Welcome to the Works. We're going behind the scenes with Hillsborough County's Temporary Traffic Control to find out how they plan, manage, and monitor our roadways and traffic, all while keeping the county running smooth. TTC is critical to the safety of the roadway in Hillsborough County. We're making sure that that work zone is set effectively so that it provides the safe traveling path for the persons that are driving through that work zone. August 11, 2026, a regularly scheduled land use meeting of the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. Would everyone please rise for the pledge and invocation given by our Chaplain Commissioner Gwen Myers. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Oh, gracious heaven and father, I come to you again, thanking you for our land use meeting, all of our applicants and their representative, as we discuss your business and how we should approve these projects in your holy name, I pray. Amen. Thank you, Commissioner Myers. Mr. Grady, order of view, any changes to the agenda? Good morning, Commissioners. Brian Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services. In addition to the withdrawals, continuance, and the remands in the published agenda on page three and four of the agenda, we do have two changes to the agenda regarding. The first one is on page eight, item FD3, GPRS 26-1076. An additional party of record has been added to the backup. And then on page nine, item E5, AG, ENCG 261188, additional party records have been added to the backup. That concludes the changes to the agenda. Okay, motion to approve the changes. Move to approve. Second. Motion to Commissioner Myers. Second to Commissioner Wollstall. Please record your vote and change the agenda. Motion carries seven to zero. Okay, before we vote on the consent agenda, need to provide opportunity for a comment on consent item B-4. Anyone like to speak to B-4? Seeing none, can we have a motion for the consent agenda? Move to approve. Second. Motion to Commissioner Cohen. Second Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on the consent agenda. Motion carried seven to zero. Okay, so you have a B item. Your application's 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? Thank you. Okay, we do not have any vacation items, so we'll go to our E items. Mr. Grady, I want to introduce the first item. Commissioner, the first item is agenda item E1, PRS application 26-1035. This is a request to modify a 13.9 acre PD that's located on the west side of US 301, south of the intersection of Bloomingdale and Progress Boulevard and US 301. The request is this PD is approved for two development options, one being a school. It has been developed with that school. The request is to add a pre-K child care to the school. Staff is recommending approval and we're available for any questions. Thank you. All right, thank you. Is the applicant here? Yes. Morning, sir. Anything you'd like to add? Not at this time. I'm here for questions. I appreciate it. Any proponent testimony? Robert Farkas, F-A-R-K-A-S. Any opponent testimony? Seeing none, can I come here with a motion? Motion, Commissioner Meyers. Second, Commissioner Miller. Please record your vote on E1. Motion carried 7-0. E2. Commissioner, the next agenda item is agenda item E2, PRS application 26-1072. This is a request to modify a 1.5 acre parcel located in larger PD that's located at the northeast the intersection of Millennium Road and State Road 60 in Valrico. The request is to modify the site layout and access locations for lot D and also to modify the buffer width along State Road 60. This parcel, along with the larger PDs within the State Road 60 overlay and the requirements of the State Road 60 overlay do require a 30-foot buffer. However, for existing PDs that predated the adoption of those ordinance, the code does allow for relief from those provisions in order to preserve existing entitlements based on the proposed development of the restaurant and the site design needs requested for that. They are requesting a 15-foot buffer. So I would note that the other existing out parcels within this PD to the east of this, along the section of the State Road 60, also have currently are developed with 15-foot buffers. So staff is not objecting the reduction of the buffer to 15 feet and we're available for any questions. Thank you. All right, thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Good morning, Isabel Albert with Huff, representing the applicant. I have nothing further to add unless you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone here in opposition? Seeing none. Move approval. Motion, Commissioner Wostel. Second, Commissioner Miller. Please record your vote on E2. Motion carried, 7-0. E3. Next agenda item, Commissioner, is E3, PRS Application 26-1076. This is a request to modify a 1.96 acre parcel that's located in a larger PD that's located at the intersection of Old Gibsonton Drive and Gibsonton Drive just west of the interchange with I-75. The request is to modify the distance separation standards from from residentially zoned property for a call order box. The call order box for the for the restaurant is proposed on the north side of the of the building which does not it comes within the required 200 foot distance separation from residentially zoned property which is across Old Gibsonton Drive. I would note that actual building locations within that planned development that is residentially zoned are in excess of 200 feet from the call out of box and the applicant has also proposed enhanced landscaping along Old Gibsonton Drive to provide for additional screening from those residential areas. Therefore, based on those considerations, staff is recommending approval of the reduction in the call the call order box separation requirement and we're billed for any questions. Thank you. The applicant here. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Craig McDonald with Corporate Property Services on behalf of McDonald's USA LLC. We're here for 9317 Gibson Drive, Lot 1. We're proposing minor modification to PD 07-1310. PD modification application numbers PRS 26-1076. McDonald's proposing to construct a 38-3,859 square foot fast food restaurant with a side-by-side drive-through. They're proposing speaker box be located 126 feet from the closest residentially zoned property where 200 feet is required. In order to mitigate the noise or any effects of that we're proposing a pretty dense 8 foot by 85 foot landscape buffer to mitigate the noise in addition to the normal street trees and the plantings we've got along Old Gibson Drive. This is the site right here the northeast corner of Gibson Drive and Old Gibson Drive. This is the original PD plan that was approved. Let me show you the blow up of the parcel. If you can see down in the south kind of west corner where the menu boards were originally planned. From the beginning we kind of flipped that because we were concerned McDonald's was with their traffic and queuing with the drive-through backing out into the drive driveway entering and exit McDonald's as well as leading out to Old Gibson Drive. So when we flip the menu boards behind it we come up with more than adequate stacking on site to accommodate the McDonald's queue but it puts us down to 126 feet to the closest residentially zoned property across from Old Gibson Drive. This is the dense landscape buffer I was talking about. It's about 8 feet by 85 feet in addition to all the rest of the street trees that are out there which will mitigate the noise. Here you can see a kind of a blow up of it. We've got five Japanese blueberry trees, six tahoon hollies, 20 additional Simpson stoppers. They're six feet by four to five foot spread and 49 Fakahatchee grasses which will more than mitigate any noise coming from the menu boards. And the menu boards also are adjusted the ambient sound. If it's real loud obviously they go up but in the evening when it's lower noise they they adjust down. Here's what the project will look like and you'll see the dense landscape buffer there. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions. All right thank you sir. Anyone here in support of the application? Any opposition? Seeing none, I'll come here with my motion. Move approval. Motion Commissioner Woelstel, second Commissioner Myers. Please call your vote. Motion carried seven to zero. Commissioners, next item is agenda item E4, Pierce application 26-1181. The request is for a minor modification of 3.1 acre parcel located on the north side of Eilert Road. This request is to modify the distribution of affordable housing units based on income levels. At the time that the project did receive a affordable housing housing density bonus to allow for the 18 residential units and nine duplex structures. The breakdown of units condition in the PD did exceed the minimum requirements of the land development code and comprehensive plan to qualify for affordable housing density bonus. The applicant is now proposing a different mix of those affordable housing units. That mix still exceeds the minimum standards and requirements to qualify for the density bonus. So staff is recommending approval and we're available for any questions. All right thank you. The applicant here. Good morning. My name is Stephen Sposato, a planner with Love Love Consulting. I'm here with representatives from Habitat for Humanity of Tampa Bay, including Ms. TNF4CA, and we're here to answer any questions. Thank you. All right thank you sir. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Mayor, my motion? Second. Commissioner Cohen, second Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote on E4. Motion carried seven to zero. E5. Commissioner, the next item is Agricultural Enclave Application 26-1188. This is an application requesting certification of the subject properties as an agricultural enclave pursuant to sections 1.63.31624 of the Florida Statutes. The subject property consists of approximately 62 acres and is located directly south of Hillsborough County and Pasco County Line, approximately 3,700 feet west of the intersection of North Tale Mabry Highway and West County Line Road. Under the provision of the statute, the applicant must demonstrate that land meets the definition of agricultural enclave as defined in the statute and that one or more adjacent parcels or adjacent development that are not agricultural enclave permits the same density or higher density in the proposed development. Staff has determined that the project meets the agricultural enclave definitional criteria and that it is within unincorporated Hillsborough County as under single ownership. That the property has been in continuous bona fide agricultural operation for five years as confirmed by communications with the property appraiser's office. The statute does require it it must meet one of three size and perimeter development criteria. Staff did determine that it met the criteria that it does not exceed 700 acres and is surrounded on at least 50 percent of the side by by uh by parcels of parcels that that the local government has designated on the on the futures land use map is land is to be developed for industrial commercial residential purposes and the parcels or parcels are surrounded on at least 50 percent of their perimeter by a parcel of parcels within the urban service district area. We have also determined that complies the public service maximum sizing and county population criteria outlined in the statute. Finally uh regarding uh proposed densities and similar densities the applicant is proposing a density of 1.5 units per acre uh but the surrounding development within the area including the the PD to the to the north in Pasco County has densities that are equally received the that proposed by the applicant therefore does uh qualify for that priority. Therefore in conclusion a staff has determined the subject application complies with the requirements set for Florida statutes to be certified as an agro trying claim. We're available for any questions. Thank you. All right is applicant here. Good morning Cammie Corbett with the law firm of Hillward and Henderson. I do have a presentation which we'll go through. Brian covered everything but he went through it really really quickly so I didn't know if you might want a little bit of a presentation just to slow it down a little bit. This is the subject property. From our perspective I don't think you could look at this site and not determine that it is adjacent to residentially developed property. Staff has a difference of opinion on that but we don't need to determine that or we don't need you to determine that uh this morning for this hearing because we meet the other criteria for certification. Uh these are the adjacent developments that Brian spoke of. We have the Long Lake Ranch MPUD to the north. We've got Heritage Harbor and Lake Nancy PD's to the to the south just to kind of illustrate that for you. These are the criteria that Ryan ran through. That's uh is a property unincorporated undeveloped. Is it owned by a single person or entity? Has it been in five years of continuous use for bonafide agriculture? And does it meet the adjacency criteria which was we've talked about the staff found that it met the adjacency criteria for future land use and uh for being uh 50 of the perimeter within the urban service area and being under 700 acres. And then we have public services or can meet that and we are located within a population of less than 1.75 million people. Again these are just more images to show you what we're talking about. We have Res 3 land use to the north but R1 and R2 to the south and as uh Adam indicated we're thinking we're asking for certification for the proposed development of 1.5 units the acre so consistent with the development pattern in the surrounding area. And again this is the adjacent zoning and then this was our perimeter calculation. Again don't need to resolve that this morning. And then this shows the urban service area both in Hillsboro and Pascoe. And with that we'd respectfully request your certification this this morning. And I'm here to answer any questions should you have any. All right thank you. Uh any proponent testimony? Any opponent testimony? All right we have a motion. Move to approve. Motion now Commissioner Myers. Second Commissioner Cohen. I'm sitting in the queue so please record your vote on E5. Commissioner. Motion carried 7-0. Okay go to the F items. Commissioner the next item is Jenna item F1 rezoning standard of 25-1026. The request is for a rezoning. The parcel is located on the east side of 66th street north of Madison Avenue. The request is rezoned from RSC 6 to a mobile home overlay to commercial general with restrictions. The applicant has proposed use restrictions, operating hour restrictions, and proposed enhanced landscaping along the east and south perimeters adjacent to existing residential uses. Based on those restrictions and the surrounding development pattern as outlined on this aerial staff. Staff did find this request approval. Doesn't need or require a waiver locational criteria and the planning commission staff was not supportive of a waiver like a waiver of location criteria and found that request inconsistent with the plan. Likewise the hearing officer also did not support the request and recommended a denial. We're available for any questions. Thank you. Is the applicant here? I heard from the applicant this morning. We emailed and contacted the applicant to remind him to appear but uh it does not appear to have made it to the room today. Commissioner Wilson. Normally I would say that we remand but in my opinion since they got denials on everything that I'll just move for denial if we can jump to that point. Okay we've got a motion for over now Commissioner Walsall, second Commissioner Bowles. Don't see anyone else in the queue. Please record your vote. Motion carried seven to zero. F2. Commissioner's next item is general item F2 major modification 26.0063. This is a request to modify a 54.15 acre portion of a larger plan development that's located in the west side of Broadway Center and south of the intersection of Broadway Center and Williams Road intersection. The applicant existing warehouse facility the applicant is making a number of modifications to the PD to accommodate expansion of the existing facility to the west as outlined in this project as part of this they're relocating lake and retention system to the south as shown in the site plan. Staff is recommending approval. Planning Commission found consistent and the hearing officer also recommended approval. More available for any questions. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning Mr. Chair. Elyse Batzel, Stearns, Weaver, Miller on behalf of the applicant. We don't have anything to add. We do have a full presentation if you have questions but otherwise we'll just reserve our time. Thank you. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone here in opposition? Planning Commission? Second. We've got to hear from Planning Commission first. As much as I appreciate the uh the effort to keep this moving we gotta hear from the Planning Commission. A lot of pressure on me. Good morning. Commissioners Molsa Leinhard 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 Brandon Community Plan. The subject property currently consists of vacant land and light industrial uses and similar light industrial uses are located to the south with vacant land to the east and west. Residential development is predominantly located to the south and east. Considered collectively the mix of surrounding land uses establishes a development pattern that supports the proposed use. Accordingly the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with future land use section objective 1.1 and policy 3.1.3. The subject property is located within the light industrial character district of the Brandon Community Plan which encompasses the northwestern portion of Brandon and is primarily devoted to business parks, light industrial and government uses. A significant portion of this district includes the Falkenberg Government Complex which contains a concentration of Hillsborough County Government Facilities as well as Hillsborough Community College's Brandon Campus and based upon the request and the surrounding development pattern the proposed major modification is consistent with the vision of the Brandon Community Plan. 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. Thank you. Hearing Master. Zoning hearing Master reviewed the proposed major modification and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with the land development code and the recommendation was for approval. Okay. So we got a motion by Commissioner Bowles. Second Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote. Motion carried 7 to 0. F3. Commissioner for the next line of agenda item F3 rezoning PD 26-06-051. This is a request to rezone a 14.6 acre parcel located in the north side of Thanonis-Sasser Road west of the intersection of of McIntosh Road and Thanonis-Sasser Road. The request is rezone from AR which permits a minimum lot size of five acres to a planned development to provide for 11 one-acre lots. Staff is recommending approval. The planning mission found it consistent in the hearing officer also is recommending approval. Available for any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Applicant here. Good morning. Good morning. Ann Pollack with Trenum Law here today on behalf of the applicants. So this property as Brian mentioned is located on the north side of Thanonis-Sasser just west of McIntosh. It's about a little over 14 acres in the rural service area and in the Thanonis-Sasser community plan area. It's zoned a future land use of res 1. Surrounding it to the west is a 40 acre property that's zoned for 31 acre units. To the south is single family AS1 and also res 1 future land use. Ag to the east but also with a future land use of res 1 and agriculture to the north. We are requesting an 11 unit subdivision here. The property would typically allow 14 units but we're putting in 11 access through Thanonis-Sasser road to the south and cross out. Sorry with a cross connection to the west and land available to go to the north. If the property to the north which owns the driveway to the west is ever developed. We're putting in a preservation area for scenic road. And we'll be widening and repaving McIntosh. The property is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the planning commission provided a detailed report about how it is. The res 1 intent is for rural residential uses compatible with short term ag uses which is exactly what we're doing here. The density allowed is 14 but we're only putting in 11 which means that less than one unit per acre. Res 1 and rural residential uses are found on all sides of the property and throughout the Thanonis-Sassa area. Comparable densities nearby which I'll show you in just a second we will be putting in private well and septic tanks so no extension of community of county facilities but those should have a minimal impact and certainly all installation of wells or septics would follow state and county rules. The Thanonis-Sassa community plan also has a minimum requirement of one acre of lots which we are doing. Goal 3 requires a balance of residential commercial and other land uses including low density rural residential uses so we do meet the intent. Rural residential uses again are just completely surrounding the property and throughout Thanonis-Sassa and we do contribute to the vision of the Thanonis-Sassa community plan. Which is confirmed by the Planning Commission staff report. We are consistent with the neighborhood protection policies. We meet all land development regulations and are not requiring a variance. We continue this transition of intensity along Thanonis-Sassa. We are creating like uses large lot single family which exist or approved from Thanonis-Sassa Lake all the way to Gallagher Road to the east and beyond mitigating adverse impacts through the PD design. And the Planning Commission confirmed that we are sensitive to the existing development patterns in the area. We are a compatible use and we align with the existing lot sizes in the area and comply with the Thanonis-Sassa community plan. If you look here you can see generally what's around us. The pink is the subject property. To the west are two PDs that were approved for about 30 units each. One acre lots. Stone Lake Ranch which is one and a half and two acre lots is the big green area in the northwest. And then all along to the east in that purple box is what you see here. And generally in this area again we're the pink property. Light blue to the west is that 40 acre parcel with 31 unit lots. And then the green to the east is properties that are less than two acres and the red are properties that are less than one and a half acres. So you can really see surrounding us are a whole bunch of very similar type of lots that we're proposing to bring in. The nearby zoning AS1 or PDs around us with one unit acres, one acre units. Transportation has no objections. This will have a minimal transportation impact. We are only creating 11 units which is a de minimis increase in the number of trips. Thanonis-Sassa is a substandard roadway. The county is requiring that it be widened and repaved. And we are going to do that from our property to McIntosh. The access and the preservation meet code. We will have that future access stub out to the west and to the north in order to ensure some connections later on should those properties be developed. Scenic corridor preservation and we will be providing internal sidewalks. This just gives you a sense of how this project would connect to the property to the west should that one also be developed. We are meeting all environmental protection requirements. This is not in an identified environmentally sensitive area. The county has confirmed we are not in a wellhead resource protection area. We are not in a surface water protection area. We are not in a potable water wellfield protection area. And importantly, we are not in a flood zone. There are flood zone areas in the Thanonis-Sassa area, but this property is pretty far from it. And as a result, the EPC and the county environmental and natural resources do not have any objections. And certainly to the extent that there is any stormwater improvements, those would all have to meet code and be approved by SWIFT MUD and any other regulatory agency. So just summarizing that this project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the Thanonis-Sassa community plan. It's supported by the Planning Commission. It is compatible with the established character of the surrounding area. And county staff are also recommending approval with no objections. Transportation has found the design exception approvable, which is the repaving of Thanonis-Sassa road. And the ZHM just found us supportable. So with that, I would respectfully request your support. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone here in opposition? Danielle Kimbrough, Plant City. Hillsborough County Capital Improvements identified this roadway along Thanonis-Sassa road from Taylor road to McIntosh conditions is below the target PCI values and needs improvement updates and or new traffic devices and drainage repairs. The estimated cost is over $2 million and the construction completion will be in early 2028. I understand that this development is going to happen. It's in the real, it is in the appropriate location. And Thanonis-Sassa is I-4 alternative. I just request that the condition of this development not start construction until the capital improvements have been completed for the safety of the community as well as the road crews improving this below standard corridor. Thank you. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else in opposition or the applicant has opportunity for rebuttal? I would just say that yes, there is a Hillsborough County road improvement project that's going on and is expected to be completed by 28 from Taylor to McIntosh. So we think that will do a good deal to help with the road issues. But, you know, certainly our development is going to be a significant improvement, at least in that general area. And, you know, obviously these projects take a long time to build anyway. So I don't think there's a need to delay things moving forward as we are, the county is simultaneously working on the improvements to Thanonis-Sassa road. Okay. Thank you. Planning Commission. Thank you. The subject property is located within the residential one future land use category. The site is in the rural area. And the subject property is located within the limits of the Thanonis-Sassa community plan. The site is surrounded by the residential one future land use category on all sides with agricultural rural one to five being located further west of the site. The site contains approximately 14.6 acres, which allows for a maximum of 14 dwelling units for consideration. The proposed development on the site consists of 11 total single family units, which is consistent with development expected in this category. Goal three of the community plan states to provide improved yet affordable infrastructure and a balance of residential, commercial, and other land uses, while maintaining the rural nature of the Thanonis-Sassa area. Additionally, some strategies listed under this goal include requiring minimum lot sizes of one acre for residential development within the residential one, agricultural estate, and agricultural rural future land use categories. The proposed plan development is within the residential one category and proposes lot sizes of one acre and is therefore consistent with that 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. Hearing Master. Following review of the proposed rezoning, the zoning hearing master found the application to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommended approval. Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? Move. Second. The motion commissioner Meijer seconded commissioner Wollstall, please record your vote on F3. Motion. Carrier 7-0. F4. Come to Commissioner to the next item is on item F4 resoning standard 26-0892. This is a request to re-zone of .87 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Hutchinson and Rawls Road north of Ehrlich Road. The request is to a re-zoned from RFC-4 to business professional office BPO. This does meet location criteria. Staff did find this approvable. Planning mission found it consistent with the plan and the hearing officer also recommended approval and we are available for any questions. Thank you. All right, the applicant here. Good morning. Thank you, Isabel Albert with HAHF representing the applicant. This is a straightforward BPO request. It's on two collector roadways, lighted intersection, and we will meet all the development standards of the BPO. We're not waiving anything. I'm here if you have any questions. I also have my team with me for additional questions. Thank you. All right, thank you. Any proponent testimony? Anyone in opposition? Please come forward. Good morning. Good morning, Steve Suarez. I live 5224 Rawls Road, which is approximately three parcels away from this proposed BPO. I've been out there since 1967 when the loanings originally were AR, then we went to AR1 mobile home up in a residential. I don't know how they constantly change, but now we're at this RSC4 and we're wanting to change something to BPO. I don't understand why we need to add a business at this location when there is plenty of space on the Ehrlich Road. They came up with there is already one at 0.25 miles south, which used to be the old Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. When they moved the gun highway, it's still zoned PD, but for some reason we have businesses in there that it's never 100% full. Again, this has been residential. It's been residential pretty much my whole life that I've been there, except for a nursery, which is a plant nursery, which is a little bit to the north. This originally, again, was a residence. It became a daycare. It became vacant. I noticed in the hearing master's ruling that he mentioned about it was vacant for several years, possibly 10 years. The reason it was vacant is because the owner purchased that so that he could have a parking lot for his parties that he had in his warehouse where his collector cars were. Again, I know this is probably a moot point, but I've got to go on the record to oppose it just because I don't agree with it. I don't agree with the way the county keeps changing the residential ways that they are. It's all residential through there. Talk about two collector roads. They say my road, Rawls Road, is a collector road. I'd love for some of y'all to drive that and tell me it's a collector road. Maybe on the west side of Hutchinson, it is, but the east side between Hutchinson and Pennington, which is where the subject properly broaches on, is not a collector road in my mind. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Anita Kong. I am the back neighbor of that property. It's a vacant lot back there. I have a pool back there. If you put up a commercial building over there, my entire privacy is gone. I moved from New York 10 years ago with my special needs son. We have that backyard, and if you put a commercial building there, everything is going to be gone. We're all neighbors. We're right next door. It's our backyard. You're putting up a commercial building. We're right there. There is no commercial building around that area. I have a pool. I have a kitchen back there, and you're going to take that away from us. So that's my opposition for this. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. I'm Linda Kent. I live at 18705 Woodshed Place. I'm right beside Anita, so this will also affect my view. I'm concerned about the height of the building, that it's going to be two stories. And I've lived here for almost six years now, and I'd like it to remain the way it is instead of having something built that's going to be an eyesore, and it's going to block our view. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Kamini. I live on 5405 Mountain Farm Court. It's basically across the street from where Anita Kong lives. So this building is going to be like nearly 100 feet from my house. And again, the problem is it being duplex. Commercial building definitely something that is very close to our house is going to be- Excuse me, ma'am. I hate to interrupt you, but I didn't catch your name. Kamini. Did you speak at the Zoning Hearing Master meeting? No. No. Or did you put anything in- did you send in an email into the zoning department? No. Well, I'm sorry. Unfortunately, due to the rules that we have for participation, you won't be able to speak this time. Oh, no problem. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Our applicant has opportunity for rebuttal. Commissioners, good morning. William Molloy, 325 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. I think what we heard here and what we heard at the ZHM when we presented initially is that the residents really have concern about the massing and scale of this building. And I just want to reinforce to you that this is a standard rezoning. So this is in a PD where we drew our own plan. This is BPO standard. So we're fitting inside the codified setbacks and standards that you guys put in the LDC already. We are committed to making this a two-story building. We realize the neighborhood around us is mostly one story, but two-story seems entirely appropriate for an office building. And again, residential just doesn't work on this site. We looked at it very hard. We know that would be an issue coming in, but this is a signalized intersection where two collectors' roads meet. And we feel, as do most of the agencies, the Planning Commission and Development Services, this is an appropriate use. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Planning Commission. 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 subject property is currently vacant and surrounded by single-family residential uses. Surrounding land uses consists primarily of single-family residential development, with some public and quasi-public uses to the north and west, as well as light commercial to the south of the site. Collectively, these existing land use patterns establish a predominantly residential context that supports the proposed development. The residential floor, future land use category allows for a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre or a maximum floor area ratio of 0.05. With 0.87 acres, the subject site can be considered for a maximum of 9,474 square feet of non-residential uses. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the uses allowed under the existing residential for future land use category and will be subject to the maximum square footage as described. Business professional office uses are typically lower in intensity compared to the operating characteristics of many other neighborhood serving commercial uses. Additionally, future land use section objective 4.7 and its modifying policies dictate where neighborhood serving commercial uses should be located based on the plan's established commercial location criteria. The site is located at the intersection of Rawl Road and Hutchinson Road, both of which are classified as county arterial roadways. Therefore the site is well within the 1,000 foot distance requirement from this intersection and meets the required locational criteria. Based upon those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan. Thank you. Hearing Master. The zoning hearing master reviewed the proposed rezoning and found it to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development code and recommended approval. All right. Commissioner Wollstone. Thank you. I just want clarity because they're bringing up that they don't want commercial and two-story, but it could have two-story right now. It has height limits at 35 feet from what I read, right? Correct. I just want to make that point. It could already be two-story. And the flu is residential four. And that's confusing when you read it because residential four actually allows for quite a bit of different commercial uses, correct? That's correct. I just want to bring up that point that the BPO is kind of a negligent point about commercial use because it's already under a future land use of rez-4 that they could go for and accomplish similar activities on this other than the 50-foot looks like they have some footnote in there. Can you explain the 50-foot? They have a maximum height and BPO of 50 feet. However, there is an additional setback required for any height over 20 feet. So if the building and that setback is two additional feet of setback for one additional foot of height, so a 35-foot building, for example, would have an additional 30-foot setback in addition to the 20-foot buffer. So the higher the building goes, the further it has to be from the rear and side property lines. Right. Okay. So they could get much closer to the property line with the two-foot building as it is right now under rez-4? Correct. Where they go, they have to push back. Correct. All right. Just because it's already basically entitled, similarly, I'll move for approval. I've got a motion for approval by Commissioner Walsall. Do you have a second? Second, Commissioner Miller. I'll see you in the queue. Please record your vote. Motion carried, 7-0. Next item. Christopher's next item, related items, G1A and G1B. G1A is a hammock-based subdivision, Apollo Beach subdivision associated, the replat of the property related to the vacate petition, G1B. This item authorizes acceptance and authorization of the acceptance of documents associated with the replat. This would otherwise be on consent. Therefore, at this time, it would be appropriate to hear the public hearing on G1B, which is a vacate petition associated with the replat of this parcel. And real estate services will present this item. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Victoria Rosenbecher with Facilities Management and Real Estate Services. Item G1B today is vacate ID V26-0009. This is a petition by Impact Apollo Beach Ventures LLC, Apollo Beach Property LLC, and Park Square Services LLC to vacate a portion of the plat of Apollo Beach Unit 6, as recorded in plat book 37, page 88, including portions of unimproved rights-of-way known as Gulf and Sea Boulevard and Chestnut Drive, and consisting of approximately 11.3 acres. The subject vacate area is generally located north of 19th Avenue Northwest and west of North US Highway 41 in Apollo Beach. The petitioner submitted this request to replat the property with different lot sizes and right-of-way widths. The resolution includes the reservation of a temporary public access and utility easement that will automatically terminate upon recording of the petitioner's proposed hammock bay replat, which will provide adequate replacement access and utility rights. All other reviewing departments, agencies, and utility providers have raised no objections to this request. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, thank you. At this public hearing, anyone would like to speak to the item? Good morning, Cammie Corbett. I'm here representing the applicant, and I'm here to answer any questions, should you have any. Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to speak? All right, can we have a motion for G1A and G1B? Move to approve. Motion Commissioner Meyers, Second Commissioner Willstall. Please record your vote. G1A and G1B. Motion carried seven to zero. Mr. Grady, next item. Next item. Next item is Staff Item I-1. This is a monthly status report on Live Local Act development projects. I would note that we have received no new applications since the last update last month, and so the report does outline where the existing projects are in the process, and we are available for any questions. I don't have any comments. We have a motion to accept the report. Motion Commissioner Willstall, Second Commissioner Miller. Please record your vote. I-1. Motion carried seven to zero. I-2. I-2. This is a status report on agricultural enclave projects as outlined in the staff report. Since the last monthly update, we have had no new applications filed. The two applications that were filed, one was withdrawn as outlined in the report, and the other one was acted on earlier today. So we are available for any questions. Thank you. All right, I have a motion to accept the report. Motion Commissioner Willstall, Second Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote on I-2. Motion carried seven to zero. Okay. With that, we're adjourned. Okay. With that, we're adjourned. Thank you. Maybe we're gesch Ar pronouncing the report of the – homosexual. Okay. We're adjourn. We're adjourned. Andrew John Williams, Second Commissioner, Second Commissioner, Second Commissioner, Presidency, Second Commissioner. Yes, sir. Thank you. Andrew Schochle, Second Commissioner, Second Commissioner, One.