carried, 6 to 0. C3. Next item, commissioners, agenda item C3, vacate petition 25-0023. The record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Real Estate Services. Item C3 today is vacate ID V25-0023. This is a petition by Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, and Innovative Land Management, LLC, to vacate portions of improved and unimproved platted public right-of-way consisting of approximately 0.83 acres. The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the plat of South Tampa as recorded in Platte Book 6, page 3, and is generally located south of Madison Avenue and east of South U.S. Highway 41 in Riverview. The petitioners submitted this request to allow for future site development. At the request of staff, the petitioners completed a certified parcel application to ensure all parcels adjacent to the subject vacate area will continue to have legal access to public right-of-way. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thanks for your consideration, and I'm available for questions. All right, this is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak to C3? Good morning. Good morning. Just for the record, Kevin Reale, 401 East Jackson Street. We're just here for any questions in case the commission has any. All right, thank you. Anyone else like to speak to C3? Seeing none, can we have a motion? Move to approve. Second. Motion, Commissioner Wostel. Second, Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on C3. Motion carried, 6-0. C4. Commissioner, the next item is in item C4, vacate position 26-0002. For today, this is a petition by Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, Innovative Land Management LLC, Felix Moreno, and Evangelista Espinel Naranjo to vacate a portion of improved platted public right-of-way known as Jensen Road and consisting of approximately 1.48 acres. The subject right-of-way was dedicated through the Platte of South Tampa as recorded in Platte Book 6, page 3, and is generally located south of Madison Avenue and east of South U.S. Highway 41 in Riverview. The petitioners submitted this request to accommodate redevelopment and parcel consolidation under Mosaic. Upon request, the petitioners have granted utility easements over the vacate area to TECO and Frontier. Additionally, at the request of staff, the petitioners have entered into an access easement agreement to ensure all parcels adjacent to the subject vacate area will continue to have legal access to public right-of-way. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm available for questions. This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak to this item? Seeing none, can we have a motion? Motion, Commissioner Cohen. Second, Commissioner Wostel, please record your vote on C4. Motion carried, 6 to 0. Okay, go to our E items. Commissioner, the next item is Gen Item E1, PIRIS, application 26-0749. This is a petition to modify a 16.86-acre portion of a larger plan development of parcels located at the southeast corner of Benita Drive and Crescent View Road in the Waimama area. The commissioners, the petition is to request to modify the lot layout in Pod P within the PD. To reconfigure the layout and also to modify, add additional lot development standard within Pod P for this development for single-family. No other changes are proposed, and staff is recommending approval. Thank you. The applicant here. Bryce Benson with HALF Associates, 1000 North Ashley Drive, Suite 900, Tampa, Florida. Here on behalf of the applicant. We are requesting a minor modification to the overall Berry Bay plan development. As staff said, it is 16.86 acres. Sorry. It is within Pod P, which is located in the northeast corner of the development, shown on this plan. The current plan shows the layout on the left side, and the proposed plan is on the right. It's basically just a change in the layout. During engineering, it made sense to kind of split the stormwater pond, so it changed the layout a bit. There's no change in uses, density, development standards, other than increasing the lot sizes to 60-foot wide lots. And that's basically the only change that is being requested. There's no change in access either. There were no objections from any of the reviewing agencies, and no inconsistencies found with development services. So we're here if you have any questions. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Can we have a motion? Move to approve. Second. Motion to Commissioner Myers. Second to Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Motion carried, 6 to 0. Next on the commission is agenda item E2, PRS application 26-10. This is a request for a modification of a 31-acre plan development located at the northwest corner of Martin Luther King Boulevard and Highview Road. Commissioner's the applicant is making three changes to the application. It's part of the redevelopment and redesign of the shopping center. They are asking for an increase in overall square footage by 6,000 square feet from 222,000 to 228,000. There is a trip cap within the conditions of approval that limit daily trips, AM and PM peaks. Those are being adjusted as part of the accommodate the additional increase in square footage. And the final changes, there is a requirement for a sidewalk on the west side of Highview Road. It cannot be accommodated within the right-of-way. Therefore, it's going to be provided on the property of the development with appropriate easements for access, public access, and the conditions and site plan are being modified to accommodate that sidewalk. Staff is recommending approval. All right. Thank you. The applicant here. Good morning. Kami Corbett with the law firm of Hillward in Henderson. Again, this is a very straightforward application. We're just adding some square footage to the large grocery store that's already approved here to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? All right. Come here, a motion. I'll move for approval. I just have a quick question. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Wilson. Mr. Gromley, can you confirm this isn't another sidewalk to nowhere? I'm not familiar with the geography. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. This is a sidewalk along the eastern portion of the project that will connect to a sidewalk on the south side of it. Okay. All right. Thank you. We've got a motion by Commissioner Willstall. Second, Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote. Motion carries. Six to zero. E3. Commissioner, the next item is agenda item E3, PRS application 26-0752. This is a request to modify within the Northdale PD portion of the golf course dealing with the area that's associated with the clubhouse and tennis. Courts within this PD accessory golf driving ranges are permissible uses, but because of the detail in the site plan, the site plan is being modified to accommodate the provisions of a golf driving range and also the standards related to the golf driving range that are spelled out. The land development court are being modified to accommodate this design, which is an electronic golf driving range, which will be completely enclosed with the netting to ensure that the balls will stay within the area of the driving range. Staff is recommending approval for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. The applicant here. My name is Vineet. I'm the owner of the golf course. This particular amendment, we are asking for the zoning of the minor modification of the zoning to reuse underutilized area, which is for recreational purpose. It's the existing tennis courts, and we are planning to use it only for recreational, and with time, every first lady has to modernize, so this will be a driving range using top tracer technology, and from a safety perspective, as Mr. Bryan said, that it will be fully contained with a very tight net. There's this eight feet of landscaping in between from an acute stake, as well as from the making sure that landscaping meets the needs of the neighborhood, and we plan to be a good neighborhood, be a good neighbor, and it's all about using the underutilized recreational area for the right purpose, from a recreational perspective, and creating a good amenity for the community. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Appreciate the comments. Thank you. Anyone here in support of the application? Anyone in out? Please come forward if you want to speak. Ann Frisby, 4623 Landscape Drive, Tampa. I am in support of this request for a minor modification. It's reassuring that the current owners are willing to invest significant resources to improve the golf club. This was not always the case with prior ownership. Improved maintenance of the clubhouse and grounds as a parent and management's willingness to work with community leaders is very encouraging. Some months ago, I sent the golf club an email regarding a ground maintenance problem behind my home that had been an annoyance for many years for myself and a neighbor. I was very impressed with how quickly it was taken care of and continues to be maintained to this day. So I'm here to support their efforts. I have owned my golf club adjacent home since 1989. The view was the major factor in the selling point. My hope is that the Northdale Golf Club continues to thrive and remain an important asset to the community. Too many Florida communities have not been so lucky. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frisby. Next. Good morning. Thomas Murray, 15751 Garden Side Lane in Northdale. And I'm president of the Northdale Special Taxing District as well as president of the Northdale Civic Association. And in my 12 years of working in the community, one of our biggest complaints has been the golf course, you know, and how it's been maintained or whatever. And I've witnessed at least three sales of the golf course in the last X amount of years. The previous two owners purpose was to basically let the golf course fail and then try to circumvent what we have to develop housing. And this is the first ownership that has actually been willing to take money and put it back into the course to keep it a recreational facility. And where the tennis courts were, they got really destroyed in one of the hurricanes and it was really in disrepair. And they're really trying to make an improvement on this golf course. And I think as a community, both committees that I had represented are totally in support of this. And we're hoping that this is a long lasting friendship, you'll say, between the community and the golf course. So we wholeheartedly support it and hope you do also. Thank you, Mr. Murray. Any other proponents? Anyone in opposition? All right. Seeing none. I just want to say I'll live around the corner and work out at the YMCA down the street most days. Not this morning. So I've seen the good times of this golf course decades ago and I've seen the bad times. And as Mr. Murray indicated, previous owners didn't maintain the course, let it come run down. And immediately after the present ownership group took over, I met with them and they said, hey, we don't have any interest in developing this. We want to invest in it, starting with the infrastructure. And they've got an extraordinary vision. I'm pleased. They've kept their word. And so I wholeheartedly support this. So can we have a motion? Second. Second. Commissioner Wellstel. Second. Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on E3. Motion carried, six to zero. Thank you. E4. F1, I guess. Commissioner, the next item is Gen Item F1, Major Moda Application 23-132. Cameron Clark with the County Attorney's Office will speak to this item. Good morning, Commissioners. Cameron Clark, Assistant County Attorney. As we discussed at our briefing, this is the next part of a communication issue that I will raise with you, but I'd actually like to start by just briefly discussing the status of this application. This was before the board in July of 2023. The board denied the application at that time. The applicant appealed that denial to circuit court where the applicant prevailed. The county appealed that ruling to the appellate court where the county prevailed, came back to circuit court where the circuit court judge essentially fixed his order and once again quashed the board's denial for July of 2023. So where that places us is it effectively rewinds this application back to July of 2023. Hearing master recommendation has been written to the record. Planning Commission report has been written to the record. An oral argument has been taken. And we are at board discussion phase. The effect of the court order is to really place some significant constraint on the board's action at this point. The board cannot deny the application again based on this record because essentially the record is before the board now is the exact same record that was before the board in July of 2023. And let me just state, I know Commissioner Bowles was not on the board at that time, but in our briefing he advised he has had a chance to review the record and so he can participate in this. So the board cannot deny the application again and the ability to remand is constrained by the fact that the court has taken, has essentially made certain findings. First, it has found that there is evidence in the record to support the applicant's contention of complaint consistency. So that can't be reexamined and the court has found that there is not evidence in the record to support the determination of the maintaining a public purpose of the existing zoning such as the green space, the open space and stuff that was argued previously. So the board's actions at this point, because it is so constrained and because we have the court making determinations on these issues, our recommendation would typically be for the board to approve the application. However, and just so you know, too, we prepared a separate notice letter in this case to make sure concerned residents understood that they could attend the hearing, but oral argument has already been taken, so there's no opportunity for new testimony at this time. Regarding the ex parte communication, I have discussed this with the applicant's attorney and they wanted me to make sure to understood it was the applicant did not do this. This was actually an interested party, the golf course owner. An ex parte communication in a quasi-judicial proceeding creates a presumption of prejudice against the application essentially, but there is a way to cure that and that is going to be what our recommendation is to you today, which would be to remand the application to the zoning hearing master to allow for limited testimony on the substance of the ex parte communication. That cures that issue and then it would come back to you for a vote at a subsequent land use meeting. So for the record, the recommendation, and I wrote it this morning just so I could read it into the record, is to remand this application to the zoning hearing master to allow for the ex parte communication to be entered into the record of this case and to allow for comment only regarding the limited substance of the ex parte communication, and I've confirmed with staff that the ZHM hearing would be on July 20th of 2026 in this room. So that's the recommendation at this time. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to take them. Oh, I just want to put in the record, in discussion with the applicant, they do not object to the remand for this limited purpose. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Cameron. Commissioner Wollstel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I went back through the email. The literal, the only part of it that's ex parte communication is probably going to be the line that says, what, I believe the GL project offers the best solution. That's literally the only comment to the, to the rezone. The rest of it has nothing to do with it. So I'm assuming when we remand it back, that's all that they're going to be able to discuss, is whether or not the comment, a one-way communication of, I believe the GL project offers the best solution for residents, that's going to be the only thing that gets debated, right? Yeah, I believe, I'm not looking at the email, but essentially that, I know the substance was very limited. It was like one to two sentences. Yeah. Okay. And it was a one-way communication, just so everybody understands. Okay. I will, I hate to do this just because it's, there's no way that this changes, in my opinion, the outcome, but I do agree that they have to have the right to communicate. So I will move to remand this to the zoning hearing master on the July, on the June 20th or July 20th? July 20th. July 20th. July 20th hearing. Second. Okay. We have a motion to remand by Commissioner, well, so second Commissioner Cohen to address the ex parte communication. I just want to, well, two questions. I just want to make sure everyone's clear here. I guess it's for you, Cameron. Number one, there's no opportunity to take public comment this morning. Is that accurate? Not this morning. That's correct. And then you stated, I believe you used the term, significant constraint on the remand. I guess the question is, for you or Adam or anyone, maybe both of you, do you see any avenue or opportunity to broaden that remand? At this time, Mr. Chair, I would say that's very difficult. Like I said, it's not impossible, but all the issues that have already been discussed in this case, the evidence has been submitted, the board has discussed in its denial, and that were discussed by the court. Essentially, those are closed issues at this point. So new evidence on, say, the desirability of maintaining open space, things of that nature, would not be helpful at this point, because essentially it's already been determined that those issues are resolved by the court. I was going to say, having represented Pebble Creek for 24 years, I feel very strongly that this board let the neighborhood down. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and county attorneys made it very clear what our options are. Commissioner Bowles? When this comes back for us after the July 20th hearing, will there be an opportunity for public comment at that time, and will it be limited only to what happened at that hearing? Would you expound upon that so our audience can understand? Yes. So just as the ability to comment at the July 20th ZHM is going to be limited, I believe this comes back to land use in September, the ability, comments that can be made at that meeting, there will be a new oral argument opportunity, but it would be limited to that issue only, because everything else that's in the record is going to be the same as it was in July 23, and there's already been an oral argument on all those issues. Okay. So we've got a motion to remain by Commissioner Wills to sign Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Just for the record, this will be 6 p.m. public hearing. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda? Thank you. Motion carried, 5 to 1. Commissioner Hagen voted no. Okay. F2. Commissioner, the next item is F2, rezoning PD 25-1. This is a request for rezoning of a 15.6 acre parcel on the north side of Sims Road between I-75 and US-41. The request is to rezone this parcel to a planned development to allow for a 74 space RV park. The balance of the development went on the east side of the park because the west side is encompassed by a large TECO utility easement. Buffering screening is being provided adjacent to adjacent residential uses. Staff is recommending approval. Planning mission found this consistent, and the hearing officer is also recommending approval. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Todd Pressman, 200 2nd Avenue South, 451 St. Petersburg. I will keep this very abbreviated because as staff has indicated to you, we have approval support from zoning, planning commission, and the ZHM. Also, the ZHM record indicates there was no one in opposition. And just very quickly, this is 25-1061, 15.6 acres, Gibson-10 South Shore. I've indicated the support from the planning establishment located as indicated on the mappings here, Sims Road. Two parcels are involved, which would allow for a 74-space upscale luxury RV resort lodging use amenities. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to go on, but I will keep it abbreviated. If there's any questions or concerns, I'd be happy to answer them. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Planning Commission. Thank you. Good morning. Melissa Leinhart, Planning Commission staff. The subject property is located within the residential six future land use category. The site is in the urban service area, and the subject property is located within the limits of the Gibsonton community plan, as well as the South Shore area-wide systems plan. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 emphasizes the importance of compatibility between new development and surrounding land uses. These provisions clarify that compatibility does not require identical land uses, but rather a development pattern that is sensitive to and maintains the character of the surrounding area. The existing development pattern surrounding the subject site is predominantly characterized by single-family mobile home uses, which are located to the north, east, and west, including areas adjacent to the public communication center. To the south, the area transitions to commercial uses, including a U-Haul storage facility and a vehicle repair shop. The proposed RV resort is residential in nature and shares similar characteristics with the surrounding mobile home uses, particularly in terms of scale, intensity, and occupancy patterns. To further ensure compatibility and minimize potential impacts to adjacent residential properties, the site design incorporates buffering between the amenity area and the surrounding residential. These buffering measures enhance visual screening and provide separation, thereby reinforcing compatibility with the established development pattern, making this consistent with the aforementioned policy direction. The residential 6 designation allows for a maximum density of 6 dwelling units per gross acre. Based on the 15.6 acre site, this would typically allow up to 93 dwelling units. Given that RV parks are generally considered consistent with the broader range of uses permitted within the residential 6 designation, the proposed plan development is compatible with the intent and character of the land use category. Therefore, it is consistent with future land use section goal 2 and objectives 2.1 and 2.2. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you. Thank you. Hearing master. The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed plan development rezoning and found it to be in conformance with the applicable requirements of the land development code and consistent with the comprehensive plan. The recommendation of the zoning hearing master was for approval. Okay. Can we have a motion? Move approval. Second. Motion, Commissioner Walstall. Second, Commissioner Cullen. Collin, please record your vote on F2. Motion carried. Six to zero. Thank you. Next item. Commissioners, next item is general item F3, a major mod application 26-0215. This is a request to modify PD that's located on the south side of East County Line Road. It's a 42.84 acre parcel. The request is to remove the parcel has two development parcels and parcel A and parcel B. A is permitted a school K through 12. Parcel B was permitted 200,000 square feet in nursing, medical office, and adult care. This request removes the parcel B development option and is requesting to utilize the entire parcel for a K through 12 school, increasing the student count from 650 to 1,100, increasing square footage from 125,000 to 135,000 square feet, and removing some access points related to the parcel P development. Staff did review this and found this approval. Planning mission found it consistent with the comprehensive plan and the hearing officer also recommended approval. We're available for any questions. Thank you. I thank you. The applicant here. Good morning. Isabel Albert with HAP 1000 North Ashley Drive. Thank you. I'm the shortest one here. So as you heard, this is for the North Tampa Christian Academy. It's about 42.84 acres. It's currently a planned development, but it did get approval in 2014 as a special use. And it is in the NMU Ford district. So the request is basically to convert the 330 foot bed parcel B into the expansion of the school. We are reducing the access points on the east and to the north just from 5 to 2. There was no objections from reviewing agencies and the hearing officer recommended approval. And I'm here if you have any questions. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Okay. Planning Commission. Thank you. The subject property is located within the neighborhood mixed use for future land use category. The site is in the urban service area and the subject property is not located within the limits of a community plan. Future land use section objective 3.1 states that all new developments should recognize the existing community and be designed in a way that is compatible with the established character of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy 3.1.3 requires all new developments to be compatible with the surrounding area. The Hillsborough County border with Pasco County is to the north of the subject site across East County Line Road. There are also additional public and quasi-public uses surrounding the site to the west, south, and east. Also to the east is the Lake Bridge Water Treatment Plant. There are also single-family homes and HOA and common properties surrounding the site with multifamily uses further east. There are significant buffers that naturally exist on all sides of the development in the form of wetlands, forestry, and stormwater ponds. The use itself as well as the addition of square footage should not disrupt the nearby residential uses as there appear to be adequate mitigation measures with the natural buffering and screening that are in place which is consistent with policy direction related to compatibility. According to future land use section objective 4.6 certain non-residential land uses including but not limited to residential support uses in public facilities shall be allowed within residential neighborhoods to directly serve the population. These uses shall be located and designed in a manner to be compatible with the surrounding residential development pattern. Policy 4.6.1 clarifies that residential support uses such as child care centers, schools, and churches are allowable land uses in any of the residential, commercial, and industrial future land use categories. The facility shall be of a design intensity and scale to serve the surrounding neighborhood or the non-residential development in which it occurs and to be compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning. With the use of the site being a school and daycare as well as being compatible with the surrounding existing uses, the request is consistent with this policy direction. And based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds the proposed modification consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you. I'm hearing master. The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed major modification to plan development zoning and found that the proposed modification is compatible with the surrounding development pattern and consistent with the land development code and the comprehensive plan. And the recommendation was for approval. All right. Thank you. Board members, I don't see one on the queue. So I don't have any problem with the development. However, I do have a problem with the traffic on county line road. As has happened many times in the past, not only this particular county line, but whenever you have a development that's near adjoining county, you have challenges just associated with development going on in the other county. We've faced it. We've been on both ends of it. Just a little west of here when Pasco developed a Walmart there. There were all kinds of challenges. East of there when on Hillsborough, we approved a CVS right there and there are all kinds of challenges for Pasco. So I've seen been on both sides of it. But when you consider all the development on both sides, traffic on county line is terrible. That's why several years ago I was successful in getting a traffic signal at Grand Hampton and county line. That helped, but it essentially bought time. However, the development has continued, particularly in Pasco. There's going to be another school there at Dunham Shores. So I know the traffic is going to continue to get worse. We know with this school and with that school, we know with nearly every school, there's backups, queuing challenges. That's just the inherent nature of schools. And when you also consider that this plan has a condition when they exit, you can only go right, approaching Royal Hampton intersection. So the question I've got, I'm going to ask Adam, would it be appropriate to remand this to consider the operational impacts at Royal Hampton intersection? Yes, Commissioner, I believe it would be there. There is a, I understand there's significant testimony from letters in the record regarding the condition of that intersection. It has, it was not studied from an operational standpoint for this project or the impact on this project. There is a signal condition for the school, but it is not at Royal Hampton. It is really mainly at the exit of the site. So, you know, to get additional information in the record on the, on the status of that signal, potential signal and warrant and contribution from this school from an operational standpoint, I believe in a remand would be appropriate for that purpose. I thank you. And I know no one came down in opposition, but if you look in the backup, there's probably a hundred folks that are parties of record in opposition, primarily for the wanting to take a look at the traffic signal. So, Commissioner Willstuhl. Thank you. Is your goal to make them have a stoplight and be able to turn left and right or are you just have greater concerns? The main concern, and I'll have Adam, correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's, it's forcing everyone to go right into this, into this intersection that years ago folks wanted, felt that a traffic signal was needed at that time. Staff felt the Grand Hampton intersection was the appropriate, needed the most, and that's why the county at that time we did, we put a signal there. But apparently according to staff, it either already meets warrants or it likely meets warrants, but for some reason was not a party, was not a party of this application. Did I explain that correctly or? Yes, sir. So there, there is county review of that, but that information and the status of it and the relationship between the signal and this school is not part of the record. So the remand would be appropriate for accomplishing that. We'll note that the site does have a left turn lane to take trips into the school and that does pose a conflict from vehicles exiting and turning left. The, the reason I just, time is money and if that is his issue, is this not something we can just have an agreement to right now by the party or do you have to, can, can, if they say, hey, we'll agree to an extra stoplight right now, can we move this forward and we can just save everybody time? I think it'd be great, but I doubt they'll accept that, but more than willing to ask. I mean, I'll, I'll just, if the applicant would like to, if not, then I'm going to agree to Commissioner Hagan's remand and discussion. If, or if you don't have the authority, I understand. Just say, try and save everybody time and money. This is Steve Henry, Lynx and Associates. Um, so we, we did conduct the analysis. So you're, you're asking about signalizing our main access. No. Or, or. No. You're talking about Grant, the. Royal Hampton. Royal Hampton. Yes. But are you talking about our access or Royal Hampton? Royal Hampton. Whatever he's, has a concern with is what I'm talking about. Royal Hampton. Royal Hampton. Just put our, our, our clients not here so we don't have the ability to be able to. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, is there a date, Adam? Recommend the July 20th hearing at 6 p.m. Right. All right. Commissioner Bowles. Just out of curiosity. That whole area was annexed, except for the school. Doesn't get taxes by the city of Tampa. Does any of these conversations need to kind of overlap with their ability to control what happens outside? Cause that Royal Hampton may be under boundaries. I think that's, I think that's what further complicates this potentially. And Adam shared some of that with me and perhaps that's why, um, staff didn't include it. I don't, please. Yes. Right. I think that that is, that is something that we can engage on the, uh, if this is remanded is the, the Royal Hampton, the development that it serves, and there's only one way in and out of that development on County Line Road is a city of Tampa development. However, the intersection of Royal Hampton and County Line is, is a county roadway. So it is a kind of a, a mixed, um, but we will engage, if this is remanded, we will engage with the city of Tampa on that, whether there is still an ability for that development to be required to install a signal will be part of the, um, part of what we review. Mr. Chair, if I may. So does the, our, our ownership extend all the way down County Line and in the middle or do, where does it end for Pasco? Where does it begin for Hillsborough? Where does it begin for city of Tampa? Like in that intersection? So for, uh, Royal, for example, roughly for Royal Hampton, um, looks like it's an estimate that, that distance, but approximately the depth of this school is where the jurisdictional line changes and it becomes the city of Tampa. Okay. So we have a little city of Tampa with a, uh, a little carve out. Yeah. Well, yeah, because again, I think I expressed, I, I know why that was done, you know, but there's no dollars coming in, but that being the case, well, it's the truth. No ad valorem, we're going to come in on a school. So, uh, but that being the case, you know, do we get into a war with city of Tampa based on, you know, we're going to do something that may p. Well, we will lift. If this is remanded, we'll look at all options, whether there's still an option for the city of Tampa to require the development developer to install that signal. I understand that the community is pretty much built out at this point and doesn't have an attendant developer. Um, look at that in addition with the, the operational aspects of the trips from this school and the increased trips on, on that same intersection. A little convergence of several things here. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And I'll see anyone else in the queue. So I'll, I'll pass the gavel just to remand to address the operational impacts of the Royal Hampton intersection, um, and to determine if a traffic signal is warranted, engage the city of Tampa and, and look at it and everything else that Adam said much more eloquently than me. So I'll make that motion. We have a motion by, uh, Commission Hagan and second by Commissioner Wasser. Please record your vote. Motion carried six to zero. All right. Thank you. Next item. Yeah. Commissioner, the next item is in item F4 rezoning, uh, PD 26-0328 that this is a request to rezone a .51 acre parcel on the south side of Martin Luther King Boulevard, uh, west of the interchange of MLK with, uh, I-4. Uh, the request is rezone from commercial neighborhood to a PD to allow for six units and two triplex buildings. Uh, staff did find this approval, uh, with conditions, uh, here at Planning Commission found it consistent and record hearing also recommended approval. We're available for any questions. All right. The applicant here, please come forward, sir. Morning to the Board of County Commission and to all those that are in their respective places. Uh, we stand this morning in regards to, uh, rezoning this CN to a planned development. This property 5600 and 5602 is in a area that for many years has been underserved as well as blighted. This property now will have the opportunity to serve as a bright light and a beacon of hope to individuals that are in much need of homes. This property would serve as a anchor for this community as it moves forward. So today we will love to see this property and this project move forward. Thank you, sir. Appreciate the comments. Can you, can you please say your name for the records? Oh yeah. My name is McCoy Morgan of Rock Solid Construction and Development. Thank you, sir. Uh, anyone here in support the application? Anyone in opposition? Planning Commission? Thank you. The subject property is located within the residential 12 future land use category. The site is in the urban service area. The subject property is located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. Surrounding the site there are single family uses in vacant land as well as two family uses to the south and west. To the north across Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard there are public quasi-public uses, heavy commercial, light industrial and further northeast there is light commercial development. To the east of the site there is additional heavy commercial currently operating as a truck center as well as public communications and utilities that exist as a cell tower. The character of the existing development in the area is a mix of residential and commercial with single family residential being heavily prominent. The request to develop six multi-family townhomes on this site would maintain the residential pattern that currently exists within the vicinity of the site. The residential 12 future land use category surrounds the site on all sides. Further east across North 56th Street is the city of Tampa with categories consisting of residential 20 and community mixed use 35. To the east there is urban mixed use 20 as well as office commercial 20 future land use categories. With the site being .51 acres and being in the residential 12 category the site may be considered for up to six dwelling units. As only six dwelling units are being proposed the request is consistent with the density permitted for this site. Future land use section policy 2.3.1 encourages development and redevelopment within the urban service area to utilize allowable density of the land use category to maximize the utilization of infrastructure and the efficient use of land. As the request is with the urban service area and is requesting the maximum potential of the future land use category for the site. The proposal is consistent with that policy direction. Based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you. Hearing master. The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed plan development rezoning and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and in accordance with the land development code and the recommendation was for approval. Commissioner Wollstone. Thank you. I just wanted to did they say that development services found it inconsistent. No sir. Okay good. I thought I misheard. I just wanted to thank the applicant for taking the time to find the right location for redevelopment and density much closer to the core and where there's actually a chance of public transit. You know we've the eastern Hillsborough has been plagued with all of the high density being forced out there because the land's cheaper but there's no jobs and there's no transportation out there so it doesn't really help people and that's why I vote no on those and that's why today I'll be moving for approval on your item and I wish that other applicants would be as thoughtful. Thank you sir. Okay we've got a motion to approve for Commissioner Wollstone. Second Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Please record your vote. Motion carried. Six to zero. Thank you sir. Next item. Next item is agenda item F5 rezoning standard 26 test 0541. This is a request to rezone a 2.3 acre parcel on a north sort of Hartford Street west of US 41. The request is to rezone from ASC1 to a manufacturing zoning with restrictions. The restrictions is making a provision for provision for shared access with adjacent properties due to spacing issues given the narrowness of those properties all those three properties on Hartford. Again this is a light industrial planning category therefore staff did find this request approvable. Planning which found it consistent in the hearing also recommended approval. All right. Thank you. Applicant here. Good morning commissioners. Ryan Manassi with Johnson Pope director of planning 400 North Ashley drive suite 3100. Just briefly this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and was found consistent by the planning commission staff and approvable by development services staff. The proposed MR zoning district implements the site's light industrial future land use designation and allows for the employment generating uses specifically contemplated by that designation. The zoning hearing master testimony was established that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan compatible with the surrounding uses and appropriate for the site. Both development services and planning commission staff testified in support of the application and the zoning hearing master subsequently recommended approval. In summary this is a straightforward rezoning that implements the adopted light industrial future land use designation requires no waivers and is supported by county staff and zoning hearing master. If the board would like I can provide the full presentation that was presented before the zoning hearing master. Obviously that's part of the record so I was trying to keep this brief for now. Otherwise we'd respectfully request your approval and I'm available for any questions. Thank you sir. Anyone in support of the application? Anyone in opposition? Please come forward. Good morning. Thank you. My name is Susan Swift. I'm a certified planner. I'm representing Levi Equine Holdings. Can I stop my time there and let me begin? My name is Susan Swift. I'm a certified planner. I'm representing Levi Equine Holdings LLC and Michelle Cisco who is here with me today. If there are any questions I can't answer. She owns the property to the north of this site in the blue at 6107 South 36th Avenue. Cisco Farm is an equine facility and training of hunter jumper horses and they have nearly seven acres. It's a business and also the home of the resident manager and they are concerned about the noise impacts on the horses and the family who lives there. Cisco Farm is also a partner with New Life Village, a residential facility for children who have experienced trauma. Cisco Farms provides equine therapy to these children free of charge. And as you can see they've put a lot of investment in their own property. My client realizes that the land use is light industrial and they are not trying to prevent a rezoning on this or commercial uses. But the rezoning must still pass the test of compatibility according to the policies in the plan. Specifically this policy 2.2.1 says not all of those potential uses are routinely acceptable anywhere within that land use category. And we have reached out to the applicant a few times and they have trying to get some uses restricted from this rezoning. And we are currently trying to change the application. So we request that the board eliminate these particular uses that are noisy and would spook the horses and have an impact on the residents. The MR zoning district that you have before you already allows for this. Their site is currently ASC1 as well. There, because the applicants are absentee owners in Delaware, they may not realize all the violations. These are views from the rear of my client's property of the subject site. The owners might not realize the extent of the violations that are on their site as we speak under the ASC1. I do have a letter from Ms. Cisco if it's allowed to be entered into the record. And although they were cited once, they immediately, they were, as you can see, attempting to avoid the visual but also doing some fill. But my client immediately stopped the work, got permits. And they are merely trying to protect their property, their business, and the residents who live there. And try to make sure that these uses do not infringe on their enjoyment. Again, as you can see, they've put up quite a substantial amount of time, effort, and money. And they have not, they have not asked code enforcement to come out to cite the uses on this property as they are now, not allowed in the ASC1, because they were hoping to compromise and make sure that both parties could use their properties as they hoped. Thank you. And if you have any questions, happy to answer them. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate the comments. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition or the applicant has an opportunity for a rebuttal? Just a couple of points. Again, Planning Commission staff found it consistent as well as development services. There's a broad range of policies that we're consistent and compatible with in the comprehensive plan. Obviously, the board commissioners are aware of the numerous different policies. And they're outlined in your Planning Commission staff report as well. Regarding code enforcement, again, this is a violation made aware of it. If they'd have compliance, I could tell you to come before this board and request zoning exactly what they're doing. I think the most important thing to highlight here is the light industrial future land use category. The ASC1 zoning doesn't align with that category. So this is merely bringing that into compliance. That's why we need that broad range of uses that are already identified in your land development code for this LI category. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you, sir. Planning Commission. Can I just ask a question before? Please come back up, sir. Are you at all inclined to entertain anything that was asked for by Ms. Swift? I didn't. I was trying to look at the list when it was popped up there. Me and Ms. Swift, we did talk previously as she indicated. And there were some uses that I was going back and forth with my client at that time. So at this point, the client's not inclined to eliminate any uses. Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission. The subject property is located within the light industrial future land use category. The site is in the urban service area. And the subject property is located within the limits of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 specifically requires all new development be compatible with the surrounding area. Surrounding the site, there are additional single family residences to the north, heavy industrial to the east and south, and heavy commercial, light industrial, and light commercial to the west. The heavy commercial parcel to the west is operating currently as an area for semi truck parking. Given that the predominant land uses in the vicinity are commercial and industrial in nature, the proposed rezoning from ASC 1 to M or manufacturing is consistent with and compatible with the character of the surrounding area. While this request is a standard rezoning and does not require a site plan, the proposed land use aligns with the manufacturing or M zoning district as well as the light industrial future land use category the site is within. Both the M zoning district and the light industrial category are abundantly present in and the surrounding area where the site is located. Given the prevalence of similar uses, the proposed development is compatible with the established development pattern and can be expected to integrate effectively with the surrounding area. The request is also consistent with future land use section objective 7.1 which states that the county shall pursue a thriving economy through promotion of target industries which are focused on national and international competitiveness. Future land use section policy 7.1 emphasizes the importance of maintaining competitive sites and existing office and industrial uses as key components to the economic future of unincorporated Hillsborough County. Accordingly, the proposed rezoning from ASC 1 to M zoning district supports the economic development objectives by facilitating industrial and manufacturing uses that contribute to job growth and enhance the county's economic competitiveness, while remaining proximate to the local workforce. Strategy 13 of goal 2 of the Palm River Progress Village Community Plan emphasizes the support of well-designed compatible densities and intensities at appropriate locations. Goal 5 seeks to encourage and promote a diverse range of industries, businesses and job opportunities that capitalize on the community's strengths and enhance employment options. Accordingly, the proposed rezoning supports the intent of the community plan by reinforcing existing industrial land use patterns, promoting employment generating uses and provides a compatible intensity of development at the proposed location. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Thank you. Hearing master. Hearing master. The zoning hearing master, consider the proposed rezoning to the manufacturing restricted zoning district and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and also in accordance with the land development code and the recommendation was for approval. Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? To approve. Motion. Commissioner Myers. Do I have a second? Commissioner Cameron Tepeda. Yes. First of all, I'd like to thank the Cisco Farms for all that they're doing. That's just amazing to hear the things that they're doing. I'm very thankful for what they're doing for the children. And also, since the applicant is not inclined to the conditions that were requested, for that reason I will not be supporting this. Commissioner Wollstone. My question and concern is they can do pretty heavy stuff under light industrial. It's pretty expansive on what can be done under a light industrial land code, correct? Both under the light industrial and the manufacturing does provide a wide range of uses. The light industrial future land use category will limit some of those heavier uses that have discharge, heavy vibration or particulate generation uses. And do we take into account what that might do to the animals that are already existing right adjacent to it? So we have, there are code requirements that are standard code requirements based on the zoning district and adjacent zoning district that will require screening, require a masonry wall to be constructed between this site and the site to the north. Additionally, if it's confirmed that there is a residence on that site, there will be limitations on the noise that can be generated at that site for a processing or assembly type use, if that's the use that they choose. And you're saying if there's a residence on the site itself or if there's a site on adjacent sites? I'm sorry, on the site to the north. Is there a residence on the site to the north? It was represented here today that there is and so don't have any information on the contrary, just if it's confirmed, that would trigger that there's a residential use adjacent and there would be limitations on the noise again for manufacturing and processing type uses. So then it could be restricted whether they agree to it or not then if there is some type of noise abatement needed because I came from the manufacturing world and you'd be amazed even at the type of like roll form machines or stamping machines. I mean, it's extremely loud and a masonry wall isn't going to stop the noise. Yes, the code restrictions would be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. they'd be limited to 60 decibels and between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. be limited to 55 decibels. Okay, well I'll wait and hear what Commissioner Cohen has to say. Commissioner Cohen. Yeah, I just I agree with Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. I just think the failure to even entertain anything on the list is not right. Adam is, I'm kind of torn here, remand be helpful in any regard here? Remand are potentially a continuance if there was a desire to consider additional restrictions since this is a standard zoning district. The restrictions have to be agreed to by the applicant. So it looks like Mr. Manassi would like to address that. Yeah, please. Ryan Manassi for the record. Again, the list that was just presented, that's not what was presented at the ZHM. There was discussions prior to that and specifically my discussions with Ms. Swift were that we need the warehouse. We need the manufacturing. We need the open storage. If I had a couple minutes maybe to look at the list, maybe I can knock some off. You know, at that time when I went back to the client with I can't, you know, they didn't want us to do manufacturing or possibly warehouse manufacturing. That was a no starter for us, unfortunately. So, I mean, I think I saw on the list that was up there, slaughterhouse. There's no intention of my client of putting a slaughterhouse there. If that helps the commission any. I think there's a likely path for approval, but I think the board wants to tighten a few things up. So, why don't we, we don't have many items left, but why don't we continue it to the last item unless the board. So moved. And then we'll see what we can do. Okay. We've got a motion to continue the last item. Commissioner Wollstone, second Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Motion carries six to zero. Next item. Commissioners, the next item, and we're in the related portions of the agenda, related items G1A and G1B. G1A is a vacate petition 26-0007. Real estate will speak to this item, and then following their presentation, then I will speak to a related item G1B, which is a related rezoning item. Okay. Applicant here. Commissioners, for the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Real Estate Services. Item G1A today is vacate ID V26-0007. This is a petition by East Group Properties LP, Laura Dillard Daigle, Anthony and Judy Saladino, Delbert and Magdalene Alvarado, Lon and Nancy Borbola, Larry and Linda Anthony, Nelson Gordon Anthony Jr. as Trustee, and Caroline Anthony as Trustee, to vacate a portion of improved deeded public right-of-way known as Tanner Road, consisting of approximately 1.11 acres and generally located located west of Interstate 75 and south of East US Highway 92 in East Lake Orient Park. The petitioners have submitted this request to allow for consolidation of the parcels under East Group Properties and construction of two warehouses. Upon request, the following easements are reserved in the vacate resolution. Number one, a perpetual utility easement for an existing county force main, which lies in the vacate area. Number two, a temporary public access easement to ensure continued legal access for adjacent parcels. And number three, a temporary public utility easement for TECO and Frontier. The temporary public access easement will automatically terminate upon certification of all parcels adjacent to the vacate area. And the temporary public utility easement will automatically terminate upon recording of permanent easements to TECO and Frontier. Additionally, a standalone utility easement has been granted at the request of staff to ensure the county's ability to maintain the aforementioned force main. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm available for questions. All right, thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone like to speak to the vacation item? If not, we'll defer that to the end of the rezoning. Mr. Grady, you need to introduce the rezoning item? Yes, the rezoning G1B is re-owning PD 26.0220. This is a request to rezone a 57.85 acre parcel to a planned development. The northern portion of the parcel north of the Tanner Road, the area being proposed for vacate, is already approved for warehousing, distribution, and manufacturing. This PD would provide for an additional extension of those uses on the south side of Tanner Road as outlined. The site development plan for a total of 760,000 square feet of entitlements. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. Planning which found a consistent hearing officer also recommended approval. All right. Applicant here. Morning, Commissioners. Nicole McInnis, Barbas Kramer Law Firm, 2002 West Cleveland Street for the record. We're here today, as Staff mentioned, for phase two of this industrial project. It is expanding to south of Tanner Road. So we do have unanimous findings of consistency and compatibility from Hillsborough County staff as well as planning commission staff. We're consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan, the East Lake Orient plan. There is no known neighborhood opposition to this project. I did want to give a quick shout out to the real estate department. As you heard from Victoria, there was a number of property owners involved in this application. The vacation was, you know, a lot of work for us and for the county. So Victoria, Adam, and Jared Alfino, thank you guys so much for all of your help with that part of the application. We are here if you have any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone here in support of the application? Anyone in opposition? Planning commission? Thank you. The subject property is located within the urban mixed use 20 future land use category. The site is in the urban service area. The subject property is also located within the limits of the East Lake Orient Park community plan. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires that new development be compatible with the surrounding uses. The subject property currently consists of vacant land and has an approved light industrial warehouse uses under the previous plan development approval of 22-0692. Similar light industrial uses are located to the north along East Hillsboro Avenue and east across Interstate 75. Residential development is predominantly located to the south and west, while the commercial and industrial uses are oriented along East Hillsboro Avenue and the Interstate 75 corridors. Considered collectively, this mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed use, especially as it is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hillsboro and Interstate 75 where similar uses are found. Future land use section policy 4.2.1 requires that projects proposed in all mixed use plan categories to develop with a minimum of two land uses within a single building or within a single project. The requirements for two land uses applies to properties that are 10 acres or greater in the RMU 35, UMU 20 and CMU 12 future land use categories unless the project is exclusively industrial. Based upon the proposed use of plan develop the proposed plan development uses of warehousing with or without distribution, the project is exclusively a light industrial use and therefore is not required to meet the two land use criteria and is therefore consistent with this policy direction. The East Lake Orient Park Community Plan includes an economic development goal that seeks to provide opportunities for business growth and jobs in the community. The expansion of the previously approved plan development will increase the current economic opportunity on the site and create additional job opportunities within this area of East Lake Orient Park. Additionally, future land use section objective 7.1 states that the county shall pursue a thriving economy through the promotion of target industries. Industrial uses are included within the targeted industries and given the location, compatibility, and community plan goals, the proposed plan development is consistent with the community plan vision and the aforementioned policy direction. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan subject to the conditions proposed by development services. Thank you. Hearing Master. The zoning hearing master found the proposed plan development rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and in compliance with the land development code. The recommendation was for approval. All right. Can we have a motion? Move approval. Got a motion to approve G1A and G1B by Commissioner Welstel. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Question carried. Six to zero. Next item. Commissioner, the next items are related items G2A and G2B. G2A is a request to rezone a 2.25-acre parcel that's located on the west side of Lemon Avenue, south of Martin Luther King Boulevard. The request is for a plan development. It's currently zoned portion of its PD and portion of its RDC. The plan development would allow for 16 units of multifamily and 3,500 square feet of office. Staff is recommending approval. Planning which found consistent in the hearing officer also recommended approval of the related item G2B is a minor modification to the PD located north of this proposed PD. The northern, the area where the access point is located is within that PD and is being zoned out of that PD to be incorporated into the new PD, which is due to G2A. Therefore, the modification is necessary to modify the site planning conditions to recalibrate to show that area being removed. It still will be functioning as access for both projects. So staff is recommending approval of the PRS item also. We're available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning. Ann Pollack with Trenum Law representing the applicant here. I'm it's a little confusing. So I was just going to briefly go through it for our PRS request. This is a 2.8 acre vacant parcel future land use of res nine and in PD 20-0102. It's currently the location of an Aldi store on Martin Luther King to the east is Lemon Avenue. This minor modification removes the half acre that you see there in the hashtag area and that will be transferred to the proposed PD that is running concurrent to the south. We are not making any other changes and the PRS won't increase the FAR beyond what's permitted in the PD or allowed in the res nine. So there's no issues with the remaining property there. The PD request, like Brian said, we are adding in the half acre from the PD to the north. And we are proposing 16 multifamily dwelling units of a townhouse style and 3500 square feet of office. Just to give you some background, the whole property initially was owned by the same owner. And the owner sold the Aldi property to the, to the north there and the property that's now developed as a Wawa sold those two properties to be developed for retail. The seller retained the parcel shown in green here to the south. The seller then allowed the Aldi developer to use a half acre of that green property for access and buffering to connect to Lemon Avenue. And so that was included in the 2020 PD, even though the Aldi didn't technically own the property. So they did construct the roadway. They did not add a sidewalk to the west. But when the seller sold the green property last year to my client, we recognized the difficulty created by the situation. Because as you well know, although the green property owner was required to maintain the access, they could not take advantage of the square footage to use for density because you can't double dip. And again, fortunately removing that doesn't affect the FAR for the property to the north. So the PRS removes that land. The PD adds the land and adds the development. The PD is also adding a sidewalk along the north side to the west. Currently to the west, there is nothing there, but there may be in the future. It is a very tricky sidewalk to build because of the existing road and because of the slope where you see the proposed stormwater pond there in the bottom left. So we have requested a variation to allow our five foot sidewalk to be put in the 20 foot northern buffer that we're required to have. Again, there's no existing pedestrian connectivity to the west. And we will ensure at least 10 foot area for landscaping within that 20 foot buffer. So you still get the required landscaping. And there should be no negative impacts from that. There's just no other place to put it. It is compatible with the surrounding area. You'll see that the mango terrace apartments are to the south. And so this new project that's coming in is basically going to be like a step down in intensity between the apartments and the Aldi and Wawa that are to the north. There is office to the west and some small residential to the east. The Lemon Ave, which runs from Martin Luther King down to the southern part of our property, does not actually continue. So those residential homes you see on the bottom right would not be impacted by any traffic from this proposed development. Consistent with the comp plan meets commercial locational criteria meets the Sefner-Mango Community Plan. The neighborhood protection policies. And we're now ensuring additional pedestrian connectivity to whatever comes to the west. Planning found it consistent as well as the zoning hearing master. We do have support from transportation and we've gotten an administrative variance deemed approvable for the driveway spacing on Lemon Avenue. So with that, I am here for questions and would hope you would approve both of these so that this project can go forward. Thanks so much. Thank you. Anyone here in support of the application? Anyone in opposition? Planning Commissioner? Thank you. The subject property is located within the residential nine future land use category. The site is in the urban service area and the subject property is located within the limits of the Sefner-Mango Community Plan. Future land use section policy 3.1.3 requires that new development be compatible with the surrounding area. Similarly, policy 4.4.1 emphasizes neighborhood protection through compatible site design, buffering, and transitions between differing land uses and intensities. The proposed plan development demonstrates compatibility through several factors. The mix of multifamily residential and office uses reflects the existing pattern of residential and commercial development in the immediate area. In addition, the scale and intensity of the development are limited and appropriate given the site's size and context. Lastly, the site design incorporates buffering, setbacks, and orientation that provide transitions and commercial uses to the land use. The Sefner-Mango Community Plan promotes redevelopment and the enhancement of community character while maintaining a hometown atmosphere. Goal 3 of the Community Plan directs commercial and office development to major corridors such as US 92 and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The subject property is located along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard within the targeted corridor between Interstate 75 and County Road 579 or Mango Road where office and limited commercial uses are encouraged. The proposed office component is consistent with this strategy while the residential component complements the surrounding development pattern and supports the overall mix of uses in the area. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hellsboro County Comprehensive Plan subject to the conditions proposed by Development Services. Thank you. Hearing master. The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed plan development rezoning and found it to be consistent with the land development code and with the comprehensive plan and recommended approval. Okay. I'll hold off on the vote until after G1B. Commissioner Coney, do you want to make a comment now? Commissioner Coney, do you want to make a comment now? Yeah, I just want to ask a question. Just I'm not sure I totally understand this. Is the Aldi losing its driveway access onto Lemon but it's – but your argument is it's okay? It already has enough access points elsewhere? Yes. Sorry to interrupt. It is not losing the access. The access will remain. We have several private easements between the parties requiring it and the condition from the PRS has been added to ensure that the access will continue and the PD itself has conditions as well to ensure that that access will continue. So Aldi will continue to have access across that driveway that's existing as well as the access to the north to Martin Luther King. And our – the PD area in red here – well, I don't know if you see it, but we'll have access across that driveway as well as cross access through to the north to Martin Luther King. So it's just that the ownership of the driveway is going to change? The ownership is the same. Technically. The ownership is not changing. All that's changing is which PD the driveway is located in. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Yep. All right. So I need to introduce PRS. G2B is PRS 260472 and again is to modify the PD to remove the acreage from the one PD to incorporate into the G2APD. We have – we are recommending approval. Applicant. I would just reiterate that this is just switching the driveway from the Aldi PD to the new PD that you are concurrently reviewing. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? G1A and G2B. Move approval. Second. Or G2A and G2B. Motion. Commissioner Cohen. Second. Commissioner Wilstle. Please record your vote. Motion carried. Six to zero. Commissioner, the next item is staff items. This is a monthly status report on a local act development projects. I would note that as outlined in the report, we have three new applications filed since the last month's update. Stats available for any questions. Any questions, comments? Commissioner Wilstle. I'll just comment that that number is now up to 3,654 units by my count pending our lawsuits. Thank you. All right. Do we need a motion to accept? Second. Motion, Commissioner Cohen. Second. Commissioner Wilstle. Please record your vote. Commissioner Myers. Motion carried. Six to zero. Go back to F5. Thank you, Chair. Ryan Manassi, Johnson Pope. Thank you for the time and addressing this at the last part of this hearing. I believe we got somewhere with some of the uses of the list that I just saw. I could present it on the overhead if that's easiest. Sure. Okay. So from the list, we have one question that I'll bring Ms. Swift up here in a second. But just so you understand where I'm coming from, my client needs a manufacturing process and an assembly and open storage, which is not part of this list. But you can see the remaining items that are Xed out, our uses that we are okay with restricting. So, and we actually included a firing range on the fly out there. So, you know, with the exception of manufacturing, processing, and production, which is defined, I think Ms. Swift provided a definition sheet here in their code. I wouldn't be able to restrict that. Now, there is a question on that as far as Ms. Swift was, we were talking out there and about the noise and what can be manufactured outside that we were looking maybe to staff for a little more guidance on. I don't know if Brian or Adam could help us out. Just as far as like, my understanding is if there was some outdoor welding going on, obviously they couldn't exceed the EPC noise levels. But I don't think it differentiates between indoor and outdoor manufacturing. Is your question on the noise limitations? No, the question is for the definition of manufacturing, is that how much can be done outdoor? How much manufacturing can be done outdoor? Or is that in an enclosed building? I don't believe that that definition limits it to indoor or outdoor. The noise limitations in the land development code would govern both scenarios as well as the EPC, which was stated, which I believe is a little higher than what the Lane Development Code would. Right, right. So, I mean, we feel like we've made a lot of progress. But again, the list of uses and what they want to do is kind of what's left. If it fits under manufacturing, that's our only concern about how much and will one concrete block wall and 30 feet minimize the noise. But a lot of progress has been made and that's really the only question. The light industrial land use is kind of a misnomer when you add the uses that are allowed in the manufacturing zoning district. So, but we feel like we've made a lot of progress with all the elimination of the other uses. All right, thank you. Just to be clear from the representative of the applicant. So, again, we're okay to restrict the lined out uses. And I can turn these in for the record, obviously. But we would, again, that's as far as. Okay. We understand. Thank you, sir. And I appreciate your willingness to work with Ms. Swift. Adam, do you understand, Adam? Sorry. Do you understand what they're agreeing to? Yes, what we would understand is that that list that was put up there with the line struck through are uses that the applicant is agreeing will be additional restrictions on the PD. Okay. And those uses will not be allowed in the manufacturing zoning district. All right, thank you. That's correct. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Yes, I think they did really awesome in making a lot of changes that were requested. And for those reasons, I will move for approval. Second. All right. Okay. We've got a motion approved by Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Second. Commissioner Cohen with the additional restrictions on uses. Please record your vote. Motion carries. Six to zero. Okay. Adam, anything else? Yes, sir. That concludes our agenda. Okay. We're adjourned.