Land Use Hearing Officer - 06.15.26

Welcome to The Works, a show dedicated to Hillsborough County's Public Works Department. In this video, I'm going to break down what public works is and how they play a crucial part in our everyday lives. Hillsborough County's Public Works Department plays a vital role in supporting the community's daily needs and long-term growth by building and maintaining a safe, thriving community through collaboration, dedication, and taking pride in public service. Whether it's maintaining roads and sidewalks, improving stormwater infrastructure, or delivering major projects, such as construction of a new library, our public works is comprised of two primary departments, Engineering and Operations and Capital Programs. Engineering and Operations focuses on the day-to-day maintenance, safety, and functionality of transportation and drainage systems, as well as mosquito management services. Capital Programs oversees the construction of long-term infrastructure projects that support mobility, resiliency, and community development. Together, these departments are responsible for planning, building, operating, and maintaining the county's critical infrastructure. Now that you have an understanding of what Public Works is, this show will break down the roles Public Works plays in Hillsborough County. So, be sure to subscribe on our social media pages and be on the lookout for future episodes. In a world where loyal companions await, one place stands as their beacon of hope. The Pet Resource Center of Hillsborough County, where you can adopt your very own superhero. Adopt the dog, find your sidekick, and unlock the power of unconditional love. Suit up, show up, and adopt today. For more information, visit hcfl.gov slash pets. Good morning. If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. Thank you. Please have a seat. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome you to the June 15, 2026 Land Use Hearing Officer Hearing. My name is Susan Finch, and I'll be presiding as the hearing officer over today's cases. Let me start by introducing Ms. Colleen Marshall. She is with the Development Services Department, and she'll introduce other staff members that will participate in today's hearing, as well as go over any off-the-agenda changes. Ms. Marshall. Good morning. Colleen Marshall, Development Services. To my left is Mary Dorman and Jared Delfino, the Hillsborough County County Attorney's Office. Carmen Mason, a Development Services staff, is joining us virtually. Alexis Myers, a Planning Commission staff, will be presenting virtually as well. During the course of the hearing, a number of other staff planners will be presenting their findings for various cases and will be introduced for each item. We have no changes to the published agenda. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Let me start by going over our procedures for today's hearing. Our hearing today consists of agenda items that require a public hearing by a Land Use Hearing Officer. I'll conduct a hearing on each agenda item and will file a decision within 15 business days following today's hearing. Our hearing today is informal. I'll ask questions related to the scope of direct testimony. I may call and question witnesses as I deem appropriate, and I will decide all questions of procedure. I'll take evidence but will exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious. Evidence may be presented in written form, and all testimony must be under oath. Hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence but shall not be sufficient to support a finding by me unless it would be admissible over objections in a civil action. Our order of presentation today is as follows. The Development Services staff begins with a presentation, an introduction, and a presentation of their staff report and findings for a period of five minutes. We'll then go to the applicant. The applicant has 15 minutes total to present their case, including any experts they would like to include. We'll then go to proponents, anyone who would like to speak in favor of an application. Everyone together, 15 minutes. The same is true next when we go to opponents, anyone who would like to speak against an application. Everyone combined, 15 minutes. We'll then circle back to the Development Services Department. They have five minutes to make any comments based on today's testimony and or changes. And then finally, the applicant has the last word. The applicant has five minutes for rebuttal. You'll notice on our agenda that we have the beginning of the hearing starts with variances, and that is the specific order in which those presentations are made. The only difference is when you get to the end of the agenda, the special use applications, the applicant goes first and Development Services goes second, but otherwise identical in process. Now, regarding that time frame for proponent or opponent testimony, those 15 minutes each, when we get to that section of the hearing, I will ask you to raise your hand if you plan to speak. We have people in the room that want to speak, and I believe we also have people online that are participating virtually. So we'll get a show of hands, a count of how many people want to speak either in favor or against, and we will divide that 15 minutes as equally as we can. If there are a number of people that want to speak, it's best to organize your team. So perhaps a speaker takes the lead in making that presentation, and then others can put their name and address on the record. You can also stand and show your opposition or support in the room, and all of that is appropriate. So just know that we are going to keep those time frames pretty tight, and so 15 minutes each way is how we're going to go. When you get up to speak, either in the room or online, if you could start by giving us your name and address for the record. We are recording this hearing, and we want to make sure we have your information correct. When you're done, if you're in the room, when you're done at the podium, if you could see Jermaine, Jermaine, raise your hand. Jermaine is with the clerk's office. He is keeping a written log on top of the dais. So when you're done, if you could go over there and sign in, also with your name, address, and the case number to which you spoke to make sure we have that correct. Let me now turn to Mr. Delfino. He is with the county attorney's office, and he will provide you the legal requirements for appealing a decision made by a land use hearing officer. Mr. Delfino. Good morning. Jared Delfino, assistant county attorney. This land use hearing officer public hearing is for variants and special use requests. This is the time for interested parties to present evidence and testimony. Once the land use hearing officer has closed a case, the record of that case is also closed, and no new evidence regarding that case may be submitted thereafter. Any decision by the land use hearing officer may be appealed to the land use appeals board. Should a decision of the land use hearing officer be appealed, the record evidence, including the testimony presented at this public hearing, shall be the only evidence that is subject to review by the land use appeals board. In reaching a final decision on petitions, the land use appeals board will consider the decision of the land use hearing officer and the record evidence, including any evidence from this public hearing. If an appeal is filed, the land use appeals board hearing shall consist of oral argument by the party appealing the decision, county staff, and any intervenors, each of whom may be represented by legal counsel. The following shall have standing to appeal a decision of the land use hearing officer or to intervene in an appeal. One, the applicant. Or two, anyone who appeared before the land use hearing officer, presented testimony or otherwise or other evidence and is adversely affected by the decision of the land use hearing officer. It is the role of the county attorney's office to ensure that no new evidence or testimony is allowed before the land use appeals board that was not presented to the land use hearing officer at today's hearing. The county attorney will recommend that the land use appeals board disregard evidence or testimony that's outside of the record at today's public hearing. Any evidence presented to the land use appeals board that is outside the record created at today's hearing could jeopardize the legality of the land use appeals board decision and the presenter of that evidence could hurt their own cause. The safest course of action then is for you to write down any comments you make today and repeat them to the land use appeals board. Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. As I mentioned, all testimony must be under oath. So if you plan to speak today, if you could please stand, raise your right hand, and I'll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you so much. Please have a seat. All right. With that out of the way, then, Ms. Marshall, we are ready to call the first case. On today's agenda, we have no vested rights, fee waivers, remands, reconsideration requests, or site development various requests, which brings us to Section G, sign variance requests. Item G1, variance 260856, the applicant is adding mentoring. The request is a variance to sign requirements. Staff findings will be presented by Sam Ball. Good morning. Good morning. Sam Ball with Postbrook County Development Services. The applicant is requesting three variances, which would allow for a new monument sign to be installed on a redevelopment site located at the southeast corner of North Del Mabry Highway and Haute Road intersection. According to LDC Section 7030C1C, a proposed monument sign of eight feet tall would require a 19-foot setback. The applicant is requesting a 10-and-a-half-foot reduction to the front setback, which would result in an 8-and-a-half-foot setback from the North Del Mabry Highway right-of-way. For the another, based on LDC Section 7030C2A2, the subject property having approximately 650 square feet would be limited to two ground signs along the North Del Mabry frontage. Variance 080660 allowed the property to have up to four signs along North Del Mabry, but because sign C, which this sign would replace, was designated as a pole sign, and the variance of a ground sign or a monument sign, this variance application requires a request to allow an additional sign because the proposed sign is a monument sign. The applicant is requesting to increase the allowable number of signs by one, which would allow three signs on the property facing North Del Mabry Highway. It's noteworthy to point out that through eminent domain, the most southern of the four signs that were approved is now on the public right-of-way instead of on the subject property. LDC Section 7030C2A2 requires ground signs to be at least 150 feet apart. The applicant is requesting a 60-foot decrease to this requirement to allow two of the signs to be located 90 feet apart. This variance is necessary because variance 08660 was approved to allow only a 50-foot reduction. And based on the, finally, the, based on the survey provided by the applicant, the right-of-way taking reduced the front setback of sign D that was approved in variance 08660 to zero feet. The applicant was notified of this and decided not to include that in the variance application. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions. I do. I have a couple questions, and it can either be for you or the applicant. I'll just put them out there and see. First, I just want to clarify, your staff report says on the monument sign front yard setback that it's an eight-and-a-half-foot front setback. And it's a minor thing, but I just want to clarify that, make sure we have this right. The applicant in their actual request talks about eight feet, six inches. It could be the same thing, but I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page with that. We are. Yeah, it's exactly the same thing. Okay, just want to make sure. All right. And then the separation between the ground signs, the staff report says 90 feet, and I believe that's based on the prior variance that was approved. But their actual site plan shows that it's 94 point, and then it's illegible. It looked maybe 39, 94.39 feet. I just want to make sure what the actual request is. Their request was, oh, it went off based on their request. Their site plan showed, you know. That's the 94 is the site plan. Right. So when I looked at it, I thought, well, that gives them a little bit of flexibility in case the site development standards have to change, and they wouldn't have to come back for another variance. All right. That's fine. And it wasn't clear to me which sign is actually asking for the increase in the square footage in the sign area. Whenever there's a sign that exceeds 50 square feet, basically that excludes the possibility of additional signs. So whenever there's other signs on the site that exceed 50 square feet, that gets put into the variance. So basically the way that the sign code is written is that if you're allowed to have multiple signs, then you can reduce those multiple signs to one large sign. And so whenever you have a sign that exceeds 50 square feet on the property, in order to have another sign, basically we just include that into the variance just to cover all the bases. Maybe that's the source of my confusion here, because I looked at the original approval, the A through E signs, and E is now off-site, I understand, and D is in the right-of-way. So it looks like B is existing and C is the new pylon sign. Is that correct? Correct, and then the sign to the north is the one that exceeds 50 square feet per face. So the one at the very corner at Hoyt, almost to Hoyt and Dale Mabry, is that correct? Yes. Okay, understood. And then finally, the sign that is now in the right-of-way due to the taking. I'm going to turn to the county attorney's office and ask them if you have, and I understand the applicant's position that you advised them of it and they didn't want to address it, but what is that liability in terms of the county with a sign that is now existing in the right-of-way due to the taking? What do you mean by the county's liability? Is there any action that needs to be taken to remove the sign because it is in the right-of-way to ask them to move it? I am sorry if I should know the answer to this, but what's the jurisdiction of the road? It's Dale Mabry Highway. Okay, so it's a state. Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to double-check. Have we let the Department of Transportation know about it? No, we have not. That's their road, right? Right, we have not let them know. But if you look at the way the road is designed, I mean, it was clear that the sign was there whenever the taking took place and that the way the road is configured. I don't know how. And it's a very large sign, so I just don't think that it was ever overlooked. However we got to this place, we're here. But now that we have this action, my question is, is there any requirement from this, now that we're looking at all the signs and the property, to ask them to move the sign into their property and not in the right-of-way? That's my question. I mean, I would think that the Department of Transportation, I mean, they have policies and procedures dealing with those types of issues. So, you know, my counsel to the county would be to advise the department of the encroachment into the state right-of-way. Okay, all right, thank you. That was my only question. Thank you so much. Is the applicant here? Good morning. I am here on behalf of HCA Healthcare and Northdale Development. We are seeking three sign variances. Thank you, Sam, for your presentation. For the related sign variances to the proposed HCA North Tampa Freestanding Emergency Room located at 15403 Northdale Mabry Highway. This slide shows a general location of the subject properties. We're looking at the north of the county. The site is located along Northdale Mabry, one of the primary transportation corridors within Hillsborough County. The surrounding area consists of a mix of commercial, retail, office, and residential uses that heavily rely on visibility from Northdale Mabry. This slide provides a clearer look at the subject parcel. The property is a part of a larger commercial development. Because of the original design, the parcel contains existing parking fields, drive aisles, access points, and sign locations that were worked around with the redevelopment of the freestanding ER. The site is not being developed as a brand-new green field, rather HCA is adapting the existing commercial to provide the emergency healthcare services. So we are requesting three related sign variances. First, we are requesting a reduction in the required monument sign from 19 feet to 8.6 or 8.5, so 8.5 or 8 feet 6 inches. I know that was a question that you had. The second, we are requesting for an additional sign to increase in the allowable monument sign to 43.3 square feet, so the proposed sign meets the 50 square foot requirement for a sign. But as Sam said, because there is additional signs at the site, it maxes out the required sign. Thank you. And finally, we are requesting relief for the 150 foot separation to allow approximately a 90 feet between signs. I know that was another question that you had. The 90 feet will allow us, as Sam said, to be flexible in the placement in the island in case there is any foot or two off that we need to kind of move it. This is the overall site plan. As you can see, the site contains existing parking, internal circulations, access, and development infrastructure. The available frontage area is already constrained by the required improvements for the ER. Those conditions significantly limited opportunities for the location of the signage while maintaining site functionality. This is a zoomed in version, so on this slide you can see the northwest corner of the parcel. That's where HCA is being developed. This is a closer look. So the sign that is to the north in green that is existing, and I have an exhibit photo to show you. The red is where we are proposing the HCA monument sign. This side depicts the proposed monument sign. The sign is designed consistent with HCA's branding standards used throughout the region. The overall design is professional, architecturally compatible with the redeveloped building, and appropriately scaled for the corridor and the land development code. The sign will provide clear identification for emergency medical services without creating visual clutter. As shown in these renderings, these are the existing signs. So the sign that is on the left side is the southern sign at that entrance, and the sign on the right is the most northern sign that we're seeking the separation from. On these, both of them don't provide adequate visibility or size for emergency services. We are also providing the proposed monument sign is in a location that an existing sign was in. So this is what the building looks like now. It used to be a CVS pharmacy, and the site has been redeveloped to bring the HCA building there. This is what the sign would look like as you're driving north on Northdale Mabry. And you can see that in relation to the existing sign that is to the north that we're asking the separation from. Ms. Petrie, let me just before you leave that point. Yes. Yes. So that was not clear to me either. Okay. So your new HCA sign replaces one of the signs we just showed. Yes. I see. Oh, no, it doesn't replace one of the signs we just showed. There was an approved poll sign for CVS that was in this location. That is the sign that it's been removed. Okay. It was, it was degraded, the cabinet and the poll. So that sign has been removed because of the redevelopment and it would be replacing this sign. I see. Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead. So what would look like on Haute Road, the visibility in line with the northern and the southern entrance sign. So the, I want to go into the variance criteria. So the unique hardships, the hardships associated with this request are unique to this property. This site was originally designed for a different use and it, and contains existing parking circulation and development infrastructure that limits sign placement options, which is also why we're proposing it in the exact location of the sign. The parcel is also part of the larger development that already contains existing monument signs that were approved in the 2008 variants. Additionally, the proposed location reflects a continuation of that previously approved location. Strict application of the code would deprive the property of visibility common enjoyed, commonly enjoyed by similar healthcare facilities. Emergency medical facilities rely on clear identification and visibility to effectively serve the public. And we do not believe that the existing multi-tenant signs would be an adequate representation of the medical and emergency services that need to be provided for the building. The requested variance will not adversely impact neighboring properties. The sign remains appropriately sized and compatible with the surrounding corridor. The reduced sign separation does not create visual clutter because the sign serves different function for the emergency medical services. And one sign identifies the overall development while this proposed sign specifically identifies those emergency health, that emergency healthcare use. This request is consistent with the intent of the land development code. The code seeks to promote public safety, effective site design and orderly development. The proposed sign directly supports those objectives by improving visibility for the medical services. And the request balances the code compliance with the practicalities of the site and the already approved variants for the site. The need for this variants we don't believe was self created. The constraints results resulted from the inherited site conditions, existing development patterns and operational requirements associated with the emergency healthcare. These circumstances existed prior to HCA's redevelopment efforts and the proposed sign location continues reflects a continuation of the historically approved condition. The approval of this variants provides substantial public benefit and substantial justice. The sign improves visibility and accessibility for emergency medical services. Patients seeking urgent care can benefit from clear site identification and improved wayfinding. Denying the request would create operational hardship while providing little corresponding public benefit. And the last thing I have is the average daily driver count for this corridor or this section of the corridor on North Delmabry. Which is 58,000 average daily dryers. So it carries substantial daily traffic and for healthcare facility, particularly a freestanding emergency room and is heavily, you know, residential outside of the main, you know, thoroughfare. It's, it's, it's essential and the proposed monument sign helps ensure that patients and visitors can quickly identify the facility. Based on the unique site constraints, historical sign approvals, operational needs of the emergency healthcare facility and the significant public benefit provided by the improved visibility. We respectfully request your approval. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. I appreciate it. I answered the majority of my questions through the presentation. So thank you for that. Just one thing I just, because I raised it earlier, I would just want to raise it with you. Yes ma'am. That sign that is in the Delmabry right of way. Yes. I just want to get your take on that for the record. Yes. So I do know that FDOT was, they worked with the owner and they do know that that site sign is there. And once construction happens, they will have to remove the sign for now they are not. But if there is a road widening and then like any utility work has to be done, they are aware and FDOT is aware of the sign and they will have to remove that sign. So not this construction for your client. Not that construction, but. Yes. Future construction. Future. Yes. Okay. That was my only question. Thank you so much. No, please sign in. All right. We'll now turn to anyone that would like to speak in support. Anyone in favor? Seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to this request? No one. Ms. Marshall, anything else? Nothing, brother. All right. Ms. Dorman, any other comments regarding that sign before I move on? I don't have any other comments. If you don't have any other questions. I don't. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. I don't know if you'd like it. All right. Thank you then. With that, then we'll close Variance 26-0856 and go to the next case. This brings us to Section H, Variance Request. Item H1, Variance 260584. The applicant is Eric Langston. The request of the variance to fence and wall requirements and staff findings will be provided by Sierra James. Good morning. Good morning. Sierra James with Development Services. The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum fence requirement in the front yard, of two feet to permit a six-foot-high fence within the front yard. The site is currently under code enforcement violation for a fence greater than four feet within the front yard. I'm available for any questions at this time. Just a quick question. Yes, ma'am. There was a letter in the file in opposition saying that, or of concern, I guess, saying that the notice was not in order for a May hearing. And I just want to confirm for the record that this adjacent property owner notice is in order. If we can do that. I know that you don't personally verify that. Yes, ma'am. So we can do that while we move along in the hearing, Ms. Marshall. I appreciate it. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. All right. Is the applicant here? Good morning. Hi. I'm here on behalf of ETL Contractors. Address is 6109 Hastings Cove Lane, Plant City, Florida, 33565. So the subject property is a corner lot along Glen Harbaugh Road and Fritzke Road. For those that know the area, that road is frequently used as a cut-through route to Highway US 92 when I-4 is congested. As a result, the roadway experiences high traffic volume, including semi-trucks and excessive cars traveling at excessive speeds. So we are requesting a two-foot variance to the four-foot fence requirement to make it six feet in total. The homeowner does have kids and pets, so this does impose a, like, keep the family safe. All right. Do you have a picture of this fence? Yes, it should be. Give me one second. Oh, yeah. Are you going to show me a picture from your phone? No, ma'am. I don't have one. Okay. All right. Can you describe it? Because as I read the application, it looks like just the masonry columns. Yes, ma'am. And it is aesthetic to the house, so it matches the same colors. It is masonry block with wood boards going across, so it matches the aesthetic of the house. Is it only the columns that exceed the four feet? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And did you hear from any of the neighbors as a part of your notice? We did not hear anything back from them directly. Yes, ma'am. Okay. That's the only question. Thank you so much. Okay. Anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support? Anyone in favor? I see no one. Anyone in opposition? All right. Ms. Marshall, did we confirm the notice? Yes. So it wasn't noticed for May, but it was noticed properly for June and in order for June. Perfect. Did you have any other comments before I move on? Nothing. Thank you. Ma'am, you have the last word if you'd like it, but you don't have to take it. All right. Thank you. That will close Variance 26-0584 and go to the next case. This item is Item H2, Variance 260704. The applicant is Angelos, Florida Properties. The request is a variance to landscape buffering and screening requirements. Staff findings will be provided by Michelle Montabano. Good morning. Good morning, Michelle Montabano Development Services. The applicant is requesting a variance to buffering screening standards to have a required six-foot wall within a type C 30-foot incompatible use buffer for a proposed warehouse. Per LTC section 60606C5, it states the screening standard C requires a masonry wall six feet in height and finished on all sides with brick, stone, or painted pigmented secco. The variance requested to eliminate the required six-foot wall to result in a 30-foot type C buffer along the southern property boundary without a six-foot wall. The type C buffer is required because the property to the south is zoned RMC 20 and occupied by multifamily use. The multifamily property does have an existing six-foot, eight-foot wall along that boundary, but since the finished grade of where that wall is placed is four feet lower than the finished grade of the warehouse, that existing wall was not considered sufficient for the required screening for this new use. Is the wall on the subject property or the adjacent property? The adjacent property. Okay. That was my only question. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. It's the applicant here. Good morning, sir. Good morning. Good morning, sir. Thank you. Dr. Victor DePoese. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. for a buffer variances we the existing wall is 8 feet on the property line. We still have the 30-foot setback and we have the we've met all the planting requirements. We were just asking for a variance for the second wall that'll be you know 25 feet away. Really the architect first brought up the biggest concern. We have windows on the south side and offices and basically the view from the office will be the the new wall we put in and that's our request. So you want to use the existing wall that's on the adjacent property to the south? Yeah it was on the property line. So and have you heard from that property enter to the south? No I got one call with a question about what the variance was about and kind of explained that what I just said and that was that's the only call I received. Okay that was my only question thank you so much. You could please sign in before you go. All right is there anyone in the audience or online that would like to speak in support? See no one anyone in opposition? No one. Miss Marshall anything else? Nothing further. All right sir do you have anything further before we close? Anything else to add? All right thank you for that. We'll close then variance 26-0704 and go to the next case. Next item is item H3 variance 26-070. The applicants are John S. and Susanna M. Moeller. The request is a variance to fence requirements and I'll present the staff findings. The applicants requesting a variance of two feet to the maximum fence height of six feet to allow an eight foot high fence within the rear yard of the property. Happy to answer any questions. None at this time thank you so much. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Yes a very increase in height for a rear fence rear yard from six feet to eight feet and the reason for that is there's a new neighbor in our backyard that is creating quite a bit of privacy issues. Significant ongoing impacts for noise visual screening that cannot be mitigated by standard six foot fence. The property directly behind us where we want to raise the height of the fence by the way that's just on the west side of our property not the entire circumference of our property. There's a number of heavy vehicles being parked in that area along with RVs trailers and commercial lawn care equipment. The new neighbors apparently have started a business out of their their property. In addition this rear yard is sometimes used for outdoor activities. For example they had a religious ceremony with a large tent in their backyard. Lots of speakers and noise going on all day. Increasing the fence height to eight feet is the minimum necessary to restore reasonable privacy reduce visual intrusion and mitigate noise impacts while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood and our neighbors support us and the HOA supports us. All right sir if you could give us your name and address real quick. I'm sorry john muller 2506 oak landing drive thank you so much thank you for that i appreciate it just a quick question i read i read all the backup and your reasons for this um increase in fence height and i just wondered one if have you talked to that neighbor you talked to them about this uh the the neighbor has rented it to a large party and we've sent letters to the uh the owner but we haven't gotten any response all right and have you talked to code enforcement about this issue because that's a single family zoning district that that property is in yeah that was going to be eventually another stop but we we started with this first understood okay uh i think that was my questions thank you for your time i appreciate it if you could please thank you all right is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support anyone in favor seeing no one anyone in opposition to this request no one miss marshall no thank you for that okay sir you have the last word if you'd like it anything else to add all right thank you then with that we'll close variance 26-0710 and go to the next case next item is item h4 variance 260724 the applicant is ice dream shop llc the request is a variance to the lutes rural area development standards lot development standards sign requirements dumpster and recycling collection space requirements accessory structure standards and landscape and buffering requirements staff findings to be presented by sierra james thank you sierra james of development services the applicant is seeking a variance to the lutes rural development standards lot development standards and maximum building sign sizes to accommodate requirements triggered by the requested improvements to the current development they are requesting a variance to 30906a to eliminate architectural features including roof pitch external cladding and design features a variance to 30906b2 to is requested to eliminate fencing and wall requirements in crucial commercial and office districts to allow for a chain link fence without 12 inches between spanning members a variance to the the maximum the permitted maximum sign area of 154.5 square feet to permit up to 200 square feet of sign area on the southern building facade and of 230 square feet to permit up to 300 square feet of sign area on the western building facade a variance to 30909 to to the location of parking between the building and right away to permit parking between the principal building and us highway 41 a variance of five feet to permit a front yard setback of 25 feet a variance of 15 feet to permit a five foot front yard setback for the dumpster and enclosure a variance to eliminate the required eight foot buffer along the western property line to allow for an unrestricted area between the off street vehicle use area and right-of-way a variance of the required eight foot buffer along the driveway to allow for an unrestricted adjacent unrestricted area adjacent to the driveway and a variance to the 20 foot type b buffer where the property abuts residential uses to allow for the primary structure and septic drain field to remain within the buffer area without additional screening requirements i'm available for any questions um just quickly um in reading this it seems to be easier to describe what they might comply with rather than what they want a variance from so do they comply with any of the lutes rural area standards are there some um to my understanding i do not believe so this is an existing building that they just wanted to do internal renovations to but since it was since they are doing the internal renovations the lutes rural development standards are now required since they want to do all right that weren't required before thank you that was my question appreciate it uh it's the applicant here good morning good morning uh brian wilkes with kci technologies here on behalf of the owner ice dream shop address is 150 kelsey lane tampa 33619 i do have some images to show yeah yeah we can get somebody to help you okay might help the explanations i appreciate it all right uh so this is in response to uh this is a structure and a site that was constructed in 1974 uh and it's been a commercial general commercial use since our client the the new owner simply wants to change it to a nice dream shop their third location and in doing so we were sent through the site plan review process with hillsborough county and current land development code standards were applied including the lutes rural redevelopment standards as you can see this is the existing uh building here uh in say probably the past 10 to 12 years it's been a combination of things uh you can see here it was a barber shop and a rug and carpet outlet and more recently it was a service center for arena so it had service vehicles in and out all day and storage on the outside uh this is our proposed site plan uh and in doing all we can to bring up to current standards we are uh cutting in landscaped islands for additional landscaping next to the parking areas um we are for safety moving the existing connection to second avenue southeast as far east as possible to allow uh for you know some more safety between the intersection and our turn in uh dot has asked that we shut down the full access connection on us 41 but we are allowed a one-way in county has requested uh required a dumpster and enclosure uh that we can put on the south side of the building that's the the red cloud there um and otherwise uh we're we're intending to comply with as much of the landscaping requirements as we can giving the placement of the existing building which is around three feet from the property line and also uh safe circulation for transportation requires a 24-foot drive aisle to the connection that we have relocated further east uh and that's kind of pinpointed by the delivery trucks and solid waste vehicles to navigate in pick up solid waste back out and then come out that second second avenue southeast so um the as you can see in the the existing picture here um we have a we have a roof we have uh sides of a building we just want to we just want to use uh you know keep it uh keep it there um the sign variances um we have requested because of you can see the uh the the top of the building built into the in there is a two foot wide sign that goes the length of the building and we're also showing history of using the wall for art and advertising as well um the site plan this is typical of their signage they use the windows for the uh the uh the stickers and in wall art uh the sign is typical there um but we did want to allow for them to not have to re uh you know demo a portion of the building that wouldn't be necessary to to get them to have what they what they need there um so that uh and then the additional signage along the south of the building they uh anticipated a like a community mural excuse me uh and uh we have an example we did a neighboring property two uh two blocks down last year in which they did something like this on their south side of the building um so that'll be incorporated into the south where you can see here where some give it a little more community look to it so that is what i have i'm here for any questions you may have no questions at this time thank you so much don't forget to sign it all right is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support anyone in favor see no one anyone in opposition one miss marshall anything further nothing further sir anything else all right thank you then we'll close variance 26-0724 and go to the next case item is item h5 variance 260763 the applicant is oscar romero amat the request of the variance to minimum lot size by available utilities staff findings will be presented by orlando borras good morning morning this is orlando borras with development services at this time the applicant is seeking a variance from the land development code section 60106 minimum lot size by available utilities that section of the code states that you will need to have at least one acre of upland if you're located in the wellhead protection area which is the case for this property applicant is looking to split the property into two more lots therefore he's seeking the variance to reduce the minimum upland requirement by 0.75 acres resulting in a 0.25 acre of upland on each lot it is my understanding that the applicant also has gotten a permit from the department sorry the health department of the state for wool and septic i think that concludes my presentation not sure if you have any questions but more than happy to answer them thank you thank you just one quick question um understanding um that the applicant is doing as i read this the applicant is doing this to subdivide the property but taking a step back would the variance be required if they were not subdividing the property just to develop it in accordance with this yes because the whole property before being split it's going to be about 0.51 acres it's still below the one acre requirement for well and septic all right thank you that was my only question you're welcome appreciate it is the applicant here good morning morning miss finch i'm current porto for the applicant mr mott mr mott's here with me today um your honor in this particular case well sir could you give me your honor as well thank you sorry you know um in this particular case we had subdivided a 0.51 acre lot we had all the approvals we had epc come out no wetlands nothing no surface water and the permit for the septic system was approved and installed it's new and in good order the tie-in is about 700 710 feet um it's probably worth more than the the lot uh in expense to do so the adjacent properties from what we can tell are not tied in um but but i don't know that for sure they appear to be an age um uh far older than when the actual uh sewer line was installed and they began requiring people to tie into it the main thrust of the argument about tying into the septic i believe is related to the common well that's in the neighborhood why they're requiring a four acre minimum for having a septic system i i don't particularly know the impact of that but the epc did not reject our application and the county approved it and we relied on that to install it recently so now we're now we're posed with a very large expense that we did not expect we would have made additional changes in our plans for developing this property had we known but we were not we were not no one seemed to know the county or anyone else i'm not saying that's a requirement but it seems like it should be so we're asking for variants to allow the septic as is brand new in place having been approved and we're asking for the waiver of us having to spend approximately 100 to 125 000 to actually trench and tie into the the sewer line all right that's it thank you um i just want to confirm a couple things one is you said uh it's about 710 feet to connect and you're alleging that some cost to associated cost with the connection we estimate the cost to be about 125 000 dollars i have it done professionally and approved by the county and as i read your uh application and the reasons for the variance it i just want to confirm again that the the alleged hardship is your inability to subdivide the property if this is not granted is that correct ma'am i don't i don't think that or is your hardship based on financial cost it's based primarily on financial um hardship the the property was subdivided properly so it was split in half it's um their mobile home or manufactured home lots the community um so that 0.51 acre was a rather large lot for a double wide manufactured home now that's split it will be able to have two we're not asking for a variance on the second just on the one that was installed that we already expanded the or had the expense of putting in the septic system so it's it's existing now based on the permit from the health department yes ma'am it is i see all right uh i think those are my only questions did you put your address on the record did i hear no i did not okay my just you have the applicants mine is it's current porto c-u-r-r-a-n porto p-o-r-t-o i'm at 410 south where w-a-r-e boulevard tampa florida 33619 all right thank you so much i appreciate it if you could please sign in with the clerk's office all right is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support anyone in favor see no one anyone in opposition to this request all right um miss dormant or miss dalfino let me just ask you about um justification for hardship based on uh financial cost um madam hearing officer i believe that that's a consideration that you can consider but i don't i think that there's case law that states that that being a sole ground is not adequate for the um granting of variance all right thank you so much i appreciate that all right then miss marshall did you have anything else you wanted to add before i move on nothing for all right sir you have the last word if you'd like it for rebuttal anything else you'd like to add you're not a minimum the reliance by the county should be an offset for any cost that we have to install there is precedent that if the county approved the permit and that we expended or relied upon that approval to do what they're telling us we had to do that we should at a minimum be able to reduce the cost that we should have in and in tying into the line so i don't know this is a new case for me i've never had one of these cases before where there's new construction a new septic in place it just just seems very awkward to me that someone would be after the fact uh imposed upon such a hardship without any knowledge of that at the beginning we do rely on the county and the county does have a duty to tell us what costs we may incur in the future if we build on a specific plan that they approve and we did everything we were supposed to do we did not really cause or have any culpability in this mistake it is just something that came up kind of after the fact so i don't think the case law really applies to this specific scenario where we relied upon everybody in good faith to do what was an approved plan that's all thank you for that i appreciate it then with that we'll close variance 26-0763 and go to the next case next item is item h6 variance 260770 the applicant is david wright tsp companies incorporated the request is a variance to accessory structure requirements and lot development standards staff findings will be presented by logan mccaig good morning good morning logan mccaig development services variance 260770 the applicant is requesting a variance to lot development standards for the purpose of constructing an accessory structure on the property per six per section 61104 and 60101 accessory structures should not be erected in a front yard except at 50 feet or twice the standard setback for the rsc6 zoning district standard setback is 25 feet therefore is still a 50 foot front yard setback the applicant is requesting a 40 foot variance to this setback resulting in a 10 foot front yard setback for the accessory structure additionally per section 61104 accessory structures exceeding 15 feet in height shall meet the primary structure setbacks the side yard setback for the rsc6 zoning district is seven and a half feet applicants requesting a two and a half foot variance resulting in a five foot side yard setback available for any questions just two quick questions um in looking at the existing survey it looks like they're a portion of the pool is in the wetland setback and the house is in uh encroaches a small amount into the front yard setback and wondered if the applicant was advised and chose not to address that in this case um that's sorry excuse me yeah yes sir um i bought the house as is those setbacks have been changed after that that thought just one second sir respectfully um let the staff answer and then i'll call you up but you can stay right there that's perfectly fine um that was not addressed during the uh variance review process the uh applicant was not advised on it to my knowledge okay thank you so much go ahead sir give us your name and address to start ramiro compagnoni property owner 12015 north oregon avenue tampa those setbacks have been modified since that house was built that house was built back in the early 70s i bought it in uh 2018 i haven't we didn't move the house okay we didn't move the pool they moved the line all right that was my question okay all right anything else you want to add before i move on uh no no ma'am all right thank you so much i appreciate it if you could please sign in the clerk's office thanks is there anyone in the room or online that would like to um speak in support seeing no one anyone in opposition to this request all right i did have uh that there was a part of the applicant's team was participating virtually is that someone that wanted to speak i don't see that person on our queue so all right then with that we'll go back to development services anything further nothing for them all right sir you have the last word as the applicant anything else you want to add all right none at this time thank you so much then we'll close variance 26-0770 and move to the next case the item is item h7 variance 260774 the applicant is glenn otley the request is a variance to lack development standards staff findings will be presented by chris grand leonard good morning good morning chris grand leonard development services here to present variance application var 26-0774 for a residential property located at 13318 jordan ranch road the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a three vehicle attached garage addition specifically the variance applies to the side yard setback requirement within the as1 zoning district the land development code requires a 15-foot side yard setback in the zoning district the applicant is requesting an eight-foot variance resulting in a seven-foot setback along the northwest property line that concludes my report will i'd answer any questions none at this time thank you so much thank you is the applicant here is the applicant here for case uh variance 26-0774 it's agenda item h7 all right miss marshall any word on the applicant no we can we can try to give him a call okay so let's do this we'll hold this case uh and come back to it once we figure out the status of the applicant and we will move on to the next case h8 item h8 variance 260793 the applicant and susan's chandra the request is a variance defense and wall requirements and i'll present the staff findings the applicant's requesting a variance of two feet to the maximum four foot wall height within the front yard to allow a six foot high wall property is designated as a hillsborough county historic landmark certificate of appropriateness review coa 2026-05 has been approved for the following condition the variance must be approved for the increase of wall height if not approved the wall shall be limited to four feet in height in the front yard happy to answer any questions i know at this time thank you is the applicant here good morning morning cory karnes uh 17918 barn closed drive loose florida 33559 i'm the engineer representing the applicant so this area has become uh substantially more um heavily trafficked after uh this this applicant's been here for about 55 years they said so in this area they've done what they could to provide a buffer to the lake magdalene boulevard connection between florida and bears avenue um being as there's a school a church and substantial traffic flow in this area the applicant is now facing a substantial impact to their sound and i'm looking to mitigate that with this wall they are allowed the four foot wall but felt that the additional two feet was necessary to continue to help support their um well-being and their ability to stay on the property as long as they've been here uh you know at no fault of their own the growth has just continued to push more and more uh visible impacts in the morning and in the afternoons to their area uh when asked to provide the very you know to request the variance um they said that they want to comply with everything um expected of them they're even going as far as to leave their hedges and things up to keep the wall behind the hedges uh they do recognize that the area does have similar uh walls that are above the four foot requirement uh within a thousand feet of their property the abla community is right behind there and has a beautiful eight foot wall that stretches the majority of this roadway across the street from them around the bend there is a community that has another wall that has both four and six foot walls um the hope is to uh put a similar wall there block wall um maintain their columns every 15 feet and keep the same aesthetic in the area to make it still be as presentable as possible for the county but also to gain that benefit of the uh sound mitigation and uh privacy and just the impacts to their their use of the property as the owners um at this point i think culinary identified the certificate appropriateness we've gone through the process and got the approvals that we need and uh we're uh respectfully hoping that uh the county approved the additional two feet that's all i have all right thank you so much no questions at this time appreciate it all right is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support anyone in favor see no one anyone in opposition miss marshall anything else nothing further sir anything else from you before i move on all right thank you then with that we'll close variance 26-0793 uh any word on that applicant are we still searching we're still working okay all right then we'll go to h9 next item item h9 variance 260809 the applicant is mayra lira the request is a variance a lot or to accessory dwelling requirements i'll present the staff findings the applicant's requesting an increase in the maximum accessory dwelling living space to designate the existing mobile home as an accessory dwelling in order to build a new principal dwelling on the subject property a variance of 60 square feet is requested to increase the maximum living area within the accessory dwelling to 960 square feet the property is 43 571 square feet in size and the proposed principal dwelling is 3840 square feet in size therefore allowing for the subject variance to be requested happy to answer any questions um yes i just had a quick question uh if the um existing mobile home is designated as the accessory structure is there a time limit for them to construct the principal structure the for it to be designated as a accessory dwelling they'll have to have the permit in review for the um the for the principal dwelling okay perfect thank you i appreciate that is the applicant here good morning if you give us your name and address please myra lira 12222 begin drive and riverview florida 33534 thank you and just tell us a little bit about your request um i'm just i did the variance just so i'm able to keep the mobile home and still be able to build a home in front okay yes pretty straightforward all right thank you so much i appreciate it thank you anything else you want to add okay don't forget to sign in is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support anyone in favor see no one anyone in opposition no one miss marshall anything else i'm thinking further all right uh miss lira anything else before i move on good all right then with that we'll close variance 26-0809 and go to the next case next item is item h10 variance 260845 the applicant is milides guevara lorrente the request is a variance to lat development standards and staff findings will be presented by logan mccague morning logan mccague variance 260845 the applicants requesting a variance to lot development standards for the purpose of permitting an existing home and addition on the property for section 60101 a minimum of five foot uh front yard setback is required in the rsc in the rsc9 zoning uh it's just front yard um a five foot side yard setback excuse me is required in the rsc9 zoning district applicants requesting one foot variance requesting a resulting in a four foot side yard setback and a minimum of 20 foot front yard uh setback is required in the rsc9 zoning district applicants requesting a 10 foot variance resulting in a 10 foot front yard setback we have no further findings available for any questions no questions thank you so much is the applicant here good morning good morning um sorry pull that down yeah yeah perfect okay i'm translating for the applicant okay can you give us your name and address yes yaylene torres artola 3015 west of delos street tampa florida 33607 thank you so much go ahead okay oh you can give your address yes absolutely okay um yeah so the applicant is uh requesting a reduction of the right setback from five feet to four feet and a reduction of the backyard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet um the applicant purchased the property uh existing the way that it is and um uh the strict uh application of the territorial uh development code um would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the property as it would require the demolition of the existing additions that have been used as a part of the the dwelling um and this would impose a unnecessary burden on the owner okay um the owner's name is mercedes escalante the uh property address is 7227 donald avenue tampa florida 33614 okay um so she has met with uh architects and an engineer and they're going to do everything up to code the only thing that they're asking for is for the structure um you know that they don't have to do any demolition of the existing structure but everything else will be up to code just to confirm on the record when she bought the property this edition was already there yes it was already there all right that was my only question okay thank you both so much i appreciate it if you could both sign in okay thank you all right is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support seeing no one anyone in opposition yes sir come forward give us your name and address please good morning my name is milo page and my address is 7218 north himes avenue 33614 and i i have lived there since uh 2014 and this property uh is adjacent to the subject property here uh on donald avenue uh my backyard intersects their backyard uh and so i'm i'm here as a as a concerned neighbor having uh received the letter and having read as much of the information that i that i could about this and if i i'm seeing an argument here that um a variance to the setback is is going to provide reasonable use of to the property and i'm i'm wondering if if reasonable use of a single family home is what's alleged here in the code um enforcement complaint that this house has been converted into a four unit rental property it has been listed on airbnb so i i just would want to register register that concern and i and question all right um it i appreciate your comments it's it's not the process is not for you to ask me a question but um if you can certainly state your concerns and views regarding your opposition on the record oh okay thank you well that that's why i'm here to simply reflect what what i'm reading and that it is a concern uh to have a a home that is zoned for single family to as alleged here be converted to a four unit rental property on on airbnb and one could argue that that perhaps does alter the character of the the neighborhood when the surrounding houses are are single family okay all right does that conclude your comments oh it could i i don't know if this just as a supplemental in terms of any any personal uh personal impact here request permission to walk around may i oh what would you like to do oh no sir um no we have an ability to show something overhead but we don't take evidence by a phone or a tablet because you cannot submit it it's not something tangible you can oh okay well i i won't uh bother with this other than just to to describe it absolutely what i photographed on friday night was a a blinking almost like a strobe light from the back of the uh it's the uh edition uh that goes into the backyard and um when when this uh this unit is occupied uh when that light is on it because it's so close to the back fence it it has a kind of strobe light effect i uh that that could actually uh penetrate through the blind of one of the bedrooms but again that's a trivial personal concern the reason i came down here was as a as a concerned neighbor concerned for the neighborhood thank you sir i appreciate you coming down your testimony and don't forget to sign in anyone else that would like to speak in opposition hold on one second all right uh seeing no one miss marshall if you could address the gentleman's concern about the potential rental of this property for multiple units so the the property zoned rc9 which would just allow for single family residential um as far as rentals um we don't have any restrictions in the land development code that would prohibit renting the property but it couldn't be divided into multiple units that would change the use it could not be divided into multiple units correct correct all right thank you so much did you have anything you wanted to add before we move on anything else hold on you'll get a chance hold on one second um the only other with single family the rental um it does have to be at least a week or more um it doesn't allow less than a week okay based on the definition thank you for that clarification all right if you want to come back you have uh five minutes for rebuttal just give us your name again just for the record okay yaylene torres uh and then melades guevara um we just want to say that the owner is aware of you know the situation and um she is going to stop uh renting the property um like i said before she's going to comply and you know do everything up to code um so the property is no longer going to be airbnb'd all right yeah she's she just has to fulfill um the current uh reservations until but she is closing the you know she's not going to have an airbnb anymore all right and just to for the record you are the owner of the property no no she's representing the owner okay so but your your testimony is the owner of the property is aware that and this will stop yes understood all right all right yeah she said that the owner spoke to the department of zoning and they did explain to her you know for in order to rent the unit for vacationing that there has to be a minimum amount of days right that was miss marshall's testimony right all right anything else before we close no all right thank you both so much i appreciate it thank you with that we'll close variance 26-0845 before we leave the variant section i just want to touch back base on that applicant that was not here name word yes we were able to get a hold of them and they are on virtually now okay then we'll go back and open case uh agenda item h7 and how far did we get along did we get the staff testimony yes we did right okay so is the applicant available online case number variance 26-0774 is the applicant available online mr glenn otley looks like he is he's showing up on the meeting mr otley are you there yes i'm here all right you have to turn on it's a policy of the county that you have to have your camera on as well let me tell it let me turn it and then could you start by giving us your name and address please yes i'm here all right i don't see your camera on yet let's give me one all right i do see you if you could give us your name and address for the record before you begin okay my name is glenn utterly and my address is 7011 alathea avenue review 33578 all right if you could just tell us a little bit about your variance request apologies for not being present because i got i just found out it's a scam that tell me the process was done and they actually requested a four thousand dollars payment which unfortunately we haven't paid as yet so our request is for seven a reduction in the side setback at the property which i think now is 15. we want to reduce it to eight or seven i don't have the document with me because i actually was on the road i just stopped back it's for in order for to build a garage because the owner has um a lot of jobs patient because i don't like the idea of um parking these features outside in the neighborhood um there's a limit of the height detached also has a approach to park on the outside so you want to enclose everything at the same time you try to keep the aesthetics of the property of the building house the same so that it doesn't affect the market value of the adjacent property we had done uh showing the garage and the attachments it looks like it was not it's not an afterthought to the building to the house it looks like it's part of the structure um initial design so it fits in it gives that kind of uh mediterion and look with the uh garage doors it's just um it's basically the resident there's the properties known as architectural residential residential and not most residential property um setback of seven feet does not be detrimental as well as we have spoke to the adjacent neighbor and they don't have really have a property a problem with the issue as long as um everything is done all right um i does that complete your presentation mr ottley does that conclude your comments is that everything you wanted to say let me see if i can switch my wi-fi because i'm not here in class i didn't get the last it was that just to ask just to ask if that was the uh if that concludes your presentation all right can you hear me now have we lost the connection with him yeah let me see if i can i don't think we've lost it if he replies that he lost it um okay um all right mr otley can you hear me now yes okay perfect i just have one question the uh variance criteria response that you completed in your application talks about a future land use change from agricultural to residential is there was there an actual application made to change that future land use category or you think are you thinking just in terms of the actual land use of the property uh let me see if i can get the meeting i think the question was um the future land use i'm not sure what the question is but i know that um if that's possible to change the zone into the resident okay all right that was my only question i appreciate it so we'll move on with the rest of the hearing is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support of this application see no one anyone in opposition no one miss marshall anything else nothing all right mr otley you have the last word before i move on do you have anything else you'd like to say i um i hope that you guys consider because he's trying to make the neighborhood uh look a little better i spoke to a few neighbors that called me and i explained to them what we plan to do and they each didn't have a problem because what they didn't want is for him to install any kind of like manufactured uh garage like those um aluminum uh buildings uh most of the neighbors kind of um don't want that so when i showed them the rendering of what we intend to do they each said that um it only helps the neighborhood and uh so i hope you guys can take that into constant and at the same time the other things that i wrote information is that um sometimes he books from home he has two yard kids so it's kind of a convenience to have the both people uh on site so that you can you know do family business as well as wives so that's all all right thank you very much for your testimony i appreciate it with that then we'll close variance 26-0774 that concludes the variance portion of our hearing so i think given the next case it's probably appropriate just to take a quick five minute break and then we'll come back by the back of the room let's just say uh 10 30 we'll resume the hearing thank you very much all right welcome back everyone we are out of recess for the june 15th 2026 land use hearing officer hearing and with that then miss marshall we are ready to call the next case springs is the section i special uses item i1 special use 260430 the applicant is noted foundation incorporated the request is a special use for school i will present the staff findings after presentation by the applicant all right as you recall the uh special uses the applicant goes first so we are ready for that section good morning good morning mr finch my name is mark bentley 400 north ashley drive tampa representing native foundation the foundation behind the proposed apex school before i get started um would you be amenable to granting up to an additional five minutes if necessary we will do that because uh it seems like there's a significant amount of opposition to this so i will give them the same courtesy of an additional five minutes that's great i really appreciate it absolutely go ahead thank you as you're aware as a long-standing planner as a school is the like textbook uh residential support use and the zoning is asc1 so the client is seeking a school private school kindergarten through eighth grade up to a thousand students um is a special use under the ldc there are only two criterion that apply to special uses those would be found under 611 88 and in this case the staff has recognized that the use complies specifically on section 7.2 quote based on the above findings staff finds a special use request complies with section 611 88 schools and recommends approval with conditions our client accepts the proposed conditions in totality one condition that's not set forth um in the conditions is our client has agreed to as a result of some feedback from some of the surrounding neighborhood not to light the athletic facilities so there's a condition number five that says lighting for athletic facilities shall and i'm paraphrasing not have an adverse impact etc so that should be changed there are no objections from any review agency the school board didn't weigh in our comment on this application both the planning commission staff and development services staff have recommended approval with conditions just briefly apex academy is a k-8 provides an educational opportunity unique to hillsborough county it will utilize a mastery based learning which is learning becoming an expert just to a certain degree at your own pace it's also combined with artificial intelligence adaptive personalized instruction and bridges the gap between elite private education and public options through the florida empowerment scholarship program what i provided you at tab two is a greater description and more detailed of the school itself one of the founders of the the school is ashak baghdi and ashak was apparently the most high demand school in hillsborough county charter schools patel high school at usf and ashak was one of the founders of that school as well i guess they get about a thousand applications a year and they only accept 200 or 250. as i mentioned their staff recommendations for approval development services uh special use meets all requirements including compatibility planning commission finds a special use consistent with the lutes community plan the overall county comp plan lutes design standards in section 3.09 and there's a paragraph that kind of sums up i think compatibility situation that's on page four at the bottom of the planning commission report says quote the school section of the plan identifies education is a high priority for the community and emphasizes that the planning design and development of schools should reflect and be compatible with the character of the surrounding area as proposed the school incorporates site design operational measures intended main compatibility etc etc therefore their request is consistent with the goals and intent of the lutes community plan and on and on um i'd like to talk to you a little bit about the since this isn't a rezoning the the law is a little bit different i know you're familiar with it but just to get this on the record is uh especially use carries a presumption of being a permitted use under florida law and that was established in both the irvine case and do so case i'm giving you copies of those um in the backup those are at 9b and 9a so it's different in the rezoning especially use an applicant simply has to meet their burden of proof is to demonstrate that the number one the use is allowed and secondarily that the use meets the articulated criteria once the applicant does that the burden then shifts to any third party or the local government to demonstrate with substantial competent evidence on the record at the proceeding that the use does not in fact meet the criteria so in this case the government has conceded that we've met our burden and also important component from a legal standpoint to this proceeding these are appellate cases found at 9d and i staff reports of professional staff based on facts are considered substantial competent evidence to support the approval of special use and here again both planning commission and development services these professional planners prepared very thorough fact intensive reports opining that the application meets all standards criteria articulated in all the applicable plans and codes therefore the positive staff reports by these experienced professionals are sufficient in and of themselves to support our burden however we intend to bolster that through some of the documentation i already provided you which are expert reports resumes case law staff reports and also we're going to have the testimony from our transportation engineer and professional planner tab one miss finch these are previously approved schools through special use process and this is in the range of from 2023 to 2025 there are 10 schools all approved eight of the 10 required transportation design exceptions or variances because of access to substandard roads which seems like a pretty common issue with schools so this is similar to our situation where the county engineer mike williams has conditionally approved a design exception for holly road which is the northern boundary the northern street off dale mabry so from my perspective our project is virtually indistinguishable for most of the prior cases and there appear to be no rational basis to disregard staff's recommendations in this case here are some major project characteristics i think are pretty important 75 of the 24 acre parcel will remain open space four acres of tree farm with mature trees will remain in the northeast portion of the project to provide significant buffering to residential and horse farm located to the east on the east side of holly lane the project's utilizing only 50 of its far no lighting methyl athletic fields project is providing more than double required parking no waivers or variances to the ldc are being sought and holly lane is designed so that when someone leaves the campus they cannot go eastbound on holly lane it's all the traffic's diverted to dale mabry the evolution of the site planning process that's at uh exhibit three and i won't get into that needless to say this has been going on for a while and there have been different iterations of the plan our clients really made a good faith effort to reach out to the community and most of the changes are a result of input from the neighbors and just generally speaking what's transpired over the last several months through these different designs is most of the act the buildings in the areas of activity have been shifted westward toward dale mabry and that's where on the northeast corner now there are four acres for the existing tree farm retention ponds and athletic field but no actual activities or parking or anything like that exhibit five letters and support these authors were opponents until our client engaged in dialogue and made as many changes as reasonably possible to get their support the supporters generally cited our clients community engagement holly road improvements relocation of project components and preservation of the four acre tree farm as the basis for the support in fact if i could get to the elmo is um these opponents were on the east side of holly road in the highlighted area and as a result of our client making changes to the project they have written to these two owners letters and support and they're in your binder thank you and miss finch is it's fair to say if anybody was going to be adversely affected by the school it would be that property directly to the east the exhibit seven these are the expert cvs um first expert steve henry principal traffic and mobility he's been a transportation engineer since 1985 steve worked with the fdot in the county concerning access to the subject property queuing and that type of thing along with uh preparation submittal of the approvable design exception to hillsborough county steve will testify regarding stacking queuing access and render his opinion concerning offsetting holly road impacts and meeting the intent of the technical manual steve good morning good morning steve henry links and associates 5023 west laurel tampa 33607 i'll use the elmo here um as indicated the project is located east of del mabry and uh south of holly lane dale may be access will be a write-in only as shown on on the plan here and then on holly lane we are proposing a number of improvements one is an eastbound right turn lane into the project then also to the on westbound we're proposing a shared left through and then also a right turn as you can see in addition to that the access is built to be able to force everybody only inbound from del mabry and then outbound towards del mabry in addition to that they've committed to having staff at that entrance during the drop-off and pickup to ensure that that that occurs at that location um and then as uh we have met with both dot uh and the county and the dot is in agreement with our write-in access to del mabry we're also proposing to signalize the intersection of del mabry and holly lane we're working with the dot on that and that meets the spacing criteria for a signal and dot is supportive of that obviously we'll have to go through the permitting process for that and then in addition to that we've also uh received a design exception that's been deemed approvable by the county engineer showing the improvements to holly lane uh from that standpoint so that in that that is also in the staff report that design exception and the county engineers uh emailed the saying it is deemed approvable and he will approve it once this is approved by the land use hearing officer in addition to that um this identifies the uh again this is the hillsborough county um roadway classification map and i'll blow it up here just you can see here i've put the dot here where we are so the the site is actually located again on del mabry highway which is a principal uh arterial according to the roadway classification map anyway we can talk a little bit about the the school itself as indicated on the site plan this is actually copies of the site plan i just highlighted that that the client has committed to staggered hours uh for both the a.m and p.m peak hour and it's about a 45 minute separation between the staggered hours for the school in addition to that it's agreed to a annual monitoring condition and so this is on the site plan and also in the staff report as a condition and then finally uh agreeing to a gate condition and what we've seen in a lot of schools that you've seen in those queuing they provide the queuing on site but then they have a gate and and based on that gate doesn't open until the bell rings you have queuing out out onto the road what we've committed to here is to opening that gate at least one hour prior to the gate so that way if parents do arrive early either in the morning or in the afternoon the queuing is available for those residents for the the parents and then finally talk about the on-site queuing so per the code we'd be required to have about 6100 linear feet of stacking we're actually providing about 71 a little over 7100 feet of queuing of queuing now in addition to that the way the code is set up it's based on the total number of students it does not take into account staggered hours so the reality is if if the code did take into account staggered hours we'd only need about 3300 linear feet of queuing but we're providing it per the code over 7100 square linear feet of queuing available for the site so from my standpoint you know based on the locational criteria we meet the the section 611 88 of the code for the locational criteria thank you just one quick question mr henry before you go that access from the site to holly lane the the full access when you say it's designed so that you uh it's a it's a westbound exit um tell me how is that done that's just not drawn on a plan there are curbing and things that encourage that is that correct correct correct this this will actually be this is type f curb this is type f curb and gutter so it will restrict anybody from being able to turn and again not only that but we will have staff out there at that location so not only is it done with the curb but also with personnel to ensure that that doesn't happen all right that was my only question thank you so much don't forget to sign in all right is there someone else you wanted to make a presentation you've got about a little less than six minutes left okay um just want to mention on holly lane actually we were widening and dedicating right away for that and there's going to be four lanes and i think it's described in the staff report the next expert is russell ottenberg russell's been a planner primarily working in hillsborough county for about 40 years in fact he was the planner of record on the lutes community uh excuse me the lutes elementary school in 2005 went through that process russell good morning good morning russell ottenberg planning incorporated 3737 lake joyce drive landa lakes florida my full report is an exhibit in uh mr bentley's binder and so this is just a summary of what is found therein the subject property as you have been told has a flu designation of res one it's owned asc one again private schools are a special use under the county code uh it's a classic residential support use allowed in almost all districts per the table of allowable uses property is in the rural service area it falls within the lutes community plan but outside excuse me the lutes historic downtown area and is currently a tree farm but otherwise undeveloped of the various goals objectives and policies in hillsborough county future land use element we have identified 18 that are applicable and for which the project proposed project is consistent and those are listed in my report the loose community plan is intended to extend and refine the general consistency criteria found in the future land use element there are several criteria in the lutes community plan applicable to the proposed private school and the private school complies with all of those as well the future land use element also provides general consistency criteria for all projects whereas the ldc is the implementing code for the comprehensive plan as such compliance with the ldc not only sure ensures consistency with the comp plan but also compatibility with surrounding land uses in this instance again private schools are designated a special use per the ldc special uses are presumed consistent consistent and compatible provided they meet the supplemental criteria found or pertaining to that specific special use if the criteria are met then the applicant is entitled to the permit or the approval the two supplemental criteria for schools as a special use are as follows and this is directly from the code the site shall have direct access to a roadway shown on the current mpo long range transportation cost affordable plan at the time of special use application and the location arrangement and lighting of play fields and playgrounds will be such as to avoid interference with the use of adjacent residential property the proposed private school meets both of these criteria and is therefore presumptively consistent and that is reflected in section 7.2 of the development services staff report so not only is the project consistent it is also compatible with the surrounding neighborhood both the county comp plan and the ldc have a definition of consistency i won't read the whole thing but a portion of it says compatibility does not mean the same as rather it refers to the sensitivity of development proposals and maintaining the character of existing development as previously noted the proposed project satisfies the special use criteria for schools therefore it is not only presumptively consistent but also presumptively compatible the ldc contains numerous other development requirements applicable to the proposed private school those additional requirements which are conditions of approval per section 7.1 of the staff report such as parking and queuing requirements as well as buffering and screening are codified to further ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood the proposed project complies with those requirements further ensuring the project remains compatible in addition to the above the dprm further expounds on special uses stating special uses must meet more stringent development standards than principal permitted uses it goes on to reference the special use criteria for schools found in the ldc these more straight stringent development standards have been satisfied and thus the school is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood additionally i'll put this on the elmo and reviewing other similarly situated special uses just letting you know you've got a minute left okay i'm almost done uh in in reviewing other similarly situated special uses uh similarly situated from a regulatory standpoint they have all been approved they've all been found consistent and compatible and that's my presentation thank you thank you so much don't forget to sign it there's another expert report it's at tab 5 as on lighting which is not an issue as i mentioned and then just to conclude the client agrees to all conditions staff reports are substantial competent evidence of compliance and the permit shall be issued to our client testimony and evidence provided by our expert steve henry russell ottenberg and daniel sut yak the lighting expert confirm compliance with all codes and plans promulgated by the county pertaining to special use permits for schools the adjacent property owner support to the east of holly lane is in support of the project i talked about prior precedent 10 of the last 10 schools have been approved eight requiring des and if you have any questions yeah i'll be wrong i guess on rebuttal hopefully i have one quick question before you leave you mentioned you opened with uh a mention of zoning condition number five regarding the lighting did you propose a language change to that no you know it's it's in our narrative that we said we would not like the athletic fields and i never made you're willing to commit to that on the record that there were no lighting certainly yeah all right thank you so much thank you appreciate it all right so now we will go to development services i'm not certain say we have no objections with updating that condition um number five to reflect that to no lighting shall be provided for the recreational athletic areas thank you the special use request is to allow the applicant to develop approximately 24.52 acres located at the southeast corner of northdale mamory highway and the holly lane in lutes for that 1 000 student k through 8 private school with a freestanding gymnasium garden center active play areas and associated sports fields the area is primarily comprised of a single family resident single family residential uses with various lot sizes there's a pd approved to for a swimming pool adjacent to the property on the southwest corner of the subject parcel to the north separated by holly lane the property is zoned asc1 and developed with an existing church the surrounding properties to the east east and south are zoned asc1 and rsc2 and developed with existing residential uses the properties to the west on the western side of north del maybrie are zoned asc1 and bpo further south of the property along north del maybrie are properties zoned pd and cn in addition to meeting the required buffers and screening the applicant is proposing a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the eastern property line adjacent to holly lane this in conjunction with the large portion of the existing tree farm remaining untouched in the northeastern portion of the property will provide buffering and screening to the residential properties on the eastern side of holly lane additionally two large stormwater retention ponds in a 25-foot wide landscape buffer are proposed along the south and southeast portions of the property which will provide further buffering screening of the school and sports field from the adjacent residential properties to the east and south of the project should this application be approved the the site will be subject to site development review request requirements staff finds the special use request complies with ldc section 61188 for schools and recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions thank you so much appreciate it all right we'll ask now for anyone who would like to speak and support anyone in favor of this application either in the room or online seeing no one oh you know what thank you no i appreciate it it's a good call normally they don't and so in schools they do so we will now go to the planning commission who i understand good morning alexis myers planning yes good morning alexis myers planning commission staff um the subject site is located in the residential one future land use category it is in the rural area within the limits of the lutes community plan the addition of the k-8 school in this area would provide a gradual transition between the proposed use and the surrounding uses currently present and is therefore consistent with future land use section objective 3.1 and policy 3.1.2 with the use being a residential support use having adequate mitigation measures and compatible site design layout the proposed special use would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and existing lane use pattern of the area based upon those considerations planning commission staff finds proposed special use consistent with the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan subject to the proposed restrictions by the development services department thank you miss myers i just had a quick question before we turn and that is to confirm on the record that the planning commission has determined that the school is a residential support use is that correct yes it is and therefore permitted in the residential one future land use category is that right yes all right that was my only question thank you so much all right well once again call for those who would like to speak in support seeing no one uh online or in the room we'll call for those that would like to speak in opposition as i mentioned when mr bentley asked for 20 minutes we will also give uh jermaine we will also give the opposition 20 minutes but we will hold that to a firm timeline so good morning good morning my name is jane graham attorney at sunshine city law 16703 early riser suite 272 lando lakes i represent demelsa hayes a neighboring property owner who owns a house approximately 225 feet away from the site and also preserve rural lutes which is a non-profit composed of members who live and own property in the immediate affected area both parties are specially injured by the loss of compatibility with surrounding rural uses and degradation of community character diminished quality of life flooding impairment of emergency access decrease in property values and other injuries detailed in the attached letter and package of evidence which i'll be submitting into the record joining me today are eric houston who is a certified land use planner with 18 years of experience he is online right now he'll be testifying virtually i also have demelsa hayes jennifer miranda and micah seal owner of the neighboring watermelon swim the applicant is not entitled to a special use as of right section 5.2.1 explains that special uses are certain uses that would not generally be appropriate to a zoning district without compliance to more stringent development standards or conditions here even though the applicant has attempted to make accommodations and conditions which we do appreciate the you the the application does not work and the reason why which you'll hear notably is that to address impacts on access to holly lane there there's a suggested entrance on dale mabry but your staff report acknowledges that this entrance will be removed once the frontage road is built and i have in this package of evidence information that fdot owns over 100 acres of land in the nearby area and a 2006 report that speaks to the fact that the frontage road is something that is it's on the books and and we haven't seen evidence to say it isn't to the extent that the applicant says fdot is okay with the signal we would like to see proof of that in the record as well we have not seen that in the record likewise by turning holly lane into a local road into a four lane collector it's fundamentally altering the character and quality of life the applicant has the burden to show that it it meets the requested standards and codes with competent substantial evidence and it fails to do so in every application must be consistent with the comprehensive plan here as mr houston will explain it heavily conflicts with the rural policies of the comprehensive plan and the lutes community plan importantly while the use of a school itself is okay on paper it's the proposed size mass and scale of the proposed buildings that that are larger than any of the surrounding properties the proposed 135 000 square feet versus the 7 000 square feet of neighboring watermelon swim or the church to the north which has around 6 000. there are also single family homes in the area and surrounding charter schools like lutes prep on 41 and sun lake math and science are also less than half the size the application fails to meet these code requirements for direct access on a roadway in the long range plan looking forward and while right now on paper they have that access it's already illusory because of this frontage road we've also had an independent traffic engineer to review the traffic report who found fundamental flaws in the counts and we have that in the evidence as well i hand it over to eric houston and reserve the rest of my time in the end thank you very much don't forget to sign in thank you mr houston are you online yes i am can you hear me good morning yes if you could give us your name and address please before you begin yes my name is eric houston 5357 oak bay drive jacksonville florida thank you so much go ahead okay and do i have the ability to share my screen or no yes okay sharing my screen good morning my name is eric houston okay i'm a certified planner through aicp with 18 years of experience i own a planning and mobility firm called connected current i was brought in to take an independent neutral look at the application su that sh-sh-26-0430 the applicant's request to build apex academy a 1000 student k-8 school on about 24 and a half acres at the corner of northdale maybury and holly lane and loops my job is pretty simple tell you whether this proposal was written today meets the criteria for approval and my honest answer is it does not let's start with the land itself this parcel sits in the rural area outside of the urban service area is designated residential one zone agricultural and it falls inside both the north dale maybury overlay and a wellhead resource protection area the neighbors are big lot homes a church a working tree farm a treasured swim school in brooker lake northdale maybury out front carries about 43 000 cars a day holly lane on the other hand is a little rural road only nine feet wide 25 miles per hour with no sidewalks that's the setting we're talking about for 135 000 square foot campus your decision runs on the nine factors in the code section 10.2.3e and the proposal has to line up with the comprehensive plan and the lutes community plan here's where the tables do most of the toggle as you can see i'm sharing my screen and i will zoom out to see if you can see the whole the old screen perfect my written report submitted to you today includes four tables to demonstrate consistency across the regulated documents for your convenience today i have compiled a one-page fact sheet summarizing the tables and showing the top 10 arguments against the proof table one lines the proposal up against the lutes community plan point by point just about every line says no keeping the area rural no keeping big intensity inside the urban service area no protecting rural roads also no table two the overlay is more of a mixed bag the applicant earns real credit for the parkway buffer and the walking path but the whole point of that overlay is keeping dale mavery functioning as an arterial and that's exactly where the proposal falls short now traffic a licensed traffic engineer reviewed the applicant study and found real issues a trip split with nothing backing it up traffic from the east on holly lane left out a thin turn lane analysis and reliance on signal that the state has not yet approved table three ties it together you can't push 4 000 plus daily trips onto a nine-foot rural lane without turning it into a four-lane road and that's the exact outcome the policies were written to prevent last year there was a comprehensive plan amendment which the county's planning staff and commission found inconsistent based on transportation impacts and that only added 1 347 trips a day instead of the additional 3 651 trips a day that will be added with this project table four summarizes up the nine factors eight ways against approval the ninth is only partial so why does this all matter three reasons first scale this is a regional scale campus in an area the plan deliberately keeps rural second transportation the one study offered to show the network can handle this use isn't reliable and the receiving world cannot handle the additional number of trips third public service the whale head the storm water plan is missing and the fallback whale and septic ideal run straight into the rules protecting our drinking water now i want to be fair the wetland and the lake are both protected the environmental agency signed off on that the buffer and the lighting commitments are real but those are not the things this decision relies on my report also addresses concerns about the event style parking and the impacts of proving this plan as is will have on future growth in the area so when the whole record and i'll wrap this up before you start checking your emails my recommendation is denial bring it back scale to fit the rural context or put it somewhere the roads can actually handle it and that's a different conversation as it said today this proposal runs crossways to the plans the roads and the rules all at once thank you thank you for your testimony just so you know he stopped the clock for you and it's uh 10 minutes and 47 seconds left good morning good morning thank you my name is demelza hayes and dr demelza hayes and i live at 407 hillary circle which is about 250 feet away from the proposed school development my husband daughter and our expected newborn are residents of this community and i am here on the behalf of preserve rural lutes which is a non-profit with 300 members that oppose this special use application we have raised thousands of dollars and we have a facebook community page with 300 members i am a fourth generation tampa native and my family purchased our house in lutes due to the semi-rural nature of holly lane because our children can ride their bikes and play with other children without having to worry about cars and strangers every day i commute into downtown tampa for work i spend an hour every day commuting for work so that my family can grow up in a rural area i came here last year and uh presented my opposition to a townhome project interestingly enough that project was going to bring less trash less traffic than this project is intended to and this project even though the applicant says it is compatible with the hillsborough community plan i did want to point out a few things first of all this property is located in the rural area which is intended to provide areas for long-term agricultural use it has large lot rural residential uses and undeveloped natural areas also as the applicant quoted that the characteristics of different uses activities or designs which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony is the definition of compatibility but some of the other elements this is the rest of that that that quote and criteria some of the other elements that impact compatibility include vehicular traffic and when we look at how intense this development is bringing in a thousand students plus staff so potentially 250 staff plus deliveries and events this is going to be even more intensive of a development than the townhome project that was rejected rejected last year um also i want to say it's not compatible with the lutes community plan so that plan was made in 2001 2011 it was um supported by the community and by the planning commission and adopted by the county it states that the area west of highway 41 and east of dalmabry is a rural area with single-family residential homes on half acre or larger lots um i just want to show a quick chart so if you look this is this is brooker lake and up here where it says b that's going to be where the um holly lane meets dalmabry that's it's that big corner up there above the lake as you can see every single road going off of holly lane is a dead-end cul-de-sac so if we have carpooling or if we have any traffic backed up on holly lane no one from our community will be able to get in or out of their home so this is for us an access point it's an access issue it's a safety issue i also want to show what it looks like so right now parts of this road are 12 feet wide this is a picture with a school bus on it a school bus is the only thing that can fit on it if a school bus is going down holly lane we cannot fit two cars one car has to pull over to the side um i'm going to go ahead and skip this part but it is in our evidence and i'm going to pass this on to micah the owner of watermelon swim to continue thank you so much don't forget to sign in good morning good morning micah seal one nine five oh no excuse me one nine five oh nine north dale mabry highway i'm the owner of watermelon swim the property and business directly south to the proposed project we specifically negatively feel we will be affected by this proposal based on restricted access emergency concerns as a swim school and associated business losses we opened in 2005 after completing the rezoning process because of safety concerns i was limited to one entrance and one exit i was not permitted eternally and was required to meet strict compatibility standards for the lutes community we teach more than 2 000 children a week our classes are back to back short 30 minute classes back 30 minute for groups and 15 minute for private the mornings are a peak time for young children so our students will be uniquely impacted by traffic from the school 10 minutes will make a difference our building sits just 54 feet from dale mabry highway families already wait significant periods of time to exit our property there are frequent accidents in front of our facility and we have even had a vehicle crash into our building 20 years ago i purchased the property there were huge traffic and safety concerns which justified major restrictions on our project since then this community which has been extremely supportive of our business in our mission has grown substantially the traffic has increased dramatically and those safety concerns have only magnified adding a school that will generate thousands of additional trips each day will only increase these risks these safety concerns matter for the safety of our children our families and existing businesses i respectfully ask that this application be denied thank you thank you for your comments i appreciate it was there one other person i believe yes ma'am good morning there's about almost four minutes left good morning jennifer miranda 1422 williams road a dead end approximately 0.7 miles from the proposed project i'm a third generation lutes resident we still operate one of lutes's original family farms and i respectfully oppose this application while lutes is still mostly rural reckless urban sprawl to the north and south has made our roads a passage for a staggering number of commuters daily the lutes lakefern north del mabry intersection and its surrounding roads are unsafe with egregious amounts of traffic and dangerously long life flight cycles because of this my worst nightmare came true on september 12 2023 three years ago a loved one had a cardiac event in my front guard and nearly died the reason it took me 15 minutes to go 1.2 miles to hcaer shown on here we can show i have dr damanji's notes from hcaer stating he had to intervene urgently to treat significant deterioration that could result in death this is proof of his intervention the condition my loved one had is something that's normally treated with medication but because it took us so long to get to er he had to uh use cardiac inversion life-saving measures he almost died having seen where first responders cannot navigate the area i described uh easily i opted to drive my loved one myself because honestly it shouldn't take 15 minutes to go 1.2 miles especially in a semi-rural community because traffic has not already been adequately addressed in this area i nearly lost someone section 10-02-03-e requires of showing that the surrounding transportation network can support the school the transportation network is already strained an additional 4100 commutes to lutes will bring the worst for our community i ask that you please deny this permit thank you thank you for your comments please sign in on your way past all right let me where there's a minute 53 seconds left sir are you the last speaker is there hang on one second jermaine if you could stop for just one second is there anybody else that wants to speak i just want to make sure we can accommodate in the time remaining all right it seems that you are go ahead sir hi y'all doing good morning everybody my name is julio moran i live at 920 lake burker court i've been there approximately 20 years i'm a retired fire captain with tampa fire rescue with over 34 years of experience this is uh the story that you're just hearing now in the pictures i don't want to repeat myself and i know i got a short time they're trying to uh show us how they're going to exit on um on holly right across from the church you guys know and i know just from doing this from fire rescue this that's going to be impossible without them hiring off-duty law enforcement we're seeing it on 41 at lutes prep we're seeing it at sun lake the roads are backed up four or five miles south of van dyke it's just the location where they're wanting to put this school on top of hillsborough county already having um eight plus schools you've got lutes elementary where my kids went mckittrick martinez steinbrenner schwarzkoff i don't see the need for this school other than it's going to take away um what is it a thousand dollars or eight thousand dollars per kid for a voucher when we have all the schools that we still have room to put schools in my sister's a teacher at lutes elementary so i'm just in total disagreeant getting back to the thing this is a life safety the roads that you've seen the pictures with a school bus don't do it justice until you guys drive that street and see how narrow it is we've got joggers we've got more kids than we've ever had when mike when i moved there i only have two kids my two boys were like there was they're out everywhere they're rolling the strollers it's it's good to see but this is the life safety there's no um there's no sidewalks at all on holly lane and i just having a hard time that dlt is approving this and then trying to say that they're going to be able to come out and make a left-hand turn heading east i'm sorry heading west to del maybury i just don't see that happening at all without law enforcement being there unless they exit onto del maybury but there's a light at lutes lake fern and there's a light at i got can i still go just wrap it up please okay well the bottom line is just life safety there's no hydrants you the emergency responders responding from station 24 having trouble there's nowhere for people to pull over that are on lutes lake for instance i'd just like to ask the board to deny it also i just don't see how it's even possible thank you thank you for your time appreciate it all right don't forget to sign in sir all right then that concludes the opposition portion of this testimony or this hearing rather we'll go back to miss marshall if you have any comments based on today's testimony i have anything all right um then we will go to mr bentley for rebuttal thank you miss finch just a couple things miss graham's an attorney and she was a rendering her opinion concerning flooding transportation traffic impacts property values etc and under florida law she's she's an advocate and that doesn't rise to the level of substantial competent evidence okay concludes your statements of a lawyer so i think those should be disregarded or stricken from the record the planner eric houston from jacksonville he misstated the width of the the pavement on holly lane it's going to be four 11 foot lanes right now it's 18 feet apparently he's not too familiar with the area also he testified as to he mentioned a licensed transportation analysis and he did not identify who this other planner was for what it's worth concerning demand that's not one of the criteria whether there are enough schools or not enough schools in any event um notwithstanding that's not a criterion for your consideration we have at tab 10 a demographic study report demonstrating a need for this type of school i'd like to turn over to steve henry now address a couple transportation issues and then russell good morning steve henry again uh one of the comments was that uh that once dale mabry is widened with the frontage there'd be no more access that that is not in fact the case we would have access to the frontage road system which is still dale mabry yes it wouldn't be direct access to that but no one will have access to del mabry it will be to the frontage road system of del mabry so we still have the access to the arterial system uh from that standpoint do you have any information on the timing of that there is no timing on it there's there's no it's not budgeted it there's dot has no plans to do it it is just a pd and e study that was done dot did acquire some right away in in the past but there's at this plant there's no point there's no plans to do any of the widening there's no funding for the construction of it no thank you and we've met with dot specifically on that that issue and then also that you were showing pictures of the school bus on holly lane that's the section the north south section to the east of us as we indicated we're not putting any traffic on that segment of holly lane the portion that we're putting traffic on which is from dale mabry to our access we are improving that to four lanes to be able to accommodate the traffic that we've got in addition they're talking about the access we are proposing a signal at del mabry and holly lane to allow that traffic to flow in and out of that area and what is there was a question about the uh conversation with dot about that signal what is the status of that we will dot has agreed that as far as the location it meets the spacing criteria for the location we'll have to go through the permitting process which would include both a signal warrant analysis to be done as part of the permitting and then also what they call an intersection configuration evaluation so we'll also have to go through that process but as far as the the concept of putting a signal that they don't have any issue with that because it does meet the spacing we just got to go through the permitting process for that understood thank you thank you morning russell ottenberg again uh i'd like to address a few things one of the uh one of the comments made was that there's more stringent criteria for schools and that's under section 5.2.1 that is correct uh those are listed in my report and it's documented how those more stringent criteria are met i summarized that earlier um so that is that is uh that is taken care of as part of this application um into with this with respect to it being in the lutes community plan and in a semi-rural area that is correct however the ldc establishes the implementing criteria for that including the special use criteria and all other criteria this project will meet all of those criteria and thus is consistent with the lutes community plan furthermore the planning commission has stated that this is a transitional use along del mabry between the del mabry corridor and those properties to the east so again it is consistent and compatible uh there was also some discussion about wellhead protection and some other things um again those are uh more ldc criteria and those will be addressed uh definitively during permitting and so those those will be uh satisfied as well um lastly mr moran said that there are no fire hydrants in the area there isn't the infrastructure out there that is correct there will be an on-site storage tank for firefighting it's required it will be provided that is all before you leave i just want to confirm there are no waivers requested for this application to the land development code that is correct no waivers thank you appreciate it that was my question thank you thank you mr bentley there's about 45 seconds left hey thank you so much for the additional time today really appreciate it um concerning the waivers uh the only modification i guess you could say is the design exception which has been approved by mike williams and in your backup so just all things considered as i mentioned early on is that the burden on any third party of the local government is to demonstrate that we did not meet the criteria i haven't heard any testimony or evidence that says we we have not and it's really not a battle of the evidence once we demonstrate which we have through the staff reports our experts etc that we meet the criteria we're entitled to the permit under the law so appreciate your time thank you very much have a good day thank you for that i appreciate it all right then with that we'll close special use 26-0430 we're going to go to the next case if you all could exit the room quietly because we do have an agenda to finish i'd appreciate it give it just a minute yeah all right it seems like miss marshall i think it seems like we can call the next case next item is item i2 special use 260538 the applicant is templo philadelphia incorporated the request is a special use for church and i will present the staff findings after presentation by the applicant all right good morning thanks for the overhead my name is katherine coyle with boggs engineering 607 south alexander street suite 101 plant city i'm here representing templo philadelphia for a special use permit i'll be brief with my comments and i'll simply walk you through the site plan the zoning the property is located in 5700 block of state road 674 and waimama properties owned rsc6 future land uses oc20 the surrounding uses include vacant land to the north also owned by another church entity laundromat and a retail convenience store with gasoline immediately to the east across fourth street to the south there's an office with a food truck vendor and a couple single family residences and to the west there's vacant land and a mobile home there was a special use approved in 2014 for this site same owner for a church at that time they were unable to build the facility so they've come back around they've raised the money they're ready to go now but in the intervening time in 2021 the waimama overlay was adopted so we did have to change some of the orientation of the building for the new building and the parking which you can see on the plan above you and i'll walk you through that what they're proposing is a 15 279 square foot sanctuary with 354 seats the red line that you see there is the right-of-way preservation for 674 from fdot it's 22 feet into the property the building isn't right up to it there are some there's an awning here and a little element that comes out so that is sitting at the 22 feet this is the historic resource on the property we did go to the historic resources board and they did make a finding of no adverse impact the building is placed at the front along 674 and at the front of 5th street which is required by the waimama overlay district the entrances are on 5th street here with an awning as required by the overlay there is an entrance here with an awning for the overlay and then there is an entry porch here where there's a walkway to it so people can come in three different places along the street because they do have people that drive but they also have people in the area that walk to the church as well there are 111 spaces provided all of which are grass parking the drive aisles are paved only 107 are required so there's no variance to the parking requirements there are five ada spaces paved immediately next to the building the access to the site is from fifth and fourth streets this is the one point of relief that we're asking from the code it's not the special use criteria it's actually in the overlay district that requires when you have over 300 seats you have to have access to a principal street arterial and unfortunately due to the right-of-way preservation the location of the historic resource and the mandate from the overlay that we place the buildings at front and we have to hold 70 percent of it along the front it just didn't seem right to actually place it on 674 it seemed counter to the code to the code requirement and the design so the access points are on to the rear and i'll show you really quickly the building this is the front miss coyle can you bring that microphone with you there you go this is the front of the building where i mentioned there's one of the main entrances here with the awning this is the porch feature with there's two doors here walking into the sanctuary and they've added the windows and the ornamentation on the building per code we're asking for no relief from the overlay standards at all actually except for the access this is the eastern elevation where that porch feature is this actually faces the historic resource the other entrance i'm sorry the other face to the west this is the face that fronts fifth and this is the main entrance with the window i'm sorry with the door in the awning and then the glass at less than 20 feet separation with that i am available for any questions and we respectfully request your approval i just had a question about the variance component for the frontage to an arterial collector what is the what's on the property right now the church is at the corner the historic church is at the corner right here and there is a the parsonage which the pastor lives in is back here but that's being torn down the rest of it is vacant okay and where is the access currently to the property it's kind of all over it is on the side streets though mainly and it appeared maybe on 674 as well from the aerial i haven't been out to the property it could be it's not as defined i would say i see okay all right and um i think that was my only question about the access does that conclude your presentation yes ma'am i'll hold any comments for uh my ending all right thank you so much don't forget to sign in all right um we will go to development services i'm just trying to point out i realized that there was a typo on page one um the request for uh regarding the access is a waiver and not a variance so under the additional information um they should be flipped it should be a waiver to the land development code and no variances requested as part of this application so the the um it's a waiver for uh against they don't propose access to a collector and arterial and that that's that's a waiver and not subject to the six variance criteria correct yes because it's part of 611. oh perfect the proposed special use request is to allow the applicant to construct a new church building on the property of the waimama church of the nazarene which has been designated as a historic resource the 2.25 acre property is located on the north side of state road 674 between 4th street and 5th street due to the church exceeding 300 seats the applicant is requesting a waiver to ldc section 611 25c to allow access to be taken from 4th street and 5th street which are designated as local roads staff has no objection to the proposed waiver parcels are located in the downtown waimama area on the north side of state road 674 between 4th street and 5th street the area is primarily comprised of single-family residential uses with many commercial uses to the east and west of the property along state road 674 for the elevations provided by the applicant the design and location of the new building will meet the requirements of the downtown waimama overlay district this will help create a mixed-use walkable and pedestrian friendly downtown district which is in line with the intent of the of creating the small town feel of the downtown waimama overlay district the subject property is designated as a historic resource on the hillsborough county historic resources inventory as such the proposed new church sanctuary was reviewed by the historic resources review board at its may 19 2026 meeting the historic resource review board determined that the proposed new church poses no effect on the historic resource staff finds proposed special use approvals subject to the recommending conditions thank you so much i appreciate it we'll go to the planning commission alexis maris planning commission staff the subject site is located in the office commercial 20 future lane use category it is in the urban service area and located within the limits of the south shore area systems plan and waimama village community plan given the existing development pattern and the diverse mix of surrounding land uses the proposed development is compatible with the adjacent properties and consistent with the established character of the community therefore the proposal is consistent with future lane section objective 4.1 and policy 3.1.3 future lane section objective 4.6 recognizes that neighborhood serving uses specifically residential support uses are an allowable land use in any residential commercial or industrial land use plan category a church is classified as a residential support use based upon those considerations planning commission staff find the proposed special use consistent with the unincorporated hillsborough county comprehensive plan subject to the proposed restrictions by the development services department thank you so much i appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak and support seeing no one anyone in opposition miss marshall anything else nothing further miss coyle you have the last word if you'd like it just really quick how do i zoom in uh we'll send in help i see zoom there we go sorry about that making us dizzy yeah this uh in answer to your question about the access points as i've mentioned they're not overly defined but you can see that there's an entrance here and one to the parsonage so there's two entrances that people are using along fifth street it looks like they're entering and exiting off the rear where the new driveway defined driver will be on fourth and it does look like they do currently come kind of in the center by the tree but again not overly defined and the new development obviously concrete aprons and accessing the property correctly and less access points than two versus looks like four understood understood thank you all right thank you then with that we'll close special use two six dash zero five three eight and go to the next case next item is item i3 special use 260699 the applicant is one camila mayha the request is a special use to cop alcoholic beverage permit with distance separation waivers staff findings so be provided by jared folan after presentation by the applicant good morning hello good morning everyone and thank you for everybody's time um my name is robinson me here one of two four one of two four oh one boggy miles drive river v florida and i'm juan mejia 4559 amberley oaks court tampa florida thank you um and we're here for uh the location 14614 noradale mayby highway tampa florida 33614 for the special use 2 cop alcohol beverage permit with this stand separation waivers um we've been having this establishment since 2004 it's a lion food 2024 it's a lion food restaurant um is the third one that that the family has um we would like to apply for this permit so we can provide the extra services that our clients are asking for uh one of the other restaurants already have uh the license so we know the responsibilities of having it um regarding the location there you go so if we could zoom that out that's it no that's that's perfect thank you um so it is a very commercialized area um we're locating a big plaza and there's plazas all over across the street next to us adjacent uh there's a good amount of establishment that have the permit um so i'm i'm i'm assuming we're not the last ones asking for one since the area keeps continuing to grow um but i just wanted to show that that there is a few establishment and we want to continue to grow up in that area um i have some photos um of the establishment uh this is the outside um the inside as you can see is a very family oriented um we serve food from all over latin america um and this is the last photo so just kind of get a feel it's a small family restaurant we serve a lot of food uh that's our main uh thing um and again this is just just provide extra service to our clients okay great does that conclude your presentation all right thank you so much i appreciate it don't forget to for both of you to sign in okay development services good morning good morning jared fallen with development services so this is a request for a two cop alcoholic beverage permit with separation waivers to allow the sale of beer and wine at the subject property this permit is sought for a restaurant use with about 1579.5 square feet of indoor area the site complies with separation requirements for community uses and residentially zoned property but does not meet the requirements for being within a thousand feet of three or more approved alcoholic beverage permits the subject restaurant is located along dale maybury highway which is a six lane which has six lanes with 200 feet of right-of-way and is within a highly commercialized area being an appropriate location for the use while over three alcoholic beverage permits are located within a thousand feet of the proposed wet zone all are primarily concentrated within four large shopping centers additionally the nearest residential use is located over 500 feet to the north and is separated by a large wetland area staff finds the proposed wet zone does not pose significant impacts the surrounding land uses and is and the necessity for the specified distance requirements is negated staff recommends approval and i'm happy to answer any questions uh not at this time thank you so much appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support anyone in favor seeing no one anyone in opposition no one miss marshall anything else nothing further sir you have the last word if you'd like it yeah so we've been operating for eight years uh with our original location so we had the beer and wine license at our original location on hillsborough for eight years so um so yeah so we you know we act everything correctly so all right thank you thank you for your diamond testimony appreciate it with that we'll close uh special use ab26-0699 and go to the next case next item is item i4 special use 260859 the applicant is la cecilia restaurant llc the request is a special use for coprx alcoholic beverage permit with distance separation waivers staff findings will be presented by chris grand leonard after present presentation by the applicant good morning hi good morning my name is terry haley i reside at uh 108 clock tower drive number 160 brandon florida 33510 excuse me right off the bat my southern tongue might not roll enough to pronounce a couple of these names but i'm gonna try my best hi i am representing uh la celia restaurants llc and they're going to do uh business as ibiza and what they are they are a restaurant they have leased property on at 210 east fowler avenue uh basically uh and to zero in on it it's on the north west corner of fowler and florida avenue in a sense uh it's a unique situation because the it is a hotel my clients have leased leased only the restaurant they they will be the only uh prepared food on uh site however they do provide no room service or anything like that it's it's open to the guests of the hotel as well as patrons off the street however they have extended their requests into the back area of the building which is basically the pool area they will provide service both food and beverage to to the the existing pool area the hotel itself was built in 1972 so it's been there a while um it is a very highly traveled road and community but behind it on the north side our waiver is for some distance a distance request uh would you not meet 150 feet from the residential it's it's actually only 20 feet okay something i wanted to talk about though uh i i do have a picture if if you want to put it up i'm not used to doing this but do you just lay it on there yes and then when you you could talk about it if you want to move that microphone okay perfect let me get a pen okay so uh the uniqueness about the property is um i'm having to get two zoning requests one is from you guys to county and one is the city because right through the middle of the property is the county city break line okay so you guys the county are labeled as a there the pink area which the the b is located in the city uh is the actual building but however the kitchen and the back of the building lies in the city so the complete zoning is both the the pink area and the blackened area b okay um so also i wanted to mention in the back the residential is there uh it would be above the a section uh to the uh proposed variance or excuse me the waiver we're asking for um i had mentioned that there was you know a lot of natural uh buffer and there was fences and such but i guess one of the owners prior owners of the property went ahead and uh removed a back driveway that was there that was basically the 20 uh feet distance and now they've extended uh landscape and i i assume the new owner of the hotel is going to keep that so there is no back road around the building basically you can come to the edge of uh each side east and west where i've labeled the pink area if that makes sense to you it does okay but so what we're requesting is simply that waiver for residential properties only 20 i i should have looked this up i did not but i i actually think this building and this business was here prior to the residential but don't quote me on that okay and i mean that's about it really that uh uh probably the least of the use will be in the the outside pool area and it's a 404 cop sfs which is special food that at least that's the way it's labeled with the alcoholic beverage department but what basically what it requires they are going to be a restaurant which they must sell 51 percent more food uh or 50 100 food versus alcohol so alcohol is basically just an amenity to the restaurant so any questions or anything else i'd be glad to answer no questions at this time thank you so much for your testimony don't forget to sign in development services chris groundlinar development services i'm presenting staff report for special use application uh ab26-0859 for uh la cecilia restaurant located at 210 east fowler avenue the request is for a four cop rx classification allowing the use of the sale beer wine and liquor for on premises consumption in connection with the restaurant the property is owned commercial general which supports the existing hotel and restaurant use the applicant is requesting a waiver from the required 150 foot separation from residential zone property uh the closest residential to the north range uh for the north is about 20 feet to the closest um from the proposed wet zoned area several physical features buff for the restaurant uh from the resident residences including an eight foot block wall fencing existing drive aisles and uh well former dot drive aisles um and landscape screening um the building and customer entrance are oriented south towards farler avenue directing activity away from the residential area with limited pedestrian or vehicle interaction between the two given the long-standing commercial use of the property the building orientation and the presence of these buffers staff finds that the reduced distance will not create significant impacts and that the waiver is supportable our recommendation is staff recommends approval for the four cop rx permit with the requested waiver for a total wet zoned area of approximately 25 413 square feet thank you thank you appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support see no one anyone in opposition to this request no one miss marshall anything else nothing further sir you have the last word i just wanted to wanted to throw in a couple things one is just to let you know that we look like we're getting positive response from the city side of the issue as well so we hope that you consider approving us and as a whole thing we can have a nice business going the other thing on a personal note i wanted to throw out there i don't know who i need to think but of my last seven hearings this is the first one that i'm not the last person up okay so thank you not me so someone else all right thank you for that uh so we will close special use ab26-0859 and go to the last case last item is item i5 special use 260863 the applicant is crystal ball pimental the request is a special use to cop alcoholic beverage permit with distance separation waivers staff findings will be presented by tanya chapella after presentation by the applicant good morning morning uh my name is crystal ball pimental i am the owner of almaraz coffee llc located in 702 railroad street and we're seeking approval for our uh two two cop beer and wine license and here to ask any questions all right it looks like the waiver is to residentially zoned property and i just wondered if you had heard from any of the neighbors after you sent out your notice no there has not been any reply from any of the neighbors all right that was my only question thank you so much don't forget to sign in thank you so much development services good morning good morning tanya chapella development services um so this application um 260863 a request for a two cop alcoholic beverage permit for amaret coffee llc located at 702 railroad street in waimama the request would allow the sale and consumption of beer and wine on and off premises as an accessory used to an existing coffee shop the proposed wet zone area is approximately 2199 square feet the site complies with the required separation from community uses and with the limit of on nearby approved alcoholic beverage uses however a waiver is requested from the 250 foot separation from residentially zone property and resulting in a separation of 109.3 feet the staff finds the waiver is portable due to the low intensity in nature of the coffee shop use the commercial character of the area and existing physical separation including railroad street and fencing therefore staff recommends the request be found approvable subject to conditions thank you so much appreciate it is there anyone in the room or online that would like to speak in support seeing no one anyone in opposition one miss marshall anything else nothing further all right sir anything else before we close all right thank you then with that we'll close special use ab26-0863 and adjourn the hearing thank you all for your time and testimony